Appearing
on
Fox
News
to
continue
the
publicity
blitz
for
her
“studiously
bland”
memoir,
Supreme
Court
justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett
began
laying
the
groundwork
for
her
upcoming
2028
opinion
requiring
states
to
let
Donald
Trump
run
for
a
third
term
notwithstanding
the
whole
“Constitution”
thing.
Brett
Baier,
the
Andy
Cohen
of
this
Real
Justices
of
Washington
D.C.
production,
asked
Barrett
specifically
about
the
Twenty-Second
Amendment’s
bar
on
Trump’s
possible
First
Consul
for
Life
bid.
Well,
you
know,
the
answer
we
were
looking
for
was
“yes.”
This
isn’t
like
the
First
Amendment,
where
a
legal
scholar
can
debate
the
limitations
and
exceptions
and
tradeoffs
inherent
in
the
freedoms
it
protects
(including
the
one
Barrett
can’t
remember).
The
Twenty-Second
Amendment
is
astoundingly
explicit.
Presidents
can’t
serve
more
than
two
terms.
But
the
official
Trump
store
is
selling
“Trump
2028”
hats
so
the
writing
is
on
the
wall
—
or
hat,
as
the
case
may
be
—
as
to
the
president’s
intention.
Republicans
have
already
started
floating
new
amendments
to
get
around
this.
First,
they
suggested
lifting
the
term
limit
altogether
before
realizing
that
this
would
result
in
Barack
Obama
symbolically
pulling
Trump’s
diaper
off
in
while
the
country
pointed
and
laughed.
Then
conservatives
got
really
high
and
pitched
an
alternative
that
allows
presidents
to
run
again
as
long
as
they
got
pummeled
in
an
intervening
election
and
got
Grover
Clevelanded.
But
with
no
urgent
action
on
these
proposed
amendments,
it
seems
as
though
the
Trump
camp
is
warming
to
the
simpler
solution
of
just
letting
the
Supreme
Court
erase
the
Twenty-Second
Amendment
the
way
it
erased
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
bar
on
insurrectionists.
For
those
who
don’t
remember,
the
Supreme
Court
decided
unanimously
that
Colorado
had
to
keep
Trump
on
the
2024
ballot
despite
Section
3
of
that
amendment.
The
majority
went
further,
functionally
taking
Section
3
off
the
table
as
an
enforceable
provision
in
perpetuity.
In
that
case,
Barrett
relished
her
“reluctant
executioner”
schtick
in
a
concurrence
mildly
chiding
the
majority
for
going
too
far.
But
Barrett
saw
a
bigger
problem
at
play.
“The
majority’s
choice
of
a
different
path
leaves
the
remaining
Justices
with
a
choice
of
how
to
respond,”
Barrett
wrote
then.
“In
my
judgment,
this
is
not
the
time
to
amplify
disagreement
with
stridency.”
In
other
words,
erasing
part
of
the
Constitution
isn’t
nearly
as
objectionable
as
dissent.
It’s
a
blueprint
for
Barrett’s
future
take
on
presidential
term
limits.
Sure,
she
knows
what
the
Constitution
requires,
but
when
forced
to
call
it
cut
and
dried?
Grab
your
Calvinball
gear.
“Well,
everyone
knows
the
Constitution
bars
a
third
presidential
term,”
she’ll
pen
in
concurrence.
“What
this
opinion
presupposes
is…
maybe
it
doesn’t?”
Then
she’ll
go
on
a
lengthy,
performatively
academic
jag
about
how
the
amendment
might
say
two
terms,
but
Article
II
supersedes
this
because
something
something.
However
she
squares
it,
she’ll
conclude
by
reminding
us
that
what’s
important
—
in
the
end
—
is
that
Justice
Jackson
not
be
too
strident
about
it!
Look,
the
Barrett
apologists
out
there
will
suggest
that
this
is
Barrett
Derangement
Syndrome.
“She
didn’t
say
it
wasn’t
cut
and
dried!”
they’ll
protest.
Yeah,
I
call
shenanigans.
There’s
no
room
for
equivocation
here.
She
can’t
hide
behind
some
kind
of
“I
don’t
want
to
comment
on
a
case
I
might
hear”
bullshit.
This
is
about
as
black
letter
as
it
gets.
Even
Sir
Samuel
of
the
Upside-Down
Flag
knows
better
than
to
say
publicly
that
he
would
vote
to
make
Trump
a
God
King.
The
unwillingness
to
say,
loud
and
clear,
that
“yes,
this
is
not
an
open
question”
is
the
whole
issue.
That
said,
she’s
got
books
to
sell.
Got
to
respect
the
hustle
from
the
woman
who
complains
about
justices
being
too
recognizable
while
hawking
a
memoir
for
a
reported
$2
million
advance.
But,
you
know,
thoughts
and
prayers
for
Amy
when
she
has
her
vacation
ruined
by
a
brother-in-law
asking
her
to
explain
“why
fascism,
exactly?”
Earlier:
Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
Fetish
For
Phony
Reluctance
Supreme
Court
Just
‘Calvinball
Jurisprudence
With
A
Twist,’
Writes
Justice
Jackson
Amy
Coney
Barrett
Forced
To
Discuss
Destroying
Constitutional
Precedent
During
Family
Trip
SCOTUS
Keeps
Trump
On
The
CO
Ballot
Because
…
Eh,
Whatever,
It’s
All
Vibes
Amy
Coney
Barrett
Longs
For
The
Days
The
Supreme
Court
Could
Ruin
Your
Life
In
Obscurity
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.