Transcripts For CSPAN Justice 20240703

For the next round. We are delighted to have you here. For many reasons, you grew up in new orleans in the end of the mississippi . I think you said that there is a Family Connection to the university of minnesota . Can you tell us about that western mark professor stein did not know this when he invited me, i do not think it is the reason he invited me. It is not my first time visiting campus. He lives rental house. I went and visited. I know that you know about the university, i saw them. I would like to start asking questions by asking a question about your undergraduate college. As the dean had said, you had graduated from Rhodes College in memphis, a superb school and i noted several years ago just a fortis graduated from that justice fortis graduated from that college. We aware that a Supreme Court justice had graduated from the school and did you think about the Supreme Court at that time . I did not think i was going to be a lawyer at that time, i had some vague awareness that justice fortis had gone to Rhodes College. I was an English Literature major in college and i minored in french and i thought about going on to get a phd in english and becoming an english professor and i thought about Teaching High School english. I thought about going to law school but it was not until i was a senior and i was really down to decisionmaking time that i decided to go to law school. You made the decision to go to notre dame from where you graduated. As a graduate of Notre Dame Law School you are the only current justice to graduate from a law school other than harvard or yale. The only justice to graduate from a law school other than harvard, yale, or columbia since Justice Sandra day oconnor join from stanford in 1981. Why do you think this is so and do you think it is a good thing . I think it is a neutral thing, i love all of my colleagues and would never criticize their alma mater. It is true that it has been like that of late. It has not always been that way. For example, when thinking about it i was reading over the summer and it was striking to me that when justice frankfurt was on the court, a renowned justice, he had been a professor at harvard but he served with Justice Jackson who did not get a law degree. Contestant learned law when you could study law by being an apprentice. O haney and hugo jackman was on the court and he had gone to university of alabama law school. The court has been populated more with those who have gone to Ivy League Law schools, but it has it does not always need to be the case. The university of minnesota and notre dame and there are many places that produce excellent lawyers and they should not be overlooked. In addition to the fact that most of the justices graduated in the same ivy league schools, not all, but most of them. Most of the justices have the same professional background as a court of appeals judge. I think the Justice Keenan may be the only one not who was on the appeals court, i think he was nominated and not approved along the way. When the court benefit from more diversity in geographic background . Most of the justices come from the east coast. What greater geographic diversity and more professional click save experience would be of benefit legislative experience of benefit to the court . I think Sandra Day Oconnor was the last one who served in legislature before going to the court . They serve in the Arizona State legislature and it may have been her experience that made her particularly committed to the balance for those nonlawyers in the room which is the state rights and the independence of states. [indiscernible] not the court not today please quiet down and allow the discussion to continue. Disruptive behavior is not allowed in the auditorium. [indiscernible] please quiet down and allow the lecture to continue if they disruptive behavior does not cease, we will be compelled to invoke the minnesota statute and disruptive parties will be required to vacate the room. Cspan. Org [indiscernible] [indiscernible] this disruptive behavior needs to cease. The university revokes any claim of right of individuals to continue to disrupt the commitment. All of those who fail to comply will be in violation of minnesota statute 624. 72 subdivision three. Minnesota statute 60 9. 605, trespass. Will be placed under arrest by the university police. All disruptive parties are asked to vacate the room or be subject to arrest. [laughter] [applause] [indiscernible] let us resume our conversation. [laughter] [applause] we are minnesota nice. We do not treat other people like they very often at all. The delighted to have you here. Who taught at notre dame for 15 years and you taught at notre dame for 15 years and you taught law. Is the court like you thought it was . How would you teach the course differently given your experience . The court is what i thought it was when i taught it and when i would teach a class, i would teach the class the same way when it comes to the substance. The cases are what the cases are. In thinking about what i know now that i did not know then and then i do not think i was a law clerk at the court to Justice Scalia, i do not think that i appreciated this as a law clerk. The way that opinions are written, as an academic, a professor, a law student, the law students in the room i am sure feel this way, it can be frustrating when the Supreme Court opinion does not answer all of the questions. Or bills like some issues are glossed over. What about this or that . It is challenging to write on a multimember court. When you look at opinions and read them carefully and remember that the opinion, when i wraite an opinion im not write an opinion, i have to thread the needle so that although my majority cannot agree to it. That means glossing over some things to wear may be do not agree or maybe people are not ready to take a position on something. We also sometimes see my professors criticizing saying that the court left this issue open. It is not that we do not know about it, it is a deliberate choice. They want to be careful not to answer too many questions in cases where those issues have not been front and center and they have not been fully briefed and have not had the benefit of opinions from the lower courts. I would pay a lot more attention now and i encourage you to do that and thinking about why was an opinion written the way it was written or why are some things missing that i think ought to be there . I think appreciating that and the challenges of writing for larger courts of appeals, rather than one or two other colleagues. I think that is the thing i have grown to appreciate the most that i would approach differently in the classroom. The court has four women justices serving for the first time in its history. You perhaps more often aligned with some of the conservative justices. Justice