Transcripts For CSPAN2 Justice 20240702

[applause] [applause] good afternoon Justice Amy Coney barrett and i am delighted you are here. Im delighted be here and think you for having me. Thank you for coming especially in the first two weeks of the current term which began the first monday in october and how is it going this year. Related this good so far we only had six and and run a two week in between our sessions so oral argue in arguments last week now it will be two weeks of readings to prepare for the next round. Will we are delighted that you are here. And for so many reasons. You grew up in new orleans, the other end of the mississippi. I did. I think you said there is a Family Connection to the university of minnesota and can you tell us about that. I did and professor stein did not know this so i dont think it was the reason you invited me about my brother actually went there and so so my first time visiting campus. Compaq ipaq. And so he lived in a house down talent so i went to visit. I know something about the university and that means a lot when i saw that and i would like to start asking you questions by asking a question about your undergraduate college. Mcgovern said, that you received your undergrad from road in memphis which is a superb school there. I noted several years ago the justice budget waited from that College Although i think it was called Memphis College by mistake and the were you aware as Supreme Court justice had graduated from your undergraduate school and did you think it all about the Supreme Court of that time. I did not know that i wanted to be a lawyer at the time and so i had vague awareness that this and once upon a time the college was then Southwestern College yes and i was an English Literature major in college i minored in french and i thought a lot about going on to get a phd in english becoming an english professor and i also thought about Teaching High School english. I so 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. And you made the decision to go to notre dame, from where you graduated. It is a graduate of notre dame bosco, youre the only current justice to graduate from law school other than harvard or yale. And the only justice to graduate from a less water than harvard or yale or cobia since just as connor joined from stanford hand 1981. What you think this is so and you think its a good thing. Lets see, i think it is a beautiful thing and i love all of my colleagues and never criticize them. And its true that it has been like that of late but it has not always been that way enemy for example, i was thinking about it i reading some books of the summer is striking to me that when justice frankford was on the court was law students in the audience know, he had been a professor at harvard divinity started simultaneously with Justice Jackson who did not get a law degree pretty jackson learn and get city law by being an apprentice prudent simultaneously on the court and he had gone to the university of alabama law school. So it is true the recently, the court had been populated more with those who have gone to Ivy League Law school but has no occasions i dont think it always needs to be the case right. I think the university of minnesota an attorney there plenty of places that produce excellent lawyers. They should not be overlooked. While in addition to the fact that most of the justices graduated from 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 justice kate may be the only one who was on the record it appeals judge before owing onto the court and i think that she was nominated for one and a confirmed along the way. So do you think the goal would benefit from more diversity in either geographic backgrounds most of the justices come from courts of appeal on the east coast and so would greater geographic diversity and more professional experience such as legislative experience they benefit to the court and i think Justice Oconnor was a last justice who served in the legislature before going on to court. I think thats right and Justice Oconnor served in the Arizona State legislature. I may well been her experiences state legislature that made her particular committed to federal which is the balance for the nonlawyers in the room which is the states rights by the independence of states in a federal system. [background sounds]. [inaudible]. Please quiet down and allow the lecture to continue, demonstrations and destructive behavior, are not authorized inside of the auditorium. Please quiet down and allow the lecture to continue in the disrupted behavior does not cease, we will be compelled to invoke minnesota statute it and instructed parties will be required to vacate the room. [chanting]. [chanting]. [chanting]. Q the slide please and is ordered this destructive sit behavior season the innercity revokes any rights of individual to continue disrupted this event. [applause] [applause] all those who fail to comply will be when violation of minnesota minnesota statute subdivision three and interference in abuse of public property, and minnesota statute 609. 605, trespassing and will be placed under arrest by the university police. All destructive parties are asked to vacate the room or be subject to arrest. [applause] [applause] [background sounds]. Well our conversation. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] [applause] you know justice we really are minnesota nice and we dont thats a were so delighted that you are here. In utah to notre dame for 15 years and you taught a constitutional law course knows you been in the court for three years, is the court what you thought it was when you taught it or how would you teach the course differently now with your experience. I think the court is what i thought it was when i taught it and i think that i would teach the class the same way when it comes to the substance because the cases are with cases are on the role of the court is what it is. But in thinking about what i know now that i did not know then and they do not think that i really well i was law clerk at the court, with Justice Kelly and they do think that i fully appreciated but even as a law clerk, the weight that the opinions are written. As an academic head, has a professor in law student and ensure the law suited into students in the room feel this way can be frustrating when a Supreme Court opinion does not answer all of the questions are when it fails like some issues are blocked over anything about what about this or what about that. And its challenging to write on the Multimember Court. So if you look at opinions and you read them very carefully, and you remember that the author of the opinions when i write an opinion, not speaking only for myself, only in my own voice, am writing for everyone else who joined the majority d. That means that i have to do find a way to thread the needle so that what i say is something that everybody of my colleagues in the majority can agree with. And so that sometimes it means glossing over some things where people dont agree or maybe people are just ready or not ready to take a position on something. And then we also i sometimes see law professors criticizing an opinion inside of the court that this issue open it did not decide it. Its not that we didnt know about its usually very deliberate choice. Because we want to be very careful, not to answer to many questions in cases where those issues have