Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Civic education bridges ideological divide for two justices

Civic education bridges ideological divide for two justices

Two Supreme Court justices who often disagree in their decisions at work came together to discuss their shared passions for civic education and civic duty.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett spoke with Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar during a seminar hosted by The Ronald Reagan Institute. They talked about everything from family and ethics to bridging polarization in America and within the Supreme Court. The conversation gave insights into what these two justices think about education and the future of the nation.


During the hour, the pair highlighted a number of commonalities — specifically their shared passions for civic education for American youth and civic duty for citizens. Both Sotomayor and Coney Barrett attributed their professional successes to their academic paths.

They emphasized the importance of civic education, its ability to teach youth how to become a “good citizen” and its key role in upholding America’s democracy.

“Most people think about civics like learning about the government, how it functions and what each branch of the government does,” said Sotomayor. “When I think about civics, it's not just ‘how does the government work’ but ‘how does our society work?’”

When asked how she models good citizenship for young people, Sotomayor cited not just her time spent at seminars and responding to letters, but her ability to stay grounded and motivated to try and help others.

“I truly believe that the greatest model of citizenship is not the work you do for pay, but it's the work that you elect to do for free,” she remarked. She believes people can be themselves “as long as [they’re] finding ways to better the world.”

Coney Barrett reflected on encouraging her own children to participate in community service and voting.

“Educating our young people to be good citizens is crucial,” she said. “And part of being a good citizen is learning to care for the needs of others.”

She credited civic education in giving youth the ability to learn about the government and providing a sense of civic duty — a key component of getting individuals to vote and support democracy.

The justices also reflected on the Court’s unique ability to see past individuals’ political viewpoints and show appreciation for the person they know their colleague to be. Both justices divulged the regard and admiration they hold for one another, revealing that all the justices are close friends.

Sotomayor acknowledged the ideological differences between her and Coney Barrett; however, she revealed that “disagreements on political issues and important constitutional issues doesn’t diminish the value of who Justice Amy Coney Barrett is,” and Sotomayor hardly ever shys away from having difficult conversations with the other justices.

Coney Barrett imparted strong advice on combating polarization: “I think finding ways to see people for who they are and not just for the opinions they hold helps bridge gaps and bridge differences.”

Watch the full video here.

Read More

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50: Connecticut

Credit: Hugo Balta

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50 is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.

Hartford, Connecticut, stands as a living testament to American democracy, ingenuity, and resilience. As the state’s capital, it’s home to cultural landmarks like the Mark Twain House & Museum, where Twain penned The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, embodying the spirit of self-governance and creative daring that defines the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less