sotomayor and kagan and jackson often doing with level justices. Join with liberal justices. Do the women justices get together for any purpose . [laughter] for any reason . Just to celebrate the fact that there are four now . I would say i am so delighted to have Justice Jackson as my new colleague. I would say that the women do not i think ideologically, i say this, my first dissent on my first term on the court was in a case, it was not 63 you were expecting when you open a newspaper, it was the six men and i was writing the dissent for kagan, sotomayor, and me. It is not always the case that women are on different sides and actually, last term, i think it is the case that there were only five decisions in which the three other women justices were in dissent. That is only five of the three together, five of 57 or so cases that we heard. There are all kinds of other lineups all of the time and i find myself in an a grouping that includes them. I would not want to leave the impression that i am never floating alongside them. I was excited when sotomayor allowed me to speak for them. I think that my perspective or the anybodys perspective is different just by virtue of being a woman. I think we bring to the law our methodological commitments that are independent of our sex. I think it is delightful to have the companionship of them on the court and it was very a tradition on the court that the formal junior justice throws a Welcome Party for the new senior justice who was Justice Jackson. I got to do that and he did it last january. It is just for the justices, retired justices joined us as well. I got to pick her Favorite Foods and she picked the entertainment. She loves hamilton so i found someone who sang on broadway and they came and sang, serenaded her with some songs. It is delightful to have people on the court i consider friends. Justice kavanaugh, as you know, for me, he and his wife ashley when they threw the party, they brought new orleans singers to sing jazz singers including a second line. I wanted to ask you about one difference between you and the other women justices on the court, you may be the first mother with minor children to serve on the court. You are a justice and a mother with several children in school. How do you manage your work as a justice and the challenge of Parenting School age children . I think that my days in the ti balancing being a mother and children and school and school activities, there are no different than most working mothers. The same struggle of balancing it all and fitting in all of the hours in a day that i have is a law professor and when im on the court of appeals. My challenges are no different than the challenges of our working mothers. I think the justice position can be funny. I have four children who are still in high school or grade school. In the morning, we are getting them out the door to school and our youngest son is 11 and he has down syndrome and his boss picks him up last. The other kids already gone. He enjoys music so we are packing his backpack and i am packing my briefcase and he chooses a song. There was one day last term when benjamin had been listening to music including not so much the opera classics who let the dogs out . I guess to the court and in the chorus as you are walking through the basement area have portraits of all of the justices that served before and they are dignified looking and along in my brain do not listen to that song if you do not want it to be in your brain. I am looking at these dignified men and who let the dogs out is playing in my mind i leave work and i will line up at volleyball games with a bunch of the other mothers or one day last week i was serving hot lunch and my kids school as a volunteer. All of those things are things that in my current position in particular i appreciate. They are grounding and they keep me rooted in real life with regular people and the kinds of moms that have been sitting on the sidelines of soccer games but i have been sitting with my whole mothering career. Following graduation from notre dame you clerked as you mentioned for judge silverman, has a court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit judge. And for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. You have expressed Great Respect for both of them. Particularly you have talked about Justice Scalia. After your appointment to the court you were quoted as saying Justice Scalias judicial philosophy was also your judicial philosophy. Is that still true . How would you describe that philosophy . Justice scalia was very well known for his commitment to both originalism and constitutional interpretation. Textualism in the interpretation. I would say you can boil both of those philosophies down to the proposition that the text is the law and the text controls. I sure that philosophy and i share the commitment. Share that philosophy and i share that commitment. There would be little difference between us if you asked about the central role of the judge, adhere to the text when the text has a clear answer and not oppose ones views to respect the law. I certainly have differences in style. For example, he is a fantastic writer, he was as i was saying, when you are at a restaurant and you are looking at the menu and trying to say you have spicy things and maybe three jalapenos . I am more of the one jalapeno. I keep the heat, i prefer the heat to be a little bit lower in dissents or interchanges back and forth. That made it a lot more entertaining to read coming from Southern Italian backgrounds, putting more peppers on the . Modifier, yes more on fire, yes this is the auditorium, tragically, only a few months before his death, talk about that you talked about Justice Scalia just now, talk about your relationship through the years both as a clerk and since you were a clerk . Justice barrett Justice Scalia was a great role model for a young lawyer. He was very funny. Being his clerk involved hearing a bunch of funny stories, being regaled. I recalled hearing him singing opera in his office from the outside clerks office. He was very committed. My cohorts and i were talking about this recently. We were asking each other what we thought was the most important piece of advice that the justice gave us, and he said , always make virtually, immovable commitment to be home to have dinner with your family. Your family. Because thats the most important thing. No matter how much you have to work later at night, to do it. We all remembered being very struck by that. I think even apart from everything he taught me about the law and how to think about the law and being a judge, i i think he was an example just as much about being a person. Being a person who he was great at maintaining friendships with people who had views who were very different from his own. His friendship with Justice Ginsburg was a great example