front and center they have not been fully breached and not had the benefit of a lot of opinions on the lower courts. And so i think that i would pay a lot more attention now and i encourage you who are law students to do that in 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. And i think appreciating that in the challenges of writing in the situation for a larger and even larger than when i was on the court of appeals where i would be writing for one or two other colleagues. So i think that is the thing that ive grown to appreciate the most that i would approach differently in the classroom. The court now has four women justices serving the first time in its history. And you perhaps more often align with some of the conservative justices and just as mayor and kagan and jackson, often joint with other liberal justices although certainly not true in many many cases. But are there occasions when the four women justices get together for any purpose. [laughter] [laughter] will for any reason. [laughter] just to sort of celebrate the fact that there are for now; see, i would say that im so delighted to have the justice as my new colleague and i would say that the women do not what i think ideologically or will i will start by saying that my very first term on the court, was in a fixed but it was not the fixed three that you might be expecting when you open a newspaper. Was the six men and i was writing the dissent for Justice Kagan and mayor and me and so it is certainly not always the case you know, that women are in different sides and actually, last term, i thank you so the case of the there were only five decisions in which the three other women justices kagan mayor and jackson, were and so that is only five where they were the three together only five and 67 or so cases that was herded so there are all kinds of other lineups all of the time and if i myself you know in a group saying that say the Justice Kagan or jackson or i would not want to leave the impression that i am never fighting alongside of them and i was very excited when they decided and i could speak for them. I dont think that my perspective or anybodys perspective is different just by virtue of being a woman. I think we bring to the law methodological and credential commitments that are independent you know of our, but i think that is delightful to have a companionship of them and as tradition of the course is that the formerly most junior justice that was me for was a for the new junior justice whose Justice Jackson. So get to do that we did it last january and just for the justices and their spouses. Retired justices and their spouses joined us the well read and so i got into pick their favorite foods, and she picked her favorite entertainment and i know she found out she really loved hamilton and so i found someone whose names on broadway and cayman sang serenaded her so it is really delightful to have people on the court to consider for an. Cut and required welcome, singers and so. Will for me the justices you know from new orleans and for me, just as kavanagh and his wife ashley when they threw a party found some new orleans singers to sing jazz music so including a second line. I wanted to ask you about one difference between you and the other women justices in the court. That you might be the first mother with minor children to serve on the court. And indeed you are a justice and a mother with several children in school. So how do you manage your work and school age children. Leslie eric, i think that my day the struggle of balancing being a mom having children in school and sports in school activities, probably no different than most working moms and is the same struggle the balancing it all and sitting in all of the hours in the day that i have one of the law professor when i was on the court of appeals and so i think that respect, the main challenges are no different than the challenges all working moms. I think the justice position can be funny. Then i have four children who are still in high school or grade school. So in the mornings, getting a memo with the door school and her youngest son is 11, and he is down syndrome in his best picks him up last and advocates are already gone. Any really enjoys musings or packing his backpack and a be packing my briefcase and he chooses the songs. So there was one day last term when benjamin had been choosing some music including not so much the upper classic who let the dogs out. [laughter] and i guess to the court, and in the court as you are walking in the hallways and that the basement area has portraits of all of the justices who served before in a very dignified and all along in my brain dont listen to this song if you dont want to have that in your mind all day long and about walking emily dignified men and who let the dogs out so i think theres a justice position had i leave work and i wind up at into volleyball games with much of the other moms or you know when the last week i was serving hot lunch make it school as a parent volunteer but i think that all of those things are things that in my current position in particular, i really appreciate. Is a very grounding and they keep me very much rooted in real life with regular people the kinds of moms that are sitting at the sidelines of soccer games that my whole mothering career. Good for you. And following graduation notre dame, you court as you mentioned for judge silverman. For the dc circuit and for justice in the Supreme Court heard any of expressed Great Respect for both of them and particularly you have talked about Justice Scalia and i think that after your appointment, to the court you were quoted as saying that Justice Scalia initial philosophy was also your judicial philosophy. Its also true and how would you describe that philosophy. Will Justice Scalia was very wellknown for his commitment to both regionalism and constitutional interpretation. And the statute and i would say that he could boil both of those judicial philosophy santa the proposition that law and control and ensure the philosophy and show that commitment. And so i think there would be very little difference between us if you ask about the central role of the judge, to adhere to the text in the text is a clear answer. And do not impose ones own views on the law to respect the law. And we certainly have some differences and styles for example, you know he is a fantastic writer with very well known for being a fantastic writer. And he was what he could be like i was saying, when youre at a restaurant and youre looking at the menu and otago spicy it is and i have three jalapenos to one of the number more of a one jalapeno. Judge than the three and so i keep close attend to prefer the heat to be a little bit lower say they dispense or if it changes back and forth without made his a lot more entertaining to me. Yes was suppose coming from Southern Italian background, you put more peppers. Yes more fire yes fire. Will Justice Khalil participated in the conversation as part of the series in this very auditorium. Tragically, only a few months before his death. Could you talk a little bit about your we started talking about the Justice Scalia just now i could you talk about your relationship through the years both as a clerk and then the years since you are a clerk. Will yes, Justice Khalil was a great role model for a young boy or news very funny subbing his clerk