Served on the d. C. Circuit. Jonathan worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute or he was a director of their environmental studies program. Anathan has received distinguished teacher of the year award and the federal society for excellent in teaching and commitment to students. Fellow at aa senior he isch center in montana a frequent commentator. His articles appear in many newspapers and scholarly journals. He is the author and editor of several books. He is a regular contributor to the bulletin. Well talk about Administrative Law and due process. After jonathan, well hear from Professor John baker. He is from Louisiana StateUniversity School of law. Atis a visiting professor Georgetown School and a guest lecturer at many other universities both here and abroad. Classcurrently teaching via zoom at transactional law. Degree,ion to his law john earned a phd in political law. Courted as an assistant district eternity. Editedwritten and several articles. Has argued two cases in front of the Supreme Court, and for carrying on the tradition by teaching a Supreme Court seminar in china. As interesting side note. He has known the spirit for many years. Finally, we will hear from yuliya schapiro. A graduate of the universitys school of law school. Cato, schapiro was in private practice at toptier law firms and a special assistant to the Multinational Force in iraq on rule of law issues. He is an adjunct law professor at George Washington university he is a frequent commentator. His articles have also appeared in scholarly journals struck the country. At a remarkable attorney, he is the author of a new book, disorder supreme additional nominations and the politics of americas highest court. Jonathan, the floor is yours. Jonathan great, thank you, john. It is a pleasure to be here. Happy to talk about judge barretts record. Just some initial background, judge Amy Coney Barrett has been on the seventh circuit for just under three years. She was confirmed in november of 2017. She has participated in over 600 cases and authored over 100 decisions, majorities, concurrences, and dissents. Overall her record has been , characterized as conservative, but it is worth noting that in this threeyear period, despite being on 600 cases, she has not dissented all that often. There are not that many dissents from her opinions. She disagrees most often with judge david hamilton, an obama nominee. But they have only split i believe on 10 cases and then after judge hamilton, she is most often divided with judge wood and easterbrook, clinton and reagan judges respectively. I think one reason for that is she has a very nononsense approach to judicial decisionmaking. Her opinions are thorough and careful, certainly in the area of Administrative Law where i am focused, it is nice to see a judge that doesnt take shortcuts, that doesnt disguise the complexity that often exists in cases. But at the same time, there is very little editorializing, very little extraneous interjection of her own views or opinions. She does what is necessary to answer the question before the court. If a question is particularly difficult or the precedents are meddlesome, she works through case law to reach a result. Now it is interesting to talk , about her Administrative Law opinions because after the gorsuch and kavanaugh nominations, we are used to Administrative Law being a major issue. Judge gorsuch had written some very aggressive and prominent Administrative Law decisions as a judge on the u. S. Court of appeals for the 10th circuit, and judge kavanaugh obviously as a judge on the d. C. Circuit, he was doing administered of law all the time. Their interest and expertise in Administrative Law is part of why they were nominated to the Supreme Court. By comparison, the seventh circuit does not hear a lot of Administrative Law cases. Judge barrett has heard a ton of civil rights cases, section 93 cases, sentencing cases. Administrative law cases do not come up that often. There are not that many challenges to federal Agency Actions that have ended up in the seventh circuit or have ended up in front of panel she has been on. Most of the Administrative Law cases she has had have dealt with immigration, and here the pattern you see is a very careful effort to scrutinize the actions that the Relevant Agency took in this case, with the immigration board of appeals and in some case Immigration Judges and to render a judgment based on what the relevant case law and statutes require. As a result she has at times ruled against immigrants and road ruled for them. Upheld orders of removal and andupheld orders of removal and overturned orders of removal. You dont see her opinions as a judge who has a particular agenda in these areas other than to do what the law requires. I want to highlight a few cases and then turn it over to my panelists, copanelists, because i want to leave a lot of time for discussion. Perhaps the most significant Immigration Law case she has dealt with, and opinion of hers is actually a dissent she wrote in a case called cook county versus wolf. This is one of multiple challenges to the public charge rule, promulgated by the Trump Administration and to , oversimplify what is really a complicated regulation here, basically this is a rule that makes it more difficult for nonimmigrant visa holders to get a change in their visa status or to get entry to the country based on a projection that they may be a public charge, that they may become dependent upon public assistance. This is something that the relevant immigration metrics provide for an what the Trump Administration did was promulgate a new