of that. He was full of life and didnt hold back. He liked to say, i attack ideas not people. And that, if you cant tell the difference between the two as a judge, you are in the wrong line of work. As fiery as he might have been because of his italian , background, he was very good at maintaining relationships and being committed to his family. I think that was a very important example to me. I did not just learn law. Professor stein that was a remarkable friendship between Justice Scalia and justice ginsberg. She told stories to them and was very proud that an opera had been written about their friendship. I think its called scaliaginsberg. She explains since he was the senior justice his name came first. [laughter] but i have never seen the opera. , Justice Barrett i have not seen the opera, either. Professor stein apparently in the offer, he was imprisoned for excessive dissenting. For excessive dissenting in the opera. [laughter] and she rescues him by coming through a glass ceiling, which she breaks. They have a wonderful relationship, the two of them. When you joined the court in 2020, i wanted to ask you if there were some justices that reached out and work more welcoming than others . You mentioned justice kavanaugh, getting this together for you. How was it when you join . Justice barrett i joined during covid, the pandemic was still raging and people had not fully come back to work. When i was sworn in, i would not say that anyone of my colleagues was more welcoming than another, they were all equally welcoming and wonderful. And when i was sworn in by the chief justice, Justice Breyer was filling in in boston, it was a problem for him until he could travel without greater exposure. Those in washington came to swearing and weight and not sit in a big Conference Room and everybody had masks on and we spread out in the Conference Room and everyone was there. One of the things that meant a lot to me was right around halloween and Justice Sotomayor came to my office and they had come to the swearing in and he was going to be leaving in an hour or two to go back to south bend to hold down the fort while i was commuting back and forth from washington. Justice sotomayor in and she had me big bags of halloween candy for each one of my children to take back with them. I had no staff, i had no staff, no locker, no Office Supplies for anything that day, you cant really hire staff before you are confirmed. We were scrambling. I had my first oral arguments in just a few days. I did not even know how to get into the computer system. Justice gorsuch found out and he did that and he had his assistants come over and at some iphones and stacking up with Office Supplies, thing everything. I was living by myself two weeks of the month, in washington. In the house that i was renting. And i had dinner invitations for my colleagues and much invitations, they did everything in their power to make me feel welcome. That was a difficult time. They had just lost a beloved colleague, Justice Ginsburg had passed away. Everybody was under the stress of covid, and everyone went above and beyond to make the feel welcome. That leads into the next question i was going to ask you. There have been sharp differences in cases over the last couple years between the majority and dissent. Have those sharp differences reflected the relationship between the justices at all and continuing to be a case where justice is one another . Justice barrett it is, its that same idea. I attacked ideas and not people. That is what opinions are. The fire gets put on the page, but is not expressed in interpersonal relationships. The Court Decides issues of great importance. There are lawyers on the court were very smart and passionate about what theyre doing. Convinced, because everybody gives a great deal of study and time and attention. And you spent months listening to oral arguments when you first participate in them, listening again to oral arguments and talking with your clerks and colleagues. At the end of that process, you are sure that you are your answer is right. When youre on a multimember court, there will be others that see differently in many cases, especially ones that are the most difficult and ones that press on jurisprudential divides , say between originalism and textualism and theories that lead more play in the joints of the text. Those are difficult cases in which jurisprudential disagreements can be sharp. But it really does state to the page. And i think, thats one reason why some of the things that we were saying at the beginning about this lecture are important. Part of that is time span. So, we are in the building with each other, justices have lunch every day we have oral arguments and every day after conference. Just coming off of these last two weeks, when we are in session, that is eight lunches. There was one lunch i could not go to because i had a childcare issue. But we eat together, we spend time together, and i think when you know people as people, its not like im going to say i can change Justice Kagans mind when we are talking about something. Im not friendly with her or showing affection or warmth because i think in in a means ends related way, i want to alert her to my side and get her vote. I enjoy her as a person and shes very smart and very i enjoy spending time with her. When you have relationships with people and you spend time with people, its easy to see them as people and not embodiments of idea that you ideas you disagree with. When you talk about Justice Kagan being funny, she was a participant in the past. She is hilarious. Justice scalia was hilarious. Who is the funniest member of the Supreme Court right now . [laughter] Justice Barrett this one kind of asking is kind of like asking me who is my favorite child, except its being recorded, whatever i say. I have many funny colleagues. [laughter] very diplomatic. Let me turn to a more serious question. The court has been criticized for not having a code of conduct applying to Supreme Court justices. And chief Justice Roberts has been quoted as saying the court is working on it. And various justices have made comments that there is not yet a consensus about such a code of conduct. The senate has now passed a code of conduct. Let me ask you, do you favor a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, and what benefits you see that would provide . Justice barrett it would be a good idea. For us to do it. Particularly so that we can communicate to the public exactly what it is that we are doing. And clear way more easily than we have been able to do so far. There is no lack of consensus among the justices, there is unanimity among us that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible. I think what we are numeral, and thinking about what i think about, is helping us to express what it is we are already doing. And we already