involved hearing lots of funny stories. And i recall a couple of times hearing him singing opera in his office from the outside clerks office, but he is very committed my girlfriend and i were talking by this recently actually, we were asking each other what we thought was the most important piece of advice the justice gave us and he said, always make it virtually immovable commitment to be home to have dinner with your family because that is the most important thing the matter how much you have to work later its night, do it. And i think we all remember to be very struck by that and so i think that even apart from everything that he taught me about the law, how to think but the law and being a judge, i think he was an example just as much about being a person the person who you know he was great people who had views differ from his own and is friendship with Justice Ginsburg was a great example of that heard what he was full of life and he did not hold back and his like to say i have ideas not by people cant tell the difference between the two is a judge in the wrong line of work. And so is wiry as he mightve been because he was italian background, he was very good at maintaining relationships being committed to his family and thank you so a very important example to me so i did not one law. Is a remarkable friendship between Justice Khalil and ginsberg and she told stories of the two of them was very proud that it opera had been written about their friendship anything it is called, Scalia Ginsberg and she swings it that he was a senior justice of his name came first. [laughter] but i never seen it. I have not either. Apparently, and the opera he was in prison for excessive dissenting. [laughter] and then somehow she rescues him coming through a Glass Ceiling which he breaks. [laughter] so they had a wonderful relationship between the two of them. We joined of the court, in 2020, going to ask you with some justice is the result there were even more welcoming than others and you mentioned just as kavanagh, on this new orleans dinner party, i was adjoining the court. By joining the court, during covid19 so is pandemic was still raging people not fully come back to work although when i was sworn in, come in as a that anyone in my colleagues was more welcoming that another because they were all equally welcoming and wonderful tone is sworn in by the chief justice, just as buyer was still in boston as it was a problem for him because he cannot travel without greater exposure those in washington, came to the course the swearingin and we just didnt have a Conference Room and everybody had a mask on and spread out socially distanced in the Conference Room and everybody was there and everybody was warm and whether things that meant a lot to me in the beginning was it was right around halloween and just as mayor came to my office jesse my husband had come for this ring and her children were back games when believing an hour or two to go back to south into hold on the fort while i was commuting back and forth from washington and the justice came in and she had made bags of halloween candy for my children to take back to them and i had no staff and i would end and had no staff no law clerks no office advised or anything in the day and you cant really hire a staff before you confirmed it so would be screaming and i have my first oral argument in just a few days and i had while i didnt even know how to get into the computer sees system in the justice printed and he dispatched his assistance to come over lancer my files they packed me up with officer boys and was living by myself two weeks of the month in washington in the house i was renting a dinner invitation for my colleagues and they did everything in the power to make me feel welcome and what was a difficult time. Justice ginsburg just passed away never but he was under the stress of covid19 and everyone went above and beyond to make me feel welcome. That goes right into the next question was when he also particular sharp differences in the last couple of years between the majority and the dissent and have those sharp differences affected the relationship between the justices at all continue to be a place where justices embrace one another. It is i go back to the saying that i just repeated, ipaq ideas not people anything that is what opinions are in the park is put on the page about is not expressed into the personal relationships and you have all the Court Decides which is of great importance and there are lawyers in the court who are very smart and passionate about what theyre doing. Convince because everyone gives a great deal setting time intention is been months with listening to the oral arguments when you first participate in it listening again to the oral arguments talking with your colleagues at the end of the process, you are sure that your answers right but when youre in a mental hundred Multimember Court others you differently. In many cases especially some of the month the most difficult and seven really press on the divide say between original is a mark potential is him in a series that leads to more by the joint of the texans of those are very difficult cases which the agreement can be sharp literally does say the page i think its one of the reasons that some of the things that we said at the beginning about this lecture are important part of that is time spent its over in the building with each other the justices have lunch everyday that we have oral arguments in everyday after conference so just coming off of these last two weeks when we are in session, thats a unders was one of july critical to present a childcare issue but we together we spent time together i think when you know people as people, even not because employing tuesday and change your mind when youre talking about something im not friends are friendly with her show affection or warmth because i think in a means and related ram going to try to come about because i i honestly enjoy dinner as a person shes very smart and funny i enjoyed spinning time with her i think when you have relationships with people spend time with people, its easy to see them as people not just embodiments of ideas cement when he talked about Justice Kagan funny she was a participant here in the past and shes hilarious in your Justice Khalil was certainly hilarious it was a funniest member and Supreme Court right now. [laughter] [laughter] suis is kind of like somebody asked me, whos your favorite child and this is being recorded so whatever i say. [laughter] well i have many funny colleagues. [laughter] [laughter] very diplomatic and let me turn to a more serious question. Court is been criticized for not having a code of conduct lime to Supreme Court justices heard and chief Justice Roberts is been quoted as saying the court is working on it and various just to be justices income is not get it consensus about such code of conduct in the senate has passed a code of conduct. Let me ask you comedy favor a favor enter it for a new kind of conduct for Supreme Court justices and what benefit do you see that as. More think that it would be a good idea for us to do it vertically so we can communicate to the public exactly what it is we are doing inquiry and perhaps we have been able to do so far and will say this, there is no lack of consensus among the justices and their union amenity among all nine justices that we should we hold