regulation, offering a new interpretation of what the phrase public charge means. This has been challenged in and multiple courts across the country. Before the seventh circuit, she wrote a careful dissent explaining why the meaning of the word, the phrase public charge has some ambiguity. Precisely what degree of dependency renders public charge is a question that congress did not fully answer, and that the answer to that question that the department of Homeland Security provided was in that realm of ambiguity and is likely to survive a legal challenge. It is interesting she reached step two of chevron, some some Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court justices are of dust very reluctant to find that a statute is ambiguous. She identified what the outer boundaries of this phrase public charge likely are, and now there is wiggle room left in that phrase that the Trump Administration properly exploited. I think that opinion is quite notable. If you just want to see her method at work, i recommend looking at that. One issue that comes up a lot in Administrative Law is due process. She is an important majority opinion in a case, one of dozens upon dozens of challenges to University Disciplinary proceedings for allegedly Sexual Harassment or sexual assault. This one was against Purdue University in indiana, and she wrote what has become an influential opinion on how to evaluate the actions of universities. I checked this morning, this opinion has been favorably relied upon in literally dozens of opinions since. Here what she found is that while the student in question had a protected liberty interest under the due process clause in his ability to participate the judgment against him by the university resulted in his expulsion, so it was not purely a stigma that he faced. She demonstrated and expand why explained why the universitys procedures were clearly deficient under the due process clause. Purdue university provided the student less process than a High School Student is entitled to if they are going to be suspended from high school for a week. A judgment of guilty was rendered, among other things, without hearing directly from the student that he had allegedly assaulted. That student did not testify against him, did not submit a statement directly against him. Nonetheless, the university decided the allegations against him were supported by a preponderance of evidence, and judge barrett wrote an opinion reversing the lower courts dismissal of both his due process and title ix claims. What may also be of interest of this case, dutch barrett found judge barrett found that the University Officials were entitled to the qualified immunity because their violations, the due process violations there had not been clearly established under seventh circuit caselaw. Although under her opinion, the future universities would be. She does not have much in the way of environmental cases, but she does have several standing opinions, which i think suggests that she is someone who takes article three standings seriously. There is something almost scaliaesque in her standing opinions. As viewers may know justice , scalia cared a lot about article three standing and ensuring that courts made sure that only those litigants who should be in court were in fact in court. That doesnt mean she has a reflexive vote against standing. She has found standing against the receipt of unsolicited text messages, but she has scrutinized claims of injury and claims of causality very carefully, and we are ending on this point because this is an area where if i had to make a prediction, she will definitely be different than Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Justice ginsburg was arguably the most permissive when it came to article three standing of current justices, the most willing to find standing under article three. And i would suspect based on her record that judge barrett would provide a much more rigorous standing inquiry with a narrower view of what article three allows. I have probably gone over, so i will stop there. Terrific, jonathan. John, the floor is yours. John i want to thank jonathan for what he did now by giving an overview that was very fine, and i concur in everything you said about her approach. My only objection to what jonathan said is that he stole some of my thunder. He went into the standing cases, which were assigned to me. You know come on, jonathan. , anyway, people were concerned about what her viewpoint was that she expressed years ago, an article was john garvey, than professor at notre dame, Capital Punishment, her role as a catholic has an influence on her. The fact that in two Capital Punishment related cases, not on the substance but on the question of the last minute application for delay and the execution, she voted against granting the stay in both cases, so that ought to give some people worried about that some kind of comfort at least. The criminal law area is one i want to go into. I have to tell you this briefly. Years ago when she was going to be a first year law student, she was listed in my criminal law class. The first day i showed up, she is not there. Where is amy . Anyway she went to notre dame, the best decision she ever made, because it would be years later before she would be a Supreme Court clerk, and it was thankfully to that faculty that got her along the track. In any event, and criminal law, she generally is upholding convictions, but the results dont tell you anything. Most cases of criminal conviction are going to be upheld. That is just statistics. So what you really have to do is look at her reasoning in particular