abide by the statutes and there are a number of sections that govern judges, we all file our Financial Disclosures and our statutory requirements. At personally, and this is true of my colleagues, i still follow the same rules that apply to me when i was a court of appeals chart. The canon of conduct. There are some differences that apply to the court, just by virtue of the position of the judiciary. Our day job is reading statutes and communicating everything clearly. They want to do a good job with that, so. Do you think it will take much longer to come to an agreement about what a code might be, or what do foresee looking ahead . Justice barrett lets say. I think that is something that is something i cannot speak to the court about or make any sort of guess about that. One thing i would want all of you to know is that all nine justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct, all nine justices, and we are in agreement about what to do, and as we continued to follow the highest ethical standards. Any disagreement is nothing to do with either of those principles. Ask the maid turn to another hot button let me turn to another hot button topic. We cant be all fun and games. The court has been criticized for overturning major precedents in the past two turns. Terms. Without getting into the specifics, could you comment on the way that way to things should be given or how you way longstanding precedent in how to decide a case . Justice barrett before i answer the latter part, i want to quibble with your premise. Because the court, actually, the Roberts Court and during my time on it is at a low when you look at historically how many president s are over real per term. Whereas one, historically, its been about two or three. In the last two terms, a lot of things probably get filtered through that lens because it seems like the court has overturned the president. The library of congress has attracted to show how many, there is a table, showing how many president s have been overruled. There was only two, two this year. I dont think it is empirically true to say we have overturned a lot of president s, but we have overturned precedent. And ever court does, over time, when you look back through time, you have to deal with the doctrine that says the presumption is that president stays but not that it is absolute. If the president were if the proceedings were incapable of being overturned, we would not have brown v. Board of education because plessis would be the law. And the texas case overrules precedent, hodges recognize the right to samesex marriage, overruling precedent as well. And there have been many cases over time that have overturned precedent. And what i think about waiting in, there is precedent about precedent. We developed a doctrine that contains guidelines that holds the court when it is time for a president to be overruled. And those considerations must be ones that i myself must consider, when it is time for a president to be overruled precedent to be overruled, the question is whether the prior kiss was wrong. If it was wrongly decided, you ask about what the effects of that error are on the law today. With correcting the dashboard correcting the air upset reliance interests, have they sorted other areas of the law or is it becoming difficult for courts to apply . Those are the kinds of considerations. And the balancing act is where you dont want to leave errors uncorrected unless there are very good reasons for doing so. Sometimes there are good reasons to let dogs lie. The challenge, because remember the constitution is the law ratified by the people, and its associated with constitutional president. If the court had gotten it wrong and there was a constitutional case that had interpreted the constitution incorrectly there is a cost of that as well. There is a cost of democratic choice, because people are either hindered from doing things they might want to do or the state is permitted from doing things, that they might want to do for example. An ace it is sometimes important to overruled. Because it can be costly in the constitutional context and it is difficult to remedy errors because of a court does not fix it the only way to remedy an air is through an amendment, which is a difficult process. So there has always been constitutional president versus statutory president which has strong effects. Those are more easily corrected by legislative action. Overruling precedent is not something to be done likely. We have always followed guidelines through the centuries recognizing when times when it is our duty to do so. The list of cases that did not overturned president s and was widely held hale has been well regarded the past. What is your view of substantive due process. Justice barrett for those nonlawyers in the room, its a doctrine located in the 14th amendment, the due process clause, saying no one shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. As written, it sounds procedural, guaranteeing that nobody is going to compensate your confiscate your property without due process, or relevant to students at a Public College run by the state of minnesota, that you have rights visavis the state and the university that due process would protect procedurally. And in addition to those procedural guarantees, there is also substantive due process, which is a series of substantive guarantees as well. For example, the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is one of the first of this category that the court recognizes as being located in substantive due process and that itself is located in the clause. Its a controversial doctrine because the due process by itself says thats procedural language. Why is anyone locating substantive rights in there to begin with. Because those rights are not expressed but rather ones that the court locates or describe as implicit in the text, you combine two very difficult factors, right. The court is identifying rights that the text does not make explicit, and some of the rights that the court has identified as located in the due process clause are particularly hot button ones. The due process clause, that is the source of the right to use contraception, which is recognized. The due process clause has the right to abortion. The court has identified some rights as implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and located in the due process clause, and others say that the right to die is not one of those rights which is inherent in the due process clause and constitutionally protected. Its tricky business to identify rights that the people in ratifying our foundational document have not themselves identified. The court as a matter of president has tried to ensure that it does not get too far out of its lane by saying that the only time this can fairly be described as being located in the due process clause are those that are