JOSH BLACKMAN IS UNENTHUSED ABOUT AMY CONEY BARRETT’S MEMOIR:

The bigger problem is that this memoir will simply not be compelling. Barrett’s life was largely one of privilege. She grew up in an affluent family, went to excellent private schools, clerked on the highest court on the land for distinguished jurists, was hired at a top law school, and made it to the circuit court without doing very much. That is not a particularly motivational story. I think it would be useful to hear about how she balanced her work responsibilities with having such a large family, including adopted children. On a personal level, I find Barrett’s family quite admirable. But that might take a few pages to describe. The upbringing of Thomas and Sotomayor warrant an entire tome. There is a reason most people do not write autobiographies: there lives simply aren’t that interesting. . . .

Does any of this sound particularly useful to readers? Enough to justify a two million dollar advance? There can’t be that many people still sipping from their dogma mugs. Barrett’s standing today is not nearly what her standing was in 2020 before she decided any cases. Will conservative groups invite her to speak, and ask her about her shadow docket votes?

One of my long-running grievances is that these advances are gussied-up interest-free loans that are made without any real expectation of recouping losses. Rather, the publishers use the Justice as a marketing tool to improve the brand’s standing.

I have long thought — so this is no reflection on Justice Barrett per se — that public officials shouldn’t get big advances on books. They should be capped, perhaps at one year’s salary, perhaps at a flat figure like $50,000 or $100,000. They aren’t freelancers who need the advance to live on while they write the book. Alternatively publishers should be taxed heavily on advances that aren’t recovered by sales. But a cap would be simplest, and fair.