cases. I will go over a couple of cases. In u. S. Versus king, which was mainly about a brady issue, it was very interesting. She went very carefully, as jonathan has already described her methodology, and the first part of the test was, was this helpful to the defendant . She said yes, yes, and then she went through the other two carefully and said no, on balance it does not amount to a brady violation. On the other hand, she can be really tough on ethics. In u. S. Versus atwood, the sentencing judge had communicated with the u. S. Attorneys office, per se violation, ex parte communication, boom, vacated immediately and sent the case back for sentencing by another judge. You cannot really categorize her in this area because she is thorough and she is fair. It is on the facts. The Fourth Amendment cases are interesting. There are two cases, the terry stop is in the watson case, not in the terry case. In any event, there was this anonymous tip, and that is always a problem. The tip came from a 14yearold kid was using somebody elses cell phone to report on some kids in basically a high crime area. Lets put it that way. And he said they are fooling around with guns, the cops came, and thought that was sufficient for a terry stop, and she said no. She went through the latest case, and went point by point, and really interesting, one of the keys in that case from the Supreme Court was if it came from a cell phone to a 911 call, you could trace it. Well in this case, she pointed out that in fact it did not come from the kids phone, it came from somebody elses phone, so it could not be traced. When of the factors was that he was in a rough neighborhood, and people in poor neighborhoods are entitled to the same gun rights as people in wealthy neighborhoods. And that clearly was a factor. It was interesting. Again, as in everything i have ite, it has been detailed in a way that few people on the Supreme Court have been i think in particular about Justice Alito and his care in detail. Justice scalia was also detail, but he had a lot of words that are rare and judge barretts jurisprudence. The jurisdiction. She had a case involving a , couple cases involving jurisdiction, and i think as jonathan has already indicated, she was a stickler on jurisdiction. One was a case on a foreign defendant, and in a specific jurisdiction, even the long arm statute of wisconsin says you can tell the guy no. She said there was not sufficient context. I like it because i think that long arm jurisdiction has been greatly abused over the years. Interesting case involving in a walker torry appeals they are hard to get, as you know. The party in this case got the district judge after the judge ruled against the party to grant an appeal. And throughout a 10day period, the paralegal typed the wrong email address was types, the email bounced back, it did not go back to where it should have, and it went to the spam folder. By the time they found it, it was past the 10day period. The question was, is this jurisdictional or just plain processing . She went through everything and said, no, this has to be jurisdictional based on the Supreme Court opinion, etc. , etc. So, again, tough on jurisdiction. That is a separation of powers question. The standing issues are important, separation of powers, as jonathan was pointing out. And in one case, castillo, the fair credit act, she had the fact that there was a mistake did not mean it was a harm, and a harm is the first thing you have to establish for standing. She was following a key case in terms of the Supreme Court. It was a scalia opinion, and she had the statement that we are empowered to hear cases under constitution, but it cannot be freewheeling. You know, again, the other thing that she did was in the opposite direction in a sense, but it was a different case, difference she cited her opinion in the first case to reach an opposite result in the next case. In involved the telephone Consumer Protection act, and she started out with a quote i love and i think others have heard it before. She said, the wording of this provision we interpret today is enough to make a grammarian throw down her pen. She is a real grammarian. You can say that about many statutes, especially criminal law statutes. But she goes with the common law history, disagrees with the 11th circuit, and goes, this may not qualify as common law, but congress decided it was a harm. She was careful distinguishing it from the prior case. The prior case was a procedural right, which scalia pointed out constantly that procedural rights cannot trump the requirements of standing under article three. Here it was different. It was a substantive harm that congress recognized, and that sure he did not appreciate that. Unlike a lot of judges who never thought about their philosophy until they got to the Supreme Court, we have been getting a lot better about appointing justices who have thought about their philosophy. And if anybody who has thought about it clearly, she has. For six years, she and i lectured back to back at blackstone program. She would always lecture on originalism and interpretation. Shes got it down cold. So, with that i will turn it over. You were mentioning before about separation of powers cases. And jurisdiction. I know that in one other case, the name that escapes me both parties appealed. She was skeptical. And they ended up dismissing. She got the supplemental brief as to whether they reached the dollar threshold, and it turns out the court ended up determining that they did not and that the District Court judge in one of the cases i refer to that i skipped over quickly because