protected by longstanding and deeply rooted traditions. That prevents the court from just say we think that in a good and moral and just just society, these of the rights of people should have. It should be the right of people who themselves decide in a good and right and moral and just society that these of the individual rights and that people should happen. The process of recognizing rights in the doctrine and the clause should be high. And our president sets it high. Precedent since it right hi. How the court was been deciding fewer cases in recent years. Commentators have called that the court shrinking the docket. Not too many years ago, when i was doing work here, the court was sending 150 cases per year. In recent years, that number has dropped to 75 cases per year. You mentioned earlier 57, last year, they took 57 opinions. One of the lowest, im not sure if it was the lowest. Dont quote me on 57, it might be off. But it was around there. Why is the court taking fewer cases, and what you personally favor it docket which had more cases on it where justices agree, i guess you need for justices to take the case, what would that be better if the court took more cases each year . . I will say is that the courts mayor duckett by that i mean what they hear on the merits and make decisions on his smaller, 57 last year. But the petitions amount is smaller. These are petitions litigants file when they ask the court to hear a case. In the past, they may have approached almost 6000. Right now, we are closer to 4000 and the numbers are down. I think that might have, im not exactly sure why. There are various theories. We might be seeing after effects of covid. During the pandemic, District Courts were not conducting trials and those cases their work warrant cases appealed that are making it up to us. Everything slowed down and we are at the end of the line. We are seeing some lag. Even before covid was dropping a little bit. The chief justice has said, we talked about this, he might have flooded this theory at this very lecture, that electronic legal databases might be reducing the number of circuits points that we have. Whats that . A circus split is when the courts of appeal across the country take the same legal issue and resolve it differently. That is one of the classic cases in which the Supreme Court will step in, because we, because we are at the top of the judicial hierarchy. If there are disagreements we can make the lawyer forth out the country. State Supreme Courts disagree with one another, or if they disagree with the federal court of appeals, you dont want to have front law applicable and say california than oklahoma. Or minnesota and louisiana. The court will step in and resolve the split. That is probably the most common situation in which we step in and get default. There are fewer splits than they used to be. There used to be. Some people are surprised about this, we dont take cases just to correct errors, not just error correction. We have not historically done that. The Supreme Court rules identify the factors that we apply in deciding whether to take to take a case. Is there a circuit split, or is it an issue of National Importance which really demands the Supreme Courts intervention, an act of Congress Held unconstitutional. If the federal government asked us to take the or state governments ask us to, we take that into account and it weighs heavily in favor of granting the appeal. It would be good probably to have more cases, but i dont think that we are living cases on the table, that i think we should take. Where looking carefully through the petitions. Unless we were to change the traditional criteria, i dont see a lot of things that we are not taking that it would make sense for us to take. You have been taking a lot of hot button cases in the last few terms. Taking cases that had a lot of attention. Let me turn to oral argument. During covid, the procedure involved an oral in oral argument changed. If you could talk about that or more particularly how has it changed more oral arguments Going Forward . Justice barrett before covid we conducted it by audio. Make it manageable, if you have nine justices, if you have ever listened to a Court Argument or attended one in person you know that they can be a lot of jumping in and justices asking questions and it can be a hot bench and a very very active. Over audio it can be challenging for the advocates if they are just hearing disembodied voices coming in over one another trying to figure out how to respond. To make that manageable, the court had a more routine regime in place where the Court Justices in order of seniority would ask questions, and you have a couple minutes each, and you can ask advocates of the questions and when that time was up and went onto the next and so on. I was last because i was the junior justice at that point. It was actually, i thought for me, as a brand of justice, i appreciate that system because it does not put me in a position of having to talk over my senior colleagues right when i first started and being aggressive just to get my questions answered. I appreciated the opportunity to ask ask questions uninterrupted without having to interrupt someone else. When we went back to the bench we had to decide where we going to keep that system and keep going asking questions one by one, or are we going to return to the old way, a little bit more of a freeforall, or are we going to do a combination . We did accommodation. We have Justice Thomas as the senior justice ask his questions, then the floor is open. The only rule is that we are supposed to stay in our time but if two justices speak at the same time, the more senior justice gets the floor. Youre supposed to yield to the more senior justice. Other than that, you ask your questions. But we do have a cleanup round at the end once the advocates time is over. We do something that looks like what we did during covid, it goes down the line from the chief to Justice Jackson, the most junior, and you get to ask your questions for a few minutes. It takes some of the pressure off the open floor around because you know that you have a chance to have your question asked and you dont have to feel like you have to be really aggressive about getting your question in. Although, by the same token it is not Good Practice to save all of your questions for the cleanup round, because it prolongs argument and we try not to do that and to be sensitive to the time. But we wound up with a plan. Bland. We think of the oral arguments and the questions that are asked in the media coverage. Let me ask you is benefit of oral arguments . Are you ever persuaded by an argument to change the opinion you had after reading the brief . I think it is a myth that oral arguments did not change lives. I do my homework before oral argument, i go into arguments with a sense, and that sense