Both a helpful and enjoyable read, Justice Barrett’s book shines a useful light on the work done by the Supreme Court. She begins with a chapter discussing her personal history, and how she came to this life of public service at the highest federal level. This book is not meant to be a memoir, however. Barrett is just supplying information to put what follows into context, and to answer questions that frequently come her way.

The main sections of the book are three: 1. what is the day-to-day work of justices and their law clerks? 2. how did our Constitution come to be, and what function does it serve? and 3. how must a justice think about the Constitution and federal law, and what approaches must she take to render the most logical, sensible decisions that stay within her purview? Barrett includes the Constitution, together with its twenty-seven amendments, in an appendix, for easy reference. I loved how she pulled back the curtain to reveal what clerks actually do, and the nature of their relationships with justices, which vary depending on the particular judge. Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman, judge on the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, then later for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Clerkships are one year appointments, and while they do not make actual judgements, they do carry out many important duties, such as writing summaries of cases pleading to be seen by the Court, performing research and gathering materials pertinent to active cases, and helping to draft preliminary opinions. Their work feeds into the process, helping busy Justices prepare to hear cases, organize the plethora of material that must be reviewed, and begin to compose final decisions. Relationships between clerks and justices can be quite personal, and take the form of lifelong mentorships. Reunions of clerks are quite common, as Barrett still attends reunions of Justice Scalia clerks. Judge Silberman was quite supportive in a fatherly way, attending Barrett’s nomination ceremony, Senate hearing, and swearing in as Supreme Court Justice.

The reader may be curious about personal relationships between justices, as I was. When their positions can be completely opposite, how do justices get along? Historically, chief justices have devised regular social events in their work week to create an atmosphere of collegiality. Justices enjoy a weekly lunch, where discussion of cases is forbidden. When a new justices is sworn in, the most junior justice hosts a dinner for welcoming that justice, personalized in some special way. Some justices with completely differing viewpoints become the greatest of friends— Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg had enormously different viewpoints, yet enjoyed vacations together, attended opera together (both were great fans), and Scalia even took Ginsberg hunting with him.

Barrett dissects the structure of the Constitution, what is does, and what it intentionally does not do. She also gives clear boundaries regarding what the Supreme Court’s duties are, and what it should be sure not to do. One by one, she addresses the pitfalls that a justice must avoid, such as going beyond the issue at hand, not creating law, but interpreting the law as it is, using informed judgement to establish solid precedent. The desires of Executive and Legislative branches do not enter into a justice’s work, regardless of who appointed them. The Court is not legislative— the people must choose their legislators, who must write and pass law that will best serve the people’s needs and wants, a process filled with negotiation and compromise. The justice must not read into the law to discern unstated intent— they are not mind readers. Barrett discusses cases in the Court’s history, and some cases she ruled on, as examples.

Barrett discusses her approach as a textualist and originalist, what these approaches mean, the extreme importance of language, and how intent is expressed in the law. She does a great job of exploring and breaking down what this frame of reference means, and does not mean, using cases to illustrate. Her writing style is simple, clear, and nontechnical. This is an important book, since every citizen who follows the Court’s decisions (and you should) will gain a greater understanding of how justices arrive at those decisions. Of course, they bring all of their experience to their judgements, but it is strictly based on the Constitution, federal law, and precedents, not their personal moral views. If we don’t like their rulings, it is incumbent on us to communicate with our legislators, and to be sure to vote. A must-read for all those who wish to understand this important work, that affects our lives.