The Daily Signal - 2 Female Senators Share Perspectives on the Amy Coney Barrett Hearings

Episode Date: October 15, 2020

The Senate Judiciary Committee has wrapped up its third and final day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. On this episode, we have an interview from a new "minipodcast" from The Heritage Foundation called "Perspectives: Confirming Amy Coney Barrett."  Judge Amy Coney Barrett sat for another full day of questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee and continues to impress nearly everyone watching. Sens. Joni Ernst and Marsha Blackburn reflect on Wednesday’s action. Ernst asked what advice Barrett has for young women and Blackburn casts doubt on the tactics of the left. We also cover these stories: Barrett, President Trump's third nominee to the Supreme Court, declines to comment on whether a president could pardon himself or herself.  Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., presses Barrett on her views of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.  A majority of voters say they support Barrett for the Supreme Court.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, October 15th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rachel Dald Judas. Today we are featuring an interview from a new mini podcast from the Heritage Foundation, Perspectives Confirming Amy Coney-Barritt, a multi-part series that features intimate, in-depth conversations with the two Republican women on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Joni Ernst and Marshall Blackburn, hosted by Heritage Vice President of Government Relations, Tommy Binion. Don't forget. If you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now, on to our top news.

During her confirmation hearings on Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Amy Barrett did not comment on whether a president could pardon himself or herself. Here's her exchange about presidential pardons with Democrat Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy via CNN. Let me ask you specifically this come up. President Trump claims he has a... right to pardon himself. Now, for 200 years, the Supreme Court has recognized

common law principle, that nobody can be a judge in their own case. That's, I had to go way back and reread Calder versus Bull to see that. But would you agree first that nobody is above the law? not the president, not you, not me. Is that correct? I agree.

No one is above the law. And does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? I mean, we heard this question after President Nixon's impeachment. Senator Leahy, so far as I know, that question has never been litigated, that question has never risen. That question may or may not arise, but it's one that calls for a legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is. So because it would be opining on an open question when I haven't gone through the judicial process to decide it, it's not one on which I can offer in a view. Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, also pressed Judge Barrett Wednesday on her views of the Affordable Care Act. To Leahy's question, did you ever write or speak out against the ACA, meaning the Affordable Care Act?

Barrett responded saying this per PBS News Hour. Of course, in both of those contexts, I was speaking as an academic. And as I mentioned yesterday, an academic serves a very different function than a judge. So an academic doesn't go through the judicial process, doesn't hear the case or controversy, have the litigants and the briefs and the consultation with colleagues. In 2017, Barrett wrote in a Notre Dame Law Review essay that Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.

During the Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett has said, I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law. A majority of American voters say they support President Trump's nominee Judge Amy Barrett for the Supreme Court. According to a poll for morning consult Politico taken over October 9th through 11th, 48% of registered voters said the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett as the Supreme Court Justice, up two percentage points from the 46% in a poll one week ago,

though inside the survey's two-point margins of error. Just 31% of voters said Barrett's nomination should be rejected, which is the same margin from the previous polling. Europe has reported a record high number of coronavirus cases. The World Health Organization reports that last week alone, 700,000 new COVID-19 cases were reported across Europe, a 36% increase from the previous week. Europe is now seeing more cases a day than the U.S. On average, America reports about 51,000 new cases a day.

In Europe, that number has now surged to over 100,000. hundred thousand a day per Reuters. Many European countries are implementing new measures to contain the spread of the virus. Restaurants in Italy have been told to close early. Social gatherings are limited and amateur contact sports have been prohibited. The Netherlands have also placed new restrictions on social gatherings, and Spain has declared a state of emergency in the Madrid region of the country. The head of the World Health Organization in Europe, Dr. Hans Kluge, said, we do have a very very serious situation unfolding before us. Weekly cases have exceeded those reported when the pandemic first peaked in Europe in March. Now stay tuned for Tommy Vinyon's conversation with