might be stronger or weaker depending on the issue, and its something that i have not thought about before. As a new justice, i am in an area of the law where i have not decided many cases in that line of cases. If you have been in this light of the court as long as the key justice you have written key opinions from which the new case arises. Oral arguments can change my mind, it changed my mind on the bottom line before and it has an effect on how opinions are written. And those of you who are lawyers or law students who might want to be appellate advocates, one thing that is very effective and that people will often hear at arguments is how would you write the opinion . Or just an oral argument last week, Justice Thomas asking a question that sent to counsel just finish this sentence. This is unconstitutional because can you articulate the line which could then be the holding in a case . An advocate answer to that. That might change someones mind or how an opinion is written. And i think that is important and in oral argument is important, it can affect the escort scope of the opinion. You realize in practicalities that make you think wow, that was just as unmanageable as it seemed going in. Or you say no, actually, there is a way to handle this if youre trying to walk a tightrope between competing lines of president proceeded. And you can write this in a way where you woke mess things up. Oral argument matters. Let me turn to another part of your career, you are and longtime law school professor, let me ask questions about Legal Education. What is your opinion of Legal Education, are we doing a good job of training our students for the various roles that we will take . What changes would you like to see . I think broadly speaking, obviously the law school i am most familiar with is notre dame, which i taught and attended. I think one thing that is really important in Legal Education is something i found as a law professor which bears on some of the things we work talking about earlier. I had a class on statutory interpretation. The theory and art of how to interpret statutes. Im a textile list, which means i follow statutory interpretation, which would aim to identify the statutes the best meeting meaning of a statute and order that follow that. Even if that might seem in tension with the purposes of the law, or if i can make it make more sense if i did not quite enforce what it says to this point. I think congress would prefer that it is situation like this. Deciding the case this way even though there is tension. In a nutshell for the nonlawyers, that sectionalism. Justice breyer was a very eloquent advocate of a more pragmatic interpretation, which would say well, the text matters and we consider it, but there are times in which we should not be slaves to it, and we should think about the pragmatic consequences and the pragmatic ends. There are approaches like which might give weight to legislative history, whereas my approach like textualism would minimize that. I bring this up to say that when i have had statutory interpretations i try very hard to keep my own views and when i was a law professor that was easier, because my views are more obvious, but i try to keep my views out of it, and i want them to learn both sides. And if people in the class were making arguments that i agree with, and it did not feel like people on the other side were making arguments i would step into to be devils advocate and make the other side. Legal education if it ever slips away from teaching students how to see both sides and the argument from both sides, then Legal Education would be doing them a disservice. I tell them you might leave this class thinking, for example, that legislative history is a useless tool and a dangerous tool and judges should not use it. But when you go into practice you better use it. If you think barabbas you are representing a client. You put it in your brief if you think it will persuade the judge because you have to be an effective lawyer and you have to understand all the arguments. Youre not going to be arguing in front of judges who see things the same way that you, as the lawyer do. I think it is really important for law schools to do that, to equip students to be able to see both sides and debate both sides and use all of those tools. You talk about what the law school should do what advice would you have for law students who are in the audience today . Justice barrett for law students, i would say take advantage of all of your opportunities to learn about lots of things, and to challenge yourself. Expose yourself to ideas that you might not think you would agree with and he may not agree with them at the end of the day either, but law, how many people who decide to go to law school were told in one point at the childhood you like to argue so youll be a lawyer. Its true that boyers wind up arguing, and thats true whether you wind up being a litigator or and up being a transactional lawyer and you have to negotiate deals. You need to learn how to see both sides and learn how to argue, and to be able to do it civilly, because that is what lawyers do and that is how you produce results for your client. That is how you become good citizens and leading members of the bar and contribute to your community. Soak up all of the opportunities that you can in order to take classes that challenge you and hear ideas that challenge you, and how to debate in ways that are respectful and prepare you for the courtroom and the deal room. Im going to turn to questions from law students. I wanted to ask you a question first. Are you enjoying yourself on the Supreme Court . Justice barrett it has its ups and downs. [laughter] the work is important, obviously. And the work is it is similar in substance to what i did when i was on the seventh seventh circuit because you are citing cases, reading briefs, thinking about the law and writing about the law. And the substance of the work is the same, and its a privilege and honor to serve the country and do that work in ways that really matter, and its a weighty responsibility. I always want to be very well prepared to do my best and think hard and discharge all of the duties of by office consistently with my oath in the most to the best of my ability. In the most responsible way possible. That is different from being a law professor, where you do not exercise the power of government. I always wanted to do my best when i was a student, the weight of the job is not that kept me up at night. I feel a great responsibility and a privilege and its interesting, and im amazed that i get to work with the college that i have who are warm and i am walking into this building, i am amazed walking was amazed walking into that building then and i am now. Its all part of our society. Enjoying myself is not quite the right word. That i would use. [laughter] but it is