jonathan covered it, the defendant did raise it. She was in the seventh circuit, ever since easterbrook got on that bench, lawyers are supposed to know that you have got to know the standing issues because if you dont, the judges are going to hit you with it. The floor is yours. Thanks very much. After discussions of regulatory law and civil procedure, i am left with the boring aspect of her jurisprudence, what she thinks of overturning precedent, abortion, and guns, so bear with me, audience, as i get through these dreary subjects. So we can return to some of your weighty jurisdictional questions. To pick up where john left off, her overall philosophy she herself said that she is very much like her mentor, Justice Scalia, in terms of originalism and also with the much discussed doctrine of sometimes letting stand erroneous precedent because correcting them would cost more in terms of societal disruption then getting them right would benefit. This is a prudential consideration, not tied to ideology or judicial method, it is just how different judges think about the weight of precedent. Justice thomas rarely if ever has met an erroneous precedent that he would let stand for reasons of being decisive. Justice scalia was much more cautious. She is definitely closer to scalia. She might be softer on certain types of issues. On the one hand she wrote in the texas law review, a majority cannot impose its vision with only votes. It must defend its approach to the constitution and be sure enough of its approach to settle reliance interests. Im sure there was going to be a discussion of what reliance interests mean at her hearing. On the other hand, she wrote, less rides on the strength of than commonly supposed. Especially in statutory cases congress can simply overturn the court, there is perhaps more leeway, where as in constitutional cases were only the court can overturn itself or of course the constitutional amendment, maybe the court has to be more vigilant about being closer to the constitution being a true originalist. She has a great article on originalism. Moreover, there are super precedents she says, for example, brown v. Board of, sher for example brown v. , board of education. Theyre called that because they are not contested. The Supreme Court would never overturn them. It is not enough people repeating a mantra over and over again. There are outstanding cases which remain in dispute. On abortiond debate shows of a court is capable of transforming president into super precedent by asserting again and again that this is right. If legal issues are still contested, then by definition that is not being settled. Now, this doesnt mean that barrett is all set to overturn planned parenthood versus casey, or roe v. Wade. At a luncheon in 2013, she said unlikely at is very this point that the court is going to overturn roe or roe as curbed by casey. The fundamental element that a woman has a right to choose abortion will probably stand. In a 2016 lecture at jacksonville university, barrett said that although there could be changes in the way states are allowed to restrict abortion, the core holding of roe is unlikely to change. That kind of nibbling around the edges has a ready been borne out in her judicial opinions. For example commissioner versus , planned parenthood of indiana, judge barrett dissented from the denial of a hearing after a threejudge panel struck down an indiana law that banned abortions relating to sects, for reasons relating to sex race, or disability. ,quote using abortion to create promote eugenic goals is morally and financially debatable. None of the Supreme Court abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent such abortion spherical in box versus planned parenthood of indiana, she joined another dissent regarding a parental notice law because the law was enjoined before it took effect and thus violated the principle of federalism. What john was talking about, the structural components of constitutional law, even when talking about rights, structure still matters. In other words, having barrett on the court would likely allow some abortion regulations to survive that would otherwise or invalidated, i think, just about this past term with the june medical cases, and certain louisiana regulations. But both prolife and prochoice activists are overselling the case that she represents a threat to roe v. Wade, because there are already four votes to overturn it in the first place. Did you want to talk about gun rights at all . Second amendment . Oh, yes. Of course gun rights. So entranced by wanting to get back to jurisdictional and civil procedure issues that im i neglected to go back. In fact, probably her most famous case, cantor versus barr in the area of the , Second Amendment, it is a case that i filed an amicus brief in, so i dont know why i forgot about it. In this case, judge barrett defended the right of nonviolent felons to own guns, focusing on the framers understanding of the Second Amendment rights. She actually wrote a 37page dissent to a, i think it was a 26page majority opinion that maintained a categorical bar on sale and dispossession. Without having to prove dangerousness. Meaning, just being a felony, doesnt matter whether he was dangerous or being a violent felon. Ricky cantor had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud regarding false claims regarding shoe inserts. He said the shoe inserts that he sold were medically approved. They werent, so he defrauded the government because of that. She stressed that the Second Amendment, quote, conference individual rights connected with the natural right of selfdefense