Senators Joni Ernst and Marsha Blackburn on Judge Amy Barrett's confirmation hearings. America is at a crossroads. Each day we see the penalties of progressive policies across our nation, while night after night our city streets are set ablaze by riots and rage. That's why the Heritage Foundation has developed a plan to help take our country back. The Citizens Guide to Fight for America provides a series of Heritage recommended action items delivered to you each week. Make an impact in your community and in our country. Sign up for the Citizens Guide at heritage.org slash 2020 and join in the fight for America today. Welcome back to perspectives, the confirmation of Amy Coney-Barritt. We are in day three of

the judge's confirmation hearings. This is a special podcast series with Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. The hearings have gone on so long that the audio in the hearing room has malfunctioned and during the delay, we caught up with Senator Blackburn to hear how today's hearings are going. Senator, thank you for joining us. Oh, I'm delighted to join you. And yes, I think we've, we have broken the audio system in the room and they're trying to figure it out. I'm sure they will have it finished soon. Well, that is no reflection on how well the hearings are going for Judge Barrett. They are going extraordinarily well. This is the second day of grilling. How's she doing? Oh, she is doing a great job. And I am just so pleased for her

because how wonderful that she represents conservative women so well. And, you know, Tommy, it is just everybody is fully aware there is a double standard in D.C. Liberal women are elevated and glorified, and they are just given such accolades, but conservative women are diminished and ridicule and mocked, and they have to fight. for every rung on the ladder that they're able to achieve. And I just think that she has shown that here she is. She's basically a legal outsider, if you will. This is a woman who grew up in the South.

She went to college at Rhodes in Tennessee in Memphis. I would venture to guess that a majority of those on the Democrat side of the dais have not even visited Memphis or Rhodes College ever. Then Judge Barrett went to Notre Dame to law school. While she was there, she had professors and mentors who saw something exceptional in her. and they chose to mentor her and to open doors for her. That is how she ended up clerking for Justice Scalia. It is how she had opportunities that generally do not come the direction of those that are not part of the Ivy Leagues. And then, of course, she chose to go back to Indiana and to be a professor at Notre Dame.

and to have a family. And she and her husband have a wonderful family and a wonderful community of friends. But see, this does not fit the narrative of the left and of the elitist in Washington, D.C. They believe that you need to go to an Ivy League and to an Ivy League law school. They believe that you need to be a creature of the swamp, basically, and have those ties into the D.C. community. And that is not what they're seeing in Judge Barrett. They're seeing someone who grew up as everyday Amy, the girl next door,

and has done very well in spite of that and has earned her way, earned her way into the spot where she sits today. I think you're exactly right. The left normally is so wrapped up. in identity politics. Some of their heroes, the thing that is most celebrated about them is their identity. But here's someone whose identity is extraordinarily American. She is a mother of seven and has an extraordinary, as you just laid out, career and numerous accomplishments to her name, but that won't be celebrated on the left because her politics don't fit theirs.

She isn't on a mission to execute their narrative or their policy outcomes. She is on a mission to, as she says, interpret the Constitution as it's written and the text of statute as it's written. That isn't, as you have done a really excellent job pointing out, that isn't who they wanted in that seat. Although, you know, she checks all of the boxes that Americans want in a Supreme Court just. Oh, that's exactly right. You know, she says she's a constitutionalist and originalist, and that's a very good thing. That's what we want in our judges. The Democrats want activist judges. And that's why you heard Senator Coon say today, he feared for a conservative activism on the court. Well, he ought to be able to look at some of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Roberts' writings.

They have not been where conservatives maybe would have wanted it wasn't the outcome, but they gave an outcome that was true to the statutes and true to the Constitution. And that's the way they should move forward. I think that's absolutely right. Senator, before I let you go, I want to ask you a question about something. that's slightly related. And it's come up several times in this hearing, and that is court packing. Court packing is where one party or the other would expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court in order to increase the number of justices that are from their ideological school of thought.

The left has, as a matter of fact, accused the right in this instance of court packing for merely filling a vacancy, but that's not the whole truth. Where do we stand with that? Well, and the thing is, court packing is a term of art, if you will. It applies to a specific practice. It is a term that has been used in this country in reference to the judiciary for 150 years. And court packing, as you said, is trying to expand the size of the court, the number of judges that are there in order to get a certain outcome without going through the legislation. process. Now, Venezuela recently went through a court packing exercise. Why did they do that? Because it was a communist takeover, and they want judges that were defaulting to freedom to be done away with, and they wanted to have communist judges on the court. So they went through a court

packing exercise. Now, when you have X number of judges on the court and there is a vacancy due to death or retirement or someone taking senior status, it is incumbent upon you to fill that vacancy. And that is what you see us doing. We have done it over 220 times. in the Trump administration to fill vacancies. Why have we done it? Because people want an effective judiciary. If you have a lawsuit that you have filed in federal court, you don't want to have to wait two years for it to come up on the docket.