a privilege to serve, and i have no regrets about undertaking that service and im contest i am conscious that everything im doing is important for the people of america and those of the people for whom i work. And would you turn to questions from students now, some might touch on areas we talked about if you have anything more to say about it. The first one is the rapid advancement of technology often presents new challenges for the legal system. How do you approach cases where the law has not yet gone up to technological reality . Justice barrett i think technology is one of the challenges. I dont want to pick up all these questions. Last term, the court heard cases involving twitter and antiterrorism statutes and social media algorithms. These are challenging cases, because it changes so rapidly. In that what we are limited and what we know is that we are not the nine greatest experts on the internet. Congress i mean, statutes can be difficult because statutes become quickly outdated. We have some statutes that were written and directed at cable tv, but now they have to apply to the internet age and Internet Services and streaming services. I think that is a difficult area and one of those areas where if we decide to do with that that is that means caution and prudence. We cannot avoid stepping in because there is a point where we have to step in and resolve it. And that is an area in which we are aware of that, and that personally i think letting some time for technology to develop and allowing them to grapple with those issues benefits the court. Thats not something you want to make a mistake and when technology changes. A second question, in your opinion, what is the role of dissent in legal interpretation and how do you view it in your role . Justice barrett people right to sense right there dissent in Different Reasons. He once said in his speech he gave big because he writes a dissent as a last hope of convincing his colleagues. He would tell his wife they did not join me. [laughter] you have to explain yourself. Justice scalia said he wrote those from the law school casebooks. Because if you could write them very well and students could read them, he could influence them and maybe they could become justices. Justice ginsburgs set ginsberg said something similar, hoping they could become majority opinions. You need to show what both sides of the ark it were, and if you saw it differently you have to explain why. There are some cases in which you hope that it is and might become a majority, but in many ways, it leaves less room for discretion in other separations like concurrences. And you still have a greater judgment call to make about where to write and what you need to point to address or shape the law. Heres another student question. In a world with many diverse viewpoints, particular with statutory and constitutional interpretation, how do you balance the practice of originalist and textual list ideals with the increasing abundance of definitions of text . Textual lists, i guess the issue is that there there is too much. Justice barrett jim much text, too many statutes . Too much text, too many statutes . Im not sure i follow the question, but i will take a stab. One thing they might be getting at is that a texture list tries to interpret language as an ordinary reader of the language what. And it could be that one thing theyre getting at is that what is the ordinary reader, and do we have torts, for law students, do we have the judgment of a reasonable man and judge three through those eyes. The question might beginning at when you have 70 different ways of looking at the world and hearing language and looking at text, how can you identify who that ordinary speaker is . And i would say that it can be difficult to figure out who is the target audience for the statute. Who is that reasonable reader. But if you narrow it down into textualism, and all nine justices treat the text as controlling, there are differences in how you would get to it, but i dont want to get the impression that im the only one proving the text is relevant. Its important to everyone. You are reading the text as an informed observer who has been familiar with all of the circumstances and facts of that statute and statutory language. That does narrow it down to someone who is an informed observer and familiar with the statute and its contents. That is how helpful. I do agree it can be challenging in a world with many viewpoints to figure out who that mythical, reasonable person or mythical ordinary user of languages. This next question is interesting. Particularly to go in another direction. What role does empathy play in your judicial decisionmaking process, is rushing when faced with cases that have profound personal and social implications . That is Justice Barrett that is one of the very difficult things you find about judging, i found it difficult in the court of appeals and i find it difficult now. I felt that very acutely, several criminal cases, and on the Supreme Court increment of cases as well, but in many many different cases, one of the challenges about being a judge, generally, not just on the Supreme Court, is the need on the one hand to follow the law. I dont want and ignore should i, it would be a violation of my oath, to let my emotions or personal feelings dictate the outcome of the decision. By the same token, i dont want to ever lose sight of humanity. Or ever lose sight of the fact that my decisions have consequences. One practice is that we deliver a pension statement where the author of the majority opinion will announce the opinion on hand down day and you give a great summary. We did not do hand down staring covert, and when they came back last term, the first time i did that, it was in a case involving disability benefits for a veteran. And it was a 90 decision. The court held that the benefits, the rule that the veteran wanted which would have given him access to disability benefits, we decided against him. When i went into the courtroom, the courtroom was packed with lawyers and members of the armed forces who were there to be sworn into the Supreme Court bar. They were all in uniform. And it was a good reminder to me , i had to read my opinion and i had to meet eyes with all these members of the armed forces indication case by the court was deciding against someone who had served our country. I left the bench and i said really, you had to schedule the handout on this day ako . I did that and i had to own it. You cannot take pride in for the court and forget about the realworld impact, however hard they are. I have a hard time with the Death Penalty and in many other cases. I think as a judge it is important to listen to your head and not your heart to make decisions. But you should never lose sight of the fact that your decisions affect real people and you should never lose your