Amy Coney Barrett Warns on Charlie Kirk Killing: ‘Political Discourse Has Soured Beyond Control’

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Hugh Hewitt on Monday to discuss her new book, but also offered her thoughts on the murder of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk and warned about where society may be headed.

Hewitt noted he recently joined Coney Barrett at a recent event and added, “Two hours after I was done talking to you, my colleague Charlie was murdered. Your reaction to that and to just generally political discourse in the United States, about which you read a lot and listen to a lot?”

“That was horrific. I was at Notre Dame shortly after I left you at the Nixon Library, and the mood on campus was very somber. I mean, for the father of two young children and a husband to be murdered in cold blood was a tragedy and certainly sobering for the nation,” Coney Barrett replied, adding:

And I think it is a sign of a culture that has– where political discourse has soured beyond control and something that we need to really pull back. I mean, obviously, well, I assume that the person who murdered Charlie Kirk was mentally ill, but nonetheless, you know, to create a culture in which political discourse can lead to political violence is unacceptable in the United States.

Hewitt then noted that Coney Barret quoted “G.K. Chesterton, as well as his brother, on page 38 of Listening to the Law. The two argued incessantly but never quarreled. You continued, ‘A good argument involves logic and a search for truth. A quarrel is an effort to tear down your sparring partner. Sparring with intellectual opponents is the way to hear the other side. Shunning others just because they disagree with you is also a recipe for a lonely and ultimately unhappy life.’”

“Do you think that people are going to hear that message more clearly now?” Hewitt asked.

“I really hope that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a turning point for us as a society where we look and see where things have come. Uh, the point at which we’ve come to in the United States. I mean, there’s a big difference. I see two dangers that that Chesterton passage that you just read gets at. One is to silo ourselves so that we don’t engage with the other side,” Coney Barrett replied, adding:

You know, that’s the opposite of what Charlie Kirk did. He consistently engaged the other side. I think the other message in that passage is that when you do engage the other side, we’re engaging ideas and we’re not trying to attack or tear down people. And there’s a huge difference between the two. And I think those who fall into attacking people primarily do it verbally and not physically. But too often, I guess we’re now seeing that verbal attacks can spill over into something more sinister.

Watch the clip above.