You want to have an expedient resolution to that case. So in theory, if the left were to win the White House, the majority in the Senate and the House, and they were to do away with the legislative filibuster, which has stood for a very long time and protected the American people from some very extreme policies. They could expand the number of justices on the court,

but the result of that would be to radically change the balance of the court to favor the left. And as you say, Americans want a neutral court. They want a court that enforces the Constitution. not a court that is put there, as any court that would result from court packing that is put there to affect a political agenda. Right. The American people do not want an activist court. They want a court that's going to call balls and strikes. And we would like to have a court with constitutionalists who have respect for the rule of law. That's absolutely right. I'm going to let you go

here in just a minute. Give us a preview of what still has to happen in these hearings and then what comes next. Well, we're going to wrap it up today. Senator Harris is the last one to speak on the Democrat side. I'm the last one to speak on the Republican side as my husband, who is a baseball fan, likes to say Marcia is batting cleanup this week. And so I will tie up all the loose ends that will complete the questioning, the two days of questioning. Tomorrow we will go into a committee executive session. We will take a vote to hold Judge Barrett over for one week. On the 22nd, we will come back, and we will vote her out of committee, and a few days later, she will be on the Senate floor for confirmation. What a process, and that is exactly how it's

supposed to work according to the Constitution, according to the rules of the Senate, and according to precedent. So we hope that it goes as smoothly as you've just laid out and we'll be here each day at Perspectives checking in on the action. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Bye-bye now. Well, here on Perspectives, we are just finishing the second day of questioning for Judge Amy Coney-Barritt, and we are able to catch up with Senator Ernst just as she is leaving today's hearing. And Senator Ernst, congratulations on so far a wonderful hearing, very, very successful. I was particularly impressed by your questioning today. Your first question was about the left's expectations on Amy Coney-Barrant, or really any woman that would sit in that chair.

You mentioned that the left expects all women to march in lockstep, but they're not getting that from Amy Coney-Barrant, or really, any woman. Connie Barrett. They're getting somebody with original ideas and original thoughts. And she is part of the great diversity of thought that we should be expecting from men and women. We want ideas to proliferate and be challenged. But that isn't what the left wants. Why did you ask that question and how did it go? Well, I thought that was really important, Tommy, because so much of what they are trying to project upon Judge Barrett is judicial activi. And that's what they expect to see in their own nominees. They expect to have nominees, of course, more liberal, progressive nominees that will further their values, their ideas from the bench.

That's not what they are getting with Judge Barrett. Of course, she is a textualist. She is an originalist. And she's not of the same mold necessarily in judicial thought. as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know, so they are projecting or wanting to project onto the court a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's not what they are getting. They are getting a conservative woman, but one that will follow the law, not change laws or make laws from the bench.

So I thought it was really important to point that out that while they both, you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Judge Barrett have the same tremendous qualities. They do have a different judicial philosophy. And that's something that should be celebrated in the United States of America. That's my way. Putting the best ideas from the smartest minds against each other and letting them challenge each other. That's what we want on the Supreme Court.

I agree. Another one of your questions I thought stood out as unique amongst the questions that were asked by the senators today. We all know that Amy Coney-Barrant has an extraordinary career, and we all know that she has done it while raising a family of seven children, but no one has stopped to ask her because what she's achieved is so extraordinary. No one has stopped to ask her what advice she has for other women who might hope to achieve what she has achieved. I really thought that was a great question. How did that one go? Well, I thought it went so well and Judge Barrett is someone that so many young women look up to. And I think regardless of age

too, I think all women really look up to her. She is an impressive character. She is someone, as I listed off a number of traits that have been mentioned by my fellow colleagues on the committee. You know, there's dignity, there's respect, jurisprudence, um, clarity, all of these things. And so I just wanted her to share with other women, you know, how they can project themselves in that same manner. And she really was very, very clear about it. It is treating the whole person. So not only do you need to seize upon opportunities when it comes to your career, you also have to balance the other wonderful aspects of your life. And that includes wellness and health, your family, and as well as relaxation. I mean, all of those things are really

important to make sure that you can be a successful person. And that's what she has followed. That was advice that was given to her many years ago. Yeah, I love that advice. I think it goes for all of us. And I don't think women are or should be limited in any way in the United States of America today. But a career and a life like hers doesn't just happen. It is genuinely an accomplishment that it takes a special person to achieve. Yes, it sure does. I agree. And she has challenged all those norms. She has driven towards her objective. But with that objective and her career and the Supreme Court in mind, She's also been able to, you know, spend time with her family, to be a role model to so many people, of course, continuing the health and wellness of her own self and her families. And she is just a very, very well-rounded person.