heart. Justice barrett, the next one, what books or writers have influenced your legal writing style . Justice barrett i dont know if i could pinpoint what writer influence my style, but one thing i will say is that the First Research paper i ever did in high school was on ernest hemingway. And i was very taken with his style. At hemingway, as you know, was a very spare writer. And he does not use a lot of adjectives or adverbs. Thats generally the way i write. Im pretty fair, i try to be very linear. And when i was working on the d. C. Circuit judge out of law school he the judge called me to his office and said amy, you are an excellent writer, but dont afraid be afraid of the adverbs. [laughter] Justice Barrett i am no judicial hemingway. I dont claim that. But i do tend towards the spare and i try to keep that in the back of my mind. This is my question, not one of the students. Who are you writing to when you write an opinion . Are you writing to the other justices or the general public . Are you right into the parties to explain why you are deciding who is the audience . A little bit of everyone. I always tell people and i suspect even lawyers dont listen to this advice, they should read the opinions. I want opinions to be accessible, so i try to write in a way that is as accessible as possible to someone in the public who is interested but maybe not a lawyer, in reading an opinion. Reality is that not all opinions lend themselves to that, because they involve technical products, technical language, and so i cant say im doing this in a way where my mom, who is not a lawyer, could pick this up and find it entertaining and followup will. Easy to follow. I am writing for the lawyers and the parties and the bar, because i am a professor, i also have law students in my mind. Im still teaching, im still trying to teach at least once a year. Im writing for my law students and the students that will have to read the opinions. I want them to be able to follow them and understand them. Your answer that you wanted people like your mother to understand the opinion reminds me, i have the same question of jesus chief Justice Roberts. He was writing to his sisters. He wanted to make sure his sisters would understand, who are not lawyers. Its another way of saying to the American Public another couple of questions we have time for. This is from the students. Are there any historical Supreme Court decisions or justices that have particularly influence your judicial philosophy or approach . Justice barrett so, obviously, because i saw so much of Justice Scalia in his chambers, that i would have to say had the largest impact on my judicial philosophy. But when i think about the history of the court and i think about, especially now that im there, justices that have set a course. And, summoning people say chief justice John Marshall, but i will say it for Different Reasons in marbury versus madison. The theme has come up several times about collegiality and building consensus on the court. He was really a master at that. When he joined the court when he became chief, the justices werent even all living in the same city. They would come and congregate toward the end. Like washington was where the court was housed. They didnt have a building, they didnt have chambers and they stayed in the same boardinghouse. They would take their meals together and be together while they were there hearing cases. That really had the effect of building camaraderie on the court. He instituted the practice of announcing an opinion for the court before John Marshall opinions were announced which means that each individual justice said how he because it was all he back in those days, how he saw the case. And i think as i have been a judge both on the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. I just see how important it is on multimember of the court to be able to work toward consensus. So i have that in my mind as something that has really influenced me. I think this will be the final question we have asked. Take you very much, students, these have been terrific questions that you wrote. In your opinion, how can the Legal Profession become a more inclusive place for people from historically underrepresented communities . Justice barrett i think law school should be doing everything that they can to make firstgeneration students feel welcome and give them the help that they need, and the Legal Profession as well. That should not end in law school with mentoring on that kind of advice. The Legal Profession, and i encourage all of you who are law students, once you get into the bar, to give your time to mentoring Young Lawyers and Young Lawyers who are new to the profession who may not come from families who have lawyers in them or from historically underrepresented communities. I think, since this is the last question and this is my conclusion, i think i would say that i think, for all of you, as you think about whether note one another, whether you are from welcoming those from underrepresented communities into the school or profession, whether you look at people with whom you disagree, to really see one another as people. One thing that is striking about america that i tell my law students. We are a huge country. We have few rivals in the size of our population and our landmass. We are all living together under this very large tent in the constitution is what unites us. So we have to figure out a way to find our Common Ground and persuade one another and see one anothers humanity. See the humanity of those with whom you are now sharing the Legal Profession and who you will continue to do so in the future. You are the future of the Legal Profession of law students. I entrust it to you, and i know that you will do that and i thank you for the lovely reception that you have given me here today and thank you for coming to hear me speak. [applause] announcer cspans washington journal. Discussing the latest issues in politics from washington and across the country. Coming up, with axios discussing the week at the white house. Then democratic poster and a republican poster talk about the speaker battle. And the Atlantic Councils matthew crane on the latest in israel. Cspans washington journal. Join in the conversation, live at 7 00 eastern on cspan, cspan now, our free mobile video app, or cspan. Org. Announcer a healthy democracy does not just look like this. It looks like this. Where americans can see democracy at work, where a citizen truly can see their work. A republic thrives. Unfiltered, unbiased, from the Nations Capital to where ever you are. Because the opinion that matters the most is yours. This is what democracy looks like. House and Senate Lawmakers testify on the potential for a new commission to address government spending. They talk about the need to protect Social Security and medicare from becoming of solvent and why