and not limited to civic participation. This Supreme Court since the heller case in 2008 has not fleshed out the scope of the Second Amendment right, lower courts have had to do that work, often in conflicting ways. What she said, describing a historical record dating to the founding, is that this establishes that the government cant bar gun ownership arbitrarily. In some funding your legislatures, categor categorically disarmed groups when they are effect to public safety, but neither the bench proposals or historical practice to categorically disarm felons because of their felon status. In other words, this kind of categorical ban is overly broad and overly narrow because you have the medicare fraud, or the stewart ofa social justice, and then you can have misdemeanors, guilty of misdemeanor for Domestic Violence that could certainly be a danger but nevertheless are not covered by these felon dispossession laws. So taking, again, the history and structure and text in a seriously and scholarly and thoughtful manner. Following up on that, do you think now if we end up having Justice Barrett on the court but it is more likely that the court will finally pick up some more Second Amendment cases . By all indications, after the court voted 63 to moot the case out of new york, over a dissent sorry, in a concurrence, Justice Kavanagh said, we have plenty of cases coming up and i am basically saying that he agreed with the dissent on the merit. Then a few weeks later when the court denied a slew of certain petitions bycert thomas and cavanaugh, i think what the reporting showed her what can be inferred is that Justice Roberts told his colleagues not to rely on him on any particular Second Amendment issue. This is certainly an area where if judge barrett becomes Justice Barrett, i think there would be a fifth reliable vote to start fleshing out the scope of the right and ending the confusion or willful disobedience of some of the lower courts in this area. I have gotten some terrific audience questions. I think im going to leap right in with some of those, and then let me know who wants to go first. One obvious question is that republicans do not always have a great track record when it comes to appointing conservative justices. Go back to earl warren and bill brennan, president eisenhower was asked if he made any mistakes when he left office. He said yes, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court. [laughter] david souter, john paul stevens, some would say anthony kennedy. And the chief justice. What makes us think that Amy Coney Barrett is not going to become like one of them . I will take that. John. Ok, so, we cannot overly rely on Circuit Court opinion. That is, i heard justice years ago that he really had never thought about his philosophy until he got on the Supreme Court, and that rehnquist had signed off on him. So, you have got to be careful. One, certainly have to look at not only the results, you got to look at the reasoning. Ltimately, it is character that is what counts. And the question really is, are they willing to be vilified . Lookit, alito has been vilified, thomas has been vilified, scully has been scalia has been vilified. Others when they tend to be vilified tend to go squishy. On the Supreme Court, it brings out whatever character weaknesses you have. And if you are ambitious, one of the character weaknesses that tends to affect a lot of us is vanity. There andu are the most powerful person, the media tells you, because you have the swing vote, it really goes to your head, i suppose. You have got to put people up there for whom their ambition has not been to get on the Supreme Court. And i can tell you, that has not ambition. Barretts it probably never occurred to her until a couple of years ago. I will just add that there are no guarantees in this sort of thing. On the left, it is a lot easier because of the general leftwing tilt of the legal profession, especially at its elite levels. And whatever interpretive theories they might be applying in the most controversial cases, they achieve the socalled right result for that side. On the right, with republican appointed justices, there is a lot more difference in how they approach the task, even among those who call themselves textualists. Or you think about thomas, alito more deferential to law and order in various respects. History and structure but perhaps a little more strategic in between the , andts gorsuch, who is more natural laworiented. Barrett being like scalia will slot in there, but not like her other colleagues. John, for adding blackmun. Justice Harry Blackmun could certainly be added to the list of disappointments to the conservative legal kennedy was a number three pick. That tells you. [laughter] and other great question that i got, some theorize that Justice Roberts does not like being in the minority opinion. Being in the minority opinion. But another conservative judge on the bench tipping the balance, will chief justice more reliablyte conservative . What happens to the chief if there is a Justice Barrett . The chief is a judicial minimalist. That is very clear in his record, it is very distinct in his record. That is the way he approaches most questions. We can debate why that is. My assumption is that it is somewhat generational. Lawyer,was working as a his view of the failings of the Supreme Court were that it was too aggressive and he favored a bickel,d of alexander judicial minimalist view and that carried through. That is why he approaches remedies narrowly, why he doesnt like lower court injunctions, or he doesnt like decisions. He will stick to that. The