ourselves to Higher Standards and ethical standard possible and so i think we are thinking about ending thinking about what i think about thinking of conduct is how best to express what it is and we already abide by the statute enter number of statutes that govern all judges including justices will file her Financial Disclosure form for example gift regulations and other statutory requirements and then i personally this is true my colleagues as well so follow the same when i was a court of appeals judge and the standards of conduct in their are some differences that apply to the courts just by virtue of a position in the hierarchy of the judiciary and think you know, we sped our day job is reading statutes and sing of congress anticipated everything or communicated everything clearly so you know i think we want to do good job of that. To think that it will take much longer to come to an agreement about what a code might be for 24 c looking ahead. Policy, i think that is something that i cant really speak for the court about or make any sort of guess about that. I would just say that one thing i would want all of you to know that online justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct an online justices and were in agreement about what to do and want to continue to follow the highest ethical standard. So annie this agreement is not nothing to do with either of those. Will let me turn to another hot button. Will thank you. We cant solve the games. [laughter] the court is been criticized for overturning longstanding president s in some major decisions in the past two terms without getting into the issues in those cases, could you comment on the way that you think should be given that you give to longstanding president howdy without in deciding how to decide cases. Will sure, one thing before you answer the latter part, i do want to quibble with your apprentice because the court, actually, the Roberts Court including my time on it, is at a low when you look at historically how many president s are overruled and interned and historically its about two or three and we are at upon in the last two terms there was dobson i think a lot of things probably get filtered through that because it seems they overturn a lot of president s with Library Congress has a checker to show theres a table showing how many the have owned for ruled its only been to edward which partially overruled chivers lane and i nothing is empirically that there overturn a lot of president s but we have overturn it and every court does overtime look back through time because the doctrine has said that the presumption that the president s essays, has never said its absolute nor coded nor anybody wanted to because of precedents were incapable of being overturned, we would not have this person the board of education. And you know warrants versus texas which recognizes the right to same and intimacy overrules precedents and versus hodges which was the case that recognize the right to samesex marriage overrules precedents as well holding to the contrary seven many cases over time that have overturn precedents and i think its how we think about it when i think about wayne but the precedents about it as it were in south over time, the Supreme Court is developed a doctrine that itself contains bylines tells the court when it is time for precedents to be overruled. And those considerations are the ones that i myself consider in deciding when it is time for precedents to be overruled and things like you know first of all, is a right or wrong it only becomes a live question if the prior case was wrong if it was wrongly decided, you ask about what the effects of that error having an today hat would correcting their error upset reliance interest is that error distorted other areas of the law was becoming difficult for the courts to apply those of the kinds of considerations and so it is that balancing act where you dont not when leave the errors uncorrected in this are very good reasons for doing so and often times are really good reasons for letting letting sleeping dogs lie pretty but its a challenge because remember the constitution is the law and ratified by the people and so if a court the constitutional present tense, if the court has gotten it wrong in a constitutional case that has interpreted the constitution, incorrectly, theres a cost to that as well is a cost to democratic choice because people are either hindered from doing things they might want to do or the state is limited from doing things they might want to do for example on so sometimes, its important to overrule the precedents and because it can be particularly costly in the constitutional contacts proved particularly difficult to remedy errors because the court does not fix it and the only way to remedy an error constitutional amendment which is a difficult process so the court is always given constitutional precedents, thus weight and say statutory precedents which are given superstrong effects of what some of the cases say because those are more easily corrected by congress through legislative action is overruling precedents is not something to be done lightly and the courts own guidelines say followed for centuries recognizing there are times when its a course of duty to do so. Wearing your list of cases that did overturn precedents and are widely held impressive list of the court is funding the past and can ask you what is your view of substantive due process heard. Also substantive due process for those nonlawyers in the room, the doctrine is located in the 14th amendment the 14th amendment to process clause the no person should be deprived of life liberty or without due process of law read says read ten the language sounds procedural and is guaranteeing the nobody is going to public age of property without a relevant to the students at a Public College this run by the state of minnesota that you have right will the states the university the due process would protect procedurally. But in addition to those procedural guarantees, the cause has consonant body with known as substance of class a series of substance guarantees i was well traded soy for example, the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their childrens one of the first of the category that the court recognize is located in the substantive due process right located in the due process clause. And it is a controversial doctrine because of due process by itself says hey thats procedural language and so why is somebody looking at substantive rights to begin with and because the rights are not expressed, but rather ones at the court locates or decides the text, you combine two very difficult factors, the court is identifying the rights of the text does not make it explicit head then some of the rights of the course that has identified is located in the due process clause, are particularly hot button ones. So due process clause as a source of say the right to use contraception the court recognize a due process so the court has identified some rights is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty located in the due process was this at others for example the rights die is not one of those rights is inherent in the due process clause and therefore protected in their tricky business to identify rights the people and ratifying our foundational document the constitution have not done so identified the court as a