In a rare media appearance, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett took to the national stage last week, not to deliberate over high-profile cases, but to promote their new books. Justice Barrett's conversation with CBS's Norah O'Donnell marked her first extensive interview since her appointment in 2020, while Justice Sotomayor engaged with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show in two segments. While both Justices aimed to present the Supreme Court as a paragon of collegiality and integrity, their calls for the public to read lengthy legal opinions highlighted a disconnect with the general populace, perhaps accustomed to quicker, more digestible news formats.

The interviews shared common themes, such as the insistence on the non-personal nature of judicial disagreements. Justice Barrett recalled hosting a welcome party for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizing the friendly relations among the justices despite ideological divides. Similarly, Justice Sotomayor reflected on her prosecutorial days and her mother's advice to see the good in everyone, a principle she applies even towards her colleagues with whom she frequently disagrees.

A significant portion of both interviews was dedicated to what is known as the emergency docket or the “shadow” docket of the Supreme Court. This procedure allows the Court to make quicker decisions without the detailed explanations found in regular cases. Justice Barrett assured viewers that the Court is transparent, stating, "We show our work... we have to lay out all the reasons for the decisions that we make." However, this claim sits uncomfortably with recent criticisms that the Court has been deciding crucial cases via the emergency docket without sufficient public explanation.

The discussion took a deeper dive during Barrett's interview, particularly when addressing the implications of the Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The discussion revealed some confusion or at least conflicting interpretations when Barrett attempted to reconcile the decision with broader rights such as those involving contraception and same-sex marriage. These moments in the interview may leave viewers puzzled about the consistency and future direction of the Court's jurisprudence concerning rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Justice Barrett was also questioned on what constitutes a constitutional crisis. Her response was notably vague, perhaps intentionally so, as she remarked on the resilience of the U.S. in facing constitutional challenges without acknowledging any specific crisis. This broad characterization may leave some concerned given the recent contentious political and social climate, particularly regarding issues that directly challenge the balance of powers within the federal government.

While both justices sought to demystify the workings of the Supreme Court and present themselves as diligent, impartial arbiters of the law, the interviews may have also highlighted their isolation from the public pulse. The insistence on reading lengthy judicial opinions and the portrayal of a harmonious Court contrast sharply with a politically divided America that consumes news in sound bites and tweets. As the Supreme Court continues to handle cases with profound implications, the gap between the justices' perspectives and the public's understanding appears to remain wide.