challenge will be that he will have less ability to achieve that, other than through opinion assignment. Things i think would be very interesting to watch is the extent to which he is able to use the opinion assignment power, being the most senior justice, to direct the way the court approaches certain questions, and to what extent are there cases where some of the other justices rebel, because if he keeps an opinion for himself and right a narrower other fiven the conservatives would be unhappy with, there is a possibility he loses the opinion. And that is something to watch. At the end of the day, he is more of a minimalist. Been chief justice, the Supreme Court strikes down federal statute at a lower rate court. Y other postwar it overturns prior precedent at a significantly lower rate than any other postwar court. That has been his pattern as chief. Those are things he thinks are good things. He doesnt like overturning precedent, striking down statutes, and i think he will try to maintain that course as much as he can. Anything to add . I think he wants it to be the roberts caught. He didnt want it to be the kagan court. With five votes without him, i think it will pull him over there so he can control the assignment of opinion, but also so that he can be on the winning side. We know that despite his minimalism, he has flipped a couple of times, for whatever reasons, and he may experience a new dynamic because of having to do backflips. Conversely, in some cases, he may join with the liberals, knowing that the side that he wants is still going to win. This way he can make it look nonpartisan or bipartisan. Right. Another good audience question. So, there have been a lot of conservative groups certainly theing to trim bu tails chevron deference, and the Supreme Court when a fairways down that road. And conservatives have also tried to revive the nondelegation doctrine. There was a case in which they almost did it. You concerned in which way think Justice Barrett will move the needle one way or the other in terms of these challenges to deference to executive branch agencies, or the ability of congress to give broad delegation to power to those agencies. If she follows her mentor, wont. On the other hand, right before he died, her mentor was reconsidering things. He was reconsidering deference. I dont know whether she would go on that, but i think one has to hope that maybe kavanaugh can lead on this. What i would say is, she hasnt had to confront these questions very much as a jurist, and it wasnt really the focus of her scholarship, so it is not clear that she has strong priors in this area. One thing i would note, i think , overall, the court is likely to shift is solicited law doctrines more on shift its Administrative Law doctrines more on the margins than there is likely to be a revolution. That is to say what we saw with our deference, the court upholding it but dramatically narrowing it, is more the sort of thing i think were going to see. So the nondelegation context, i am skeptical that we are going to get a full revival, but i think that nondelegation concerns could very well lead to the court to do what, for example judge kavanaugh did as , it d. C. Circuit judge, which is to look very skeptically at concerns of authority and to not allow nondelegation concerns to influence statutory interpretation. Judge barrett is a textualist. She has written and spoken a bit about her textualism. I recommend the lecture that she gave at case western last year that has been published in the law review. Unlike some textualists, see seems to be more aligned with nons. Antive ca she has said and written things suggesting she would be more comfortable with substantive canons, and that would be an opening for her to join with Justice Kavanaugh in, for example, reinvigorating and strengthening the major questions doctrine as a way of addressing delegation concerns without fully opening up the doctrine. I will just add that the major questions, gorsuch has written about, have you that how you have hydraulic questions. That if you have one doctor who cannot treat, you can go to another. The dissent in the gundy case, plus, alito who joined in judgment only, said that the case would be reconsidered. And then kavanaugh, in the later thi statement on denial of said he was also on board. We will see some movement whether a case is presented. So far the cases have involved International Trade and foreign affairs. I would worry about keeping the chief in those cases. The chief justice has joined and even written some really good Administrative Law dissents. When push has come to shelves, he has not joined a majority to significantly alter Administrative Law, and i am concerned that trend will continue. W itn kaiser versus framed the discussion today. Ilkie, you mentioned Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas tells the story that they were on the bench once and Justice Scalia turned to thomas and said our opinion, just a terrible, terrible opinion. And Justice Thomas turns back to him and says, you know, you wrote it. [laughter] we need to collect it kaiser deference. Justice kagan really rewrote it. And roberts concurrence as well as kavanaughs separate dissent, both roberts and kavanaugh emphasized that there was very little daylight between the majority and dissenting opinions there. Another interesting audience question that i got, because clearly she is going to be attacked in certain quarters, these are your personal beliefs and youre going to rule the court with your personal beliefs and not going to follow the law. I am wondering if it here view can think of any