matter of precedents as trying to ensure that the court does not get too far ahead of his line by saying that the only kind of rights i can fairly be described as being located in the due process clause are those protected by longstanding deeply rooted tradition because that prevents the court from just income you know we think that in the good and moral Justice Society that this is the right people should have and should be the people of the United States the state constitutions and the federal constitutions to themselves decide and good in right and a moral Justice Society is an individual rights that people should have. So the bars are recognizing the rights and substantive due process doctrine located in the cause that the bar should be high in the precedents excessive high so that the court does not act as a constitution maker rather than a constitution word interpreter. Is a good statement of your position. We turn to another area, the court is been deciding fewer cases in recent years some commentators have called that the courts shrinking docket. Not too many years ago when was doing work in this area the court was deciding a 100 150 cases a year in recent years, number has dropped down to 75 cases a year you mentioned earlier 57 last year the court took 57 opinions one of the lowest number not sure if it was the lowest. To call me on 57 i might be off what is right around there. Okay, so why is the court taking fewer cases and which you personally favor docket that had more cases on it were justices could agree to get for justices to take the case you think it would be better if the court took more cases each year. Lets see. Well say, that the court mirrors the docket by the enemy the the case and with the court hears on the merit makes a decision that smaller so its a around 57 last year the number of petitions filed is also smaller so the third petition for this are the petitions that winning his files and theyre asking the court to hear a case in the past, they may have approach as many as 500 6000 and right now were closer to 4000 so the numbers are down i think that might have well im not exactly sure why, their various there is more now i think we might be seeing some of the after effects of covid19 because during the pandemic the District Courts were not conducting trials and so therefore those cases there were not cases that were not appeal to the court of appeals there are now making it up to us i think that everything so down and were at the end of the line and so i think we see a little bit of that leg. So even before covid19, it was dropping a little bit in the chief justice has said, weve talked about this and i think he actually mightve quoted this at a lecture is that electronic legal databases might be reducing the number of splits that we have and i will explain in a sling the circuit this when the court of appeals across the country take the same legal issue and resolve it differently. As one of the classic cases which is Supreme Court. And because we well because we are the top of the judicial hierarchy, if there are disagreements, we can resolve them to make a law uniform throughout the country so state Supreme Court are disagreeing with one another or state Supreme Court disagree with federal court of appeal, you dont want to have different law applicable and say, california than oklahoma. Or in minnesota than in louisiana. So the court will step in and resolve the split this probably the most common situation in which we step in and we get involved and i think there are fewer splits than they used to be. So one thing you know it we say some people are surprised to hear, that we do not take cases just to correct errors. Just error correction we have not historically done that the Supreme Court rules identify the factors that we apply in deciding whether to take the case and theres a circuit split or is this an issue of National Importance of really kinda demands Supreme Court intervention instant act of congress has not entered been held unconstitutional, if the federal government asked us to take a case in state governments ask us to take a case as are all things we take into an account that weigh heavily in favor of renting this will save out i think that it would be good probably to have more cases but i do not think that we are leaving this on the table that i think that we should take and were looking carefully through the petition but unless we were to change the traditional criteria, i dont see a lot of things that were not taking that it would make sense for us to take. Kosher taking a lot of hot button pieces in the last few terms and so taking the cases that have a lot of attention. Let me turn to oral arguments. During covid19, the procedure involved in oral argument changed in some respect and if you could come and talk about that. But our particular, how is it changed oral arguments going forward. And sure, in covid19, the court conducted oral arguments by audio. To make it manageable if you have nine justices and if any of you have listened to Court Argument or maybe attended when in prison, you know that they can be a lot of jumping and injustices are asking questions and it can be very hot bench and it can be very active. I never audio, can be very challenging for the advocates of their just hearing disembodied voices cutting it over one another trying to figure out how to respond. So the make it manageable, the court had a more root regime in place where the course with the justices in order to seniority would ask the questions and if you had an uninterrupted like the time where each justice had a couple of minutes and could ask the advocates the question and then when the time was up, they went to the next and so on. I was last because i was a junior justice at that point. It was actually will i thought for me, as a brandnew justice, i appreciated that system because it did not put me in a position of having to talk over my senior colleagues right when i first started and be aggressive just to get my questions answered and so i appreciated the opportunity to ask questions on or after entered under directed without having to interrupt others and will move went back to the bench, when you decide would we keep the system and keep going you know just asking questions you know one by one or would we return to the old way or is more a little bit more of a free for all or do some combination and so we chose to do a combination. And we have first Justice Thomas senior associate justice ask his question and then the floor is open. And the only role really is were also must be cognizant of time of the only role really, if two justices speak at the same time, similar senior justice gives the floor. Sue fields to more senior justice. So other than that you just get in u. S. You question and we do have cleanup grounds at the end and with the advocates time is over we do something that looks like during covid19 and goes on the line from the cheap jump to the justice because is now the most junior to get ask your questions and take some of the pressure off of the open floor proud because you know that you will have a chance to have your question asked and you do not have to feel like you have to be really aggressive about getting your questions in and you know although, by the same token, it is not Good Practice to save all of your questions for the cleanup around because it really