And we, men or women, we should aspire to that. I agree. And, you know, she is well-rounded, even in the way she thinks about things. President Obama, when he was president and at the times that he was searching for Supreme Court nominees, he famously talked about an empathy standard. He talked about looking for empathy in people that he might select as Supreme Court justices. You know, that worried some people, I think rightfully so because it hinted at a departure from the strict interpretation of the law that we want in our Supreme Court justices. but Judge Barrett has shown herself, obviously, to be a strict textualist and a strict originalist, but she's also shown herself to be a person of deep empathy, even when the left has tried to trap her.

She told the story of watching that horrific video of George Floyd's tragic death with her daughter. And she also talked about her process of holding herself and her decisions accountable. what she does, I thought this was so interesting. She reads, after she's written a decision, she reads it from the point of view of the losing party. And she's reading it to make sure that even the losing party would agree that it is well-reasoned and strictly based on the wall, that they can't find any bias.

What could be more empathetic than that than a judge stepping in the shoes of a losing party of litigants in front of her court? Yes, I think she has put this so well. And the way that she measures her opinions is very, very thoughtful. But from the perspective of a jurist, she is the judge. So she does have to abide by the law. Senator Chuck Grassley, who is my senior senator in the great state of Iowa, former chairman of the judiciary, when he was approached,

about what you mentioned about President Barack Obama and the empathy standard, Chuck Grassley famously responded to that by saying it's not the Supreme Court's job to be empathetic. They are to follow the law. It is Congress's job to use empathy as they're writing the laws, but it is not up to the Supreme Court. They do have to impartially and fairly follow and administer the law. It is up to Congress to be those that are responding to their constituents and lending an empathetic ear. I think that's one of the most fascinating part about watching these hearings is the discussion between senators and potentially a future Supreme Court nominee about the roles of different branches. It's like the Constitution being hashed out

right there live in the hearing room. It really is fascinating. Switching gears here for this last question, one thing that is stuck out about Amy Coney-Barrant in these hearings is that she's different. She's different than the Supreme Court nominees of the past. As she said, she didn't go to Harvard or Yale, and if she's on the court, she'll be the only one that can say that. She comes from the South and from the Midwest, and she's bringing a completely different perspective to the Supreme Court. You share some of that perspective, Senator Ernst. How has that perspective shaped your work on the Senate and how will it shape her work on the court? Well, I think that's a really great question, Tommy, because we do share some of those same traits.

I'm a very proud graduate of Iowa State University, you know, hardly Ivy League. but it has lent me a perspective, just being with the people that I grew up with in rural Iowa. You know, I still live in the same county where I was raised. Just being with everyday Iowans sharing some of their concerns, their challenges, but also understanding their opportunities. It makes me a far better legislator in representing them in the United States Senate. The same is true for Amy Coney Barrett. She had an upbringing that would be very similar to many folks across the Midwest. And so she is drawing in a different perspective maybe than some of the other justices

that have had that Ivy League schooling at Harvard or Yale. Again, just working with folks that are showing up, they're going to work every day. they're working hard, you know, putting food on their families, tables. You know, that's what she has been used to, and that's what she can take to the Supreme Court. And I do think that that is very valuable inside. And again, going back to as she's, you know, looking at her opinions and, you know, trying to understand how they may be viewing this from a losing perspective, I think that's very valuable. And she will do so well as our next Supreme Court justice.

Agree. And tomorrow, we're going to take a big step to that. The first vote in the committee is going to occur. Looking forward to that, Senator Ernst, we will hope to catch up with you after that. Thank you so much for your time. Again, congratulations. Thank you, Tommy.

Talk to soon. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas, sound design by Lauren Evans,

Mark Geiney and John Pop. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.