examples in which you have seen judge in any take a position case in which you suspect that it hasnt been up to her personal beliefs in which you suspect that had bit been up to her personal beliefs or personal views, she would have come out differently rather than following the law to reach the results she reached. Real briefly, if you look at her immigration cases, i would assume that she has a policy preference on immigration. I have no idea what it is, but she has written some opinions that were very forgiving and helpful to immigrants, and some that were very stringent. I think the common denominator is she followed what the log required. But in one set of the other, she had to reach results but she didnt like. There is also a case involving a arqule schools ability to parochial schools ability to avail itself of Public School busing in milwaukee, where she joined the majority opinion rejecting the equal protection claim of the parochial school. Based on what we know about her faith, the caricature of those who attack her, it is hard to reconcile her opinion with what is generally assumed her views are about parochial education. And as john mentioned before, her opinions in death penaltyrelated cases certainly are not in line with church teaching, which further suggests that she understands the oath she gives as a jurist is she applies the lobby for her whether or not that coincides with a personal, moral or other beliefs to riyadh i moral or other beliefs. I dont think she necessarily agrees with some of the cases she has had to deal with, but again, i think she is following what Justice Scalia used to say, that i reach a lot of cases result when i am letting criminals go that i dont want to let go. John, her husband was an ausa. There are a lot of reasons for her not to be as careful as she is, but she is. Im assuming that Justice Scalia was also not particularly a big fan of flagburning, but he one other case. There is a case which im pretty confident she disagreed with the outcome. There was a case involving a buffer zone of Free Speech Free zone or no speech zone effectively around abortion clinics where she joined an opinion by judge sykes, if i correctly, to uphold that buffer zone because there is a case which i certainly think was horribly decided, and i suspect she does as well colorado versus , hill, where the Supreme Court upheld a medical statute. I think it is pretty clear that the seventh circuit was bound by not make anydid effort to find some clever argument around the relevant Supreme Court precedent, and applied it even though it produced a result but am quite sure she found to be problematic on multiple levels. One final question from an audience member who describes him or herself as a selfassessed law nerd who pointed out that the late Justice Ginsburg had a particular expertise and cases. T in jurisdiction professed a law nerd at once to know if there are any areas of law in which Justice Barrett maker of expertise inrea of less of a hot button topic in order to help . Well, she taught civil procedure, so it very well may be. Similarly as Justice Ginsburg on like standing and personal jurisdiction as well as and moren of powers, federal courts jurisdiction type things, that that is where she could be influential. More broadly speaking, given the graciousness and charm she displayed, i think in the rose garden ceremony, she has potentially that she potentially could be very influential behindthescenes in ways her mentors with sharper elbows my not have been. [laughter] jonathan, would you like to add to that . She has a concurrence in a case which is postconviction relating to the criminal act and relates to standards for postconviction relief under section 2255. It matters a lot in federal courts challenges to state court convictions, and she did not write very many concurrences on the seventh circuit, but she did here, because she felt the law was very messy and she wanted to, not make an argument about what the law should be but , just that the court needs to clarify this so the lower courts have greater guidance and so that litigants have greater guidance. I wouldnt be surprised if that is an issue that she looks to find a case to address. , again, out of any particular policy outcome that she wants to see, that having dealt with this area of law, she meant that it serves no ones interest to have an area of law that is confusing internally and selfcontradictory, and i think that is useful because part of the whole point of having a single Supreme Court is to help ensure a certain degree of consistency for federal law throughout the country. So i knew that this hour would fly by. My apologies to those audience members who submitted questions but i didnt get to. We talked a bit ago about how gracious and courteous judge barrett was doing her rose garden presentation. I look forward to see how gracious and courteous the question is are when they start posing questions to judge barrett next tuesday and wednesday. [laughter] with that, i want to thank everybody who tuned in, particularly jonathan, john, ilya, thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you. We have been working on cspan to bring our viewers conversations with members of the senate and Judiciary Committee ahead of next weeks confirmation hearings for judge Amy Coney Barrett. Udiciary committee ahead of next weeks confirmation hearing for judge Amy Coney Barrett. We talked earlier this week with senator kunz from delaware somewhere joined now with republican senator marsha blackburn. Good morning. Guest good to see you. Talk about what you have been told about how thisce