prolongs the argument you dont want to do that you want to be sensitive to the time that we mount up with a blend. Him well, when we think of Supreme Court cases, we first think of the oral arguments and the Media Coverage oral arguments in the question asked if anything will be as who, what is the benefit of oral arguments and you ever persuaded bike and argument by consul to change the opinion you had after reading the briefs. I am and i thank you so a method oral arguments doesnt change minds and i do my homework before the oral arguments were going to the arguments with a sense this is my be stronger or weaker depending upon the issue in your whether it is something never any written about her thought about it for some areas of the law you know i still some areas ive not decided a lot of cases rise of you been on the court will say with the chief justice you written a lot of the cases in any event no, oral argument can team a minute house on the bottom line before and also has an effect on how opinions are written as those of you lawyers and other in the room about one to be an advocate monday, one thing very effective and you know justice here and argument will how would you write the opinion or in oral argument last week Justice Thomas asked a question that the council just finished the sentence, this is unconstitutional because like can you articulate the lines that could be then be the holding the case. When advocates answer to that my change of it is mine or how an opinion is written so i think its important oral argument is important and can affect the scope of the opinion new life in practicalities in the arguments of viceroys that argument was just as unmanageable as a team going in or say no actually come there is way to handle this if you are trying to walk a tight rope pretty lawyer my say no you can really do this really can write this in a way that wont mess up the area. Let me turn to another part of your career, long time while School Professor let me ask you questions about Legal Education. Which are opinion of Legal Education today when you think were doing a good job training our students for the various roles that would take or what changes would you like to see. One think broadly speaking so i think law school they do a good school and obviously in ones im familiar with this notre dame because thats a loss for which i taught that i attended one thing important Legal Education is something i thought about as a loss professor numbers and some of things were discussing earlier. As law professor taught a seminar which is the theory and art how to interpret statutes. I follow an approach to statutory interpretation which would aim to identify the statues this meeting of ordinary meaning and follow that even if that ordinary meaning might seem intention with the purposes of the law or that i think i can make it make more sense if i did not quite enforce it if it is said, to this point think congress would prefer in a situate entered situation like this to go this way even though its intention is different in a nutshell the nonlawyers, that would be textualism Justice Breyer was more pragmatic interpretation which would say will the text matters considerate with times in which we should not be slaves to it we should think about the pragmatic consequences on that end. There are approaches on Justice Breyers which will be inclined to give more weight to legislative history wears my approach and others like is and would minimalize that bring this up to say that when ive had my interpretation of tried very hard to keep my own use out of it grows law professor lives a lot easier because now from my view is more obvious but one of the law professor try to give my own views out of and i really wanted them to learn both sides and the people in the class work making arguments frankly argument i agreed with and i did not feel like people on the other side were making the other arguments of a step in the advocate make the other side and i think the Legal Education if it ever slips away from teaching students how to see both sides, is he the best argument for both sides, anything that point Legal Education would be doing students a disservice and i would tell my students with the statutory interpretation, you might have leave this class the legislative history with useless tool and dangerous tool and judges shouldnt use it but i think when you going to practice, you better use it. [laughter] if you think your representing a client itself you put in your brief you think will persuade the judge because you have to be an impressive lawyer and you have to understand how to use all of the organist and you will not be arguing informed have judges necessarily to think the same way as youths the lawyer do and i think its really important for law school to do that. To request a students be able to see both sides and debate both sides and do use all of those tools. You talk about what the law school should do. What advice would you have for law students the audience today. I think for law students i would say take advantage of all of your opportunities to learn about lots of things and challenge yourself and expose yourself to ideas that you might not think you agree with new may not agree with him at the end of the day either law and, i mean, how many who decide to go to law school were told that one point in their childhood like would you like to argue so youre probably going to be a lawyer. And its true lawyers went up arguing and is true whether you wind up being a litigator or you wind a transactional lawyer in your having to negotiate deals. You need to learn how to see both sides and you need to learn how to argue and you need to learn how to be able to do it and simply because thats what lawyers do and thats how you produce the votes required to become the citizens and leading members thats how you contribute to your community so i would say, look at all the opportunities that you can to take classes that challenge you to hear ideas to challenge you learn how to debate and argue in ways in a respectful and will prepare view when use stephanie have to do the same thing back imoinda turn to question from law students but i wanted to ask you a question first are you enjoying yourself on the Supreme Court. It has ups and downs. The work is important obviously and it is similar substance to a depth and on the seventh circuit because your deciding cases resolving reading briefs and speaking about the law writing about the law so the substance of the work is a same in privilege and an honor to serve the country do the work in ways that really matter so we take responsibility hannah feel the weight of that knowing what i do, i will be very well prepared to do my best think hard and use all of the duties of my office consistently with my hope and in the most to the best of my ability you know in the most responsible way possible and stiffer than being a law professor three jones we are not exercising the power of government and self i always wanted to do my best to do the best my students in the way to the job is not something that kept me up at night because of the weight of the job so i feel a great responsibility also privilege an interesting. Im amazed that i get to work with colleagues that i have smart and warm lovely walking into this building and you know i was amazed walking into the building as a law clerk im amazed