OPINION: Evening with Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a disappointment

Starting with Justice Thurgood Marshall while I was a student at Yale Law School, I have attended numerous events with U.S. Supreme Court justices. The March 8 event in Santa Fe with Justice Amy Coney Barrett brought a unique experience for several reasons, including the level of security, the protesters and the seemingly preapproved questions.

At no prior event with a Supreme Court justice had I ever entered the facility through a metal detector and had belongings required to be placed in clear plastic bags. At no prior event was the venue populated with dozens of police and security detail personnel. At prior encounters with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the University of Hawaii Law School and at the Santa Fe Opera, she was easily accessible.

As reported in the news accounts, dozens of protesters brought attention to Barrett’s legal opinions. While attendees may not have agreed with opinions by Justices Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and Sonia Sotomayor, there were no protesters during their appearances at University of New Mexico School of Law.

Barrett’s appearance at the Lensic Performing Arts Center in Santa Fe was billed as sold out, yet the venue was half empty with rows of empty seats. Follow-up research revealed there had been online calls for silent protesters to procure the tickets and not show up. This was unfortunate as there were additional students and faculty members who wanted to attend but could not obtain tickets.

Equally noteworthy is that Barrett did not take direct questions from the audience. Scalia attended a faculty lunch with UNM Law School faculty members and answered their questions. O’Connor was asked in a small classroom about her favorite types of cases and answered “copyright law.” UNM law students queried Sotomayor on whether she would consider hiring a UNM Law School graduate as a clerk. She hemmed and hawed about how she needed the best legal minds to assist her.

With Barrett, two of her lawyer friends asked their own questions and a few solicited from St. Johns College and UNM Law School students. The questions had the appearance of having been preapproved and Barrett’s answers to the questions came across as memorized. A person could have skipped the event and read the book because there was no spontaneous Socratic method interaction.

This raises the question of the value of the session to the audience. Although Barrett was reportedly paid a $2 million advance for her first book, “Listening to the Law,” and has been on a book tour since September, her decision to not answer direct questions from the audience was stunning.

Her book was unusual for other reasons. Unlike her colleagues, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, Justice Barrett doesn’t narrate the full audio version of her book. Nor did she write a traditional acknowledgements section thanking people who helped bring it to fruition, such as her agent, editor, research assistants and indexer. The book has 927 endnotes. Is the reader to conclude that Barrett prepared those herself after acknowledging in the text that her clerks provide the first drafts of opinions?

With an event like this, I’m glad my ticket was free. But so was the event for the legendary Marshall, who was spontaneous and real. He came across as a master orator with keen legal instincts. I felt honored to be in that audience.

Has the time come to propose a 28th Amendment to the Constitution requiring justices to face a retention election after 10 years on the bench? This would necessitate direct interaction with the citizens who are impacted by their decisions if they wish to keep their seats.

Sherri Burr is an author and professor emerita at the University of New Mexico School of Law.