now working as a justice in the court such an important function in our society. And i would say, enjoy myself is not quite the right word that i would use. But its a privilege to serve and no regrets about undertaking the service and fully conscious of everything im doing is very important to the people of america and the people for whom i work. Very well said. Im going to turn to questions from students now some might touch in areas weve already talked about and have more to say about a goahead. For the rapid advancement of technology often presents new challenges for the legal system. Highly approach converts cases where the law has not yet caught up to technological reality. So i think, i think technology is one of the challenges and i will say all couple things about that because i do not want to take all of the time. Last term, the court heard cases involving twitter and google in the intersection of Anti Terrorism statutes and social media algorithms. Another challenging cases because Technology Changes so rapidly right in your thinking about these issues. We are limited and will be no i think that was the case when Justice Kagan said something on the bench about were not on the internet. Congress also incentives can be difficult because there become quickly outdated some statues were written directed a cabletv now theyre having to apply to the internet age and the services have the streaming services and so i think that is a very very difficult area in the think thats one of the areas when i said that when we decide whether to grant this case, think that is an area in which need for questioning and prudence and sometimes we cannot avoid stepping in because theres a conflict we just have to step in and solve it but i think thats an area in which we are aware of that and personally i think the living some time for technology to develop in the lower courts with the issues benefit the court not something that you want to jump in and make Technology Changes. Here is a second question, in your opinion, what is the role of the sense in shaping legal interpretation and how do you view this in your role. So people like the sense for Different Reasons and i have seen different people express different reason for Justice Breyer, he said business big city gave that he writes a dissent for himself. Because he was to express his view but he also has that last hope that hell convince his colleagues because of how course he was right and he said he would compel his wife when they did not join me. And you know you have to explain yourself and Justice Khalil used to say that he wrote his december the Law School Case course because if he could write them really well the law students would read them and even influence law students and maybe one day they would come the majority Justice Ginsburg actually said something similar, rapid overly to become majority opinions and i think it is an this as you need to show both sides of the argument were we saw the case differently, have to explain why men shall come there some cases in which you help my become a majority but in many ways, the since these less room for disruption under just concurrences. And i think those are things in which may be not even still greater judgment to make about when you write in an effort to point to issues that need to be addressed and should be addressed and shape the law. Thank you, now here is another student question prayed in a world with many viewpoints particularly with statutory and constitutional interpretation, honey balance the practice of originalist had specialist ideals with the increasing abundance of definitions of the text. Because i guess the issue is, is there too much. Too much text because of too many statues. Welds a world of more viewpoints a guest okay more viewpoints. So im not sure i totally follow the question. But i will take a stab. And so one thing that question might be getting at is that a textual list, try to interpret the language as an ordinary reader of the language would is okay to be that one thing that the question is getting asked whos the ordinary reader and we have like in court where you the lawsuit as you have the mythical reasonable man and you judge everything through the eyes of that reasonable man so textual is may be judges everything in the eyes of that reasonable reader so it could be the question might be getting up we have so many different ways of looking at the world and hearing the language and looking at the text, how can you possibly identify who that ordinary speak of the languages and i would say, that it can be difficult honestly to figure out as a target audience for the statute so is that reasonable reader. But you narrowed it down and all nine justices, treat the tax as controlling differences and how he would get there but dont want to give the impression that you normally only one who knows his taxable its important to everyone. Your reading this text as an informed observer and familiar with all of the circumstances in fact of that statute had that statutory language. So that does narrowed it down to somebody was an informed observer and familiar with the statute in context and so, that does help but i do agree, you know, that it can be challenging in a world of many viewpoints to figure out who that mythical reasonable person mythical both ordinary one is. This next question is interesting. Critically to go another direction. What role does empathy play in your judicial decisionmaking process especially when faced with cases that have profound personal and societal implications. This one of the very difficult things about judging. And it was something that i found difficult on the court of appeals and the defined now. And of the court of appeals come i felt that is very acutely recall several criminal cases. On the Supreme Court in criminal cases, but in many many Different Cases and one of the challenges about him being a judge and generally not just the justice on the Supreme Court, is the need on the one hand to follow the law and i do not want nor should i because it would be a violation of my oath to let my emotions on my personal feeling the outcome of the decision and by the same token, i dont ever want elusive site of humanity and ever loosethe fact that her decisions have no real consequences. This was a very well when practice that the court had delivery pension statement with the author of the majority opinion will announce the opinion and you give a brief summary of the opinion. And my first we did not do hand downs during covid19 when they first came back last term of the very first time that i did a hand down, it was in a case involving disabled disability benefits for a veteran. As a nine zero decision but it found with the court held that the benefits the role of the veteran wanted which would have given him access to disability benefits decided against it was not available when i went into the courtroom, just so happened that the courtroom was packed with lawyers and members of the armed enforcement there could be sworn as a Supreme Court bar they were all in uniform is very good reminder to me and i had to read my opinion and i had to meet eyes with all of these members of the armed forces in the case in which the court, was deciding is someone whod served our country and i left the bench and said like really, i can add to schedule the handedly on this day. But i had to do that and i had to own it and you know, you cant just hide in the court and forget about the real world impact however, i have a hard time you know with the Death Penalty and i have a hard time in these cases but i thank you so a judge is important to wear head not your heart that has to make the decision. But you should never lose sight of the fact that these are real people. The next one, what books are the writers have influenced your legal writing style. Well i dont know if i could pinpoint where the writer influence might have but one thing is that i will say, is that the First Research paper that i ever did in high school, was on hemingway and i was very taken of a style hemingway as you know, very fair writer. And he does not use a lot of adjectives or adverbs. This generally the way of right and pretty fair and try to be very linear and when i was looking for the judge on the circuit right out of law school, he called me into his Office Monday and he said, amy, youre an excellent writer but dont be afraid to use adverbs predict. [laughter] and so in my writing style while im note judicial hemingway come i dont claim out my do tend to keep his advice in the back of my mind. Was my question one of the students but we been talking about writing, rewriting to when youre writing an opinion. Are you writing to the other justices or to the general public. Are you writing to the parties white will who is the audience for your opinion. Well a little bit of everyone. I always tell people and i suspect even lawyers to listen to this advice, they should read the opinion so what opinions to be accessible so i try to write in a way thats accessible as possible to someone in the public interested maybe not a lawyer the needs and opinion but the reality is that not all opinions lend themselves to that because some involved test technical language and so i cannot say, im writing this in a way that my mom is not a lawyer can pick us up and find it entertaining and follow opal. Amboise writing for the lawyer and the parties in the bar doesnt and professor and also have law students in my mind and 20 years im still teaching in trying to teach at least once ar my law students and the students it will have to read the opinions dont want them to be able to follow them and understand them. Your answer that you wanted people like your mother to understand the opinion and i asked the same question of chief Justice Roberts and he said that he was writing to his sisters and then he wanted to be sure that his sisters when under senate but were not lawyers recent another way of saying the American Public understand it and reasons for the decision. Another couple of questions here in, we have time for from the students are there any historical Supreme Court decisions or justices that have particularly influence your judicial philosophy or approach. So obviously, because i thought so much of Justice Scalia, that i would have to say in the largest impact on my judicial philosophy but i think when i think about the history of the court, and i think about especially now that im there and justices have set a course, i think you know so many people say, chief Justice John Marshall but ill say it from for Different Reasons for the judicial review. And of the come up several times about collegiality and building consensus on the court and he was really master of that. And when he joined the court, when he became chief, the justices will not even a living in the same city and you know they would come and congregate mentors Like Washington thats where the court and then i did not have a building they did not have chambers and we had them say the same boardinghouse said they would take the meals together and be together while they were there doing cases that really had the effect building camaraderie and the force and 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 keith back in those days and how he saw the case and i think that as i have been a judge will from the court of appeals the Supreme Court, jesse so how important it is a Multimember Courts to be able to work for a consensus and so i have that in my mind. I think this will be the final question that we will ask of you. And i think you very much these have been terrific questions that you wrote in your opinion, the Legal Profession become a more inclusive place for people from historically underrepresented to communities. I think law schools should be doing everything that they can to make firstgeneration students you know feel welcome and give them the help they need in the Legal Profession, should not in just in law school but with the mentoring in the kind of advice in the Legal Profession and i encourage all of you who are law students, once you get into the bar, to give your time for mentoring Young Lawyers Young Lawyers who are new to the profession who may not come from families of lawyers in them. Majority there underrepresented to community and i think this is the last question and this is my conclusion. I think i will say that i think for all of you, you think about one another whether you are looking for welcoming those who under representative communities into the school and into your profession, whether youre looking at people with whom you disagree, to really see one another as people. One thing that is striking about america that i would tell my common law students when i taught common law, we are a huge country and we have few rivals in the size of our population in a landmass and we all are living together under this very large tent in the constitution is what unites us. And so we have to figure out a way to find our Common Ground and persuade one another and see one anothers humanity and the humanity of those with whom he were now sharing the Legal Profession who your continuing to do so in the future. So you are the future of the Legal Profession you law students so entrusted to you and i know that you will do that and i think you for the reception that you give me today and think you for hearing me speak. Thank you Justice Amy Coney barrett. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [background sounds]. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies, and more including comcast. Are you thinking is just the community center, no, it is way more than that. Comcast is partnering with a thousand Community Centers to create wifi enabled diverse students of with low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything comcast, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. American history tv, saturdays on cspan2, exporting the people and events that tell the american story and a 7 00 p. M. Eastern, douglas front discusses his book the mysterious case of rudolph diesel, where he recounts the life of mr. Diesel inventor of the Diesel Engine in his 1913 disappearance during the lead up to world war i and 9 30 p. M. Eastern on the presidency, a discussion on 1976 president ial campaign rivals jimmy carter and gerald ford who became lifelong friends and common causes in the decades after they left the white house. A slowing the american, watch American History tv, saturdays on cspan2, and find the full schedule in your program guide, watch online anytime at cspan. Org history. Coming up, matt holds of the assistant attorney general for National Security called for the reauthorization of Foreign Surveillance policy which was sent to expire at the e