Supreme Court justice discusses judicial philosophy and personal life
Notre Dame’s Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government (CCCG) hosted Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on September 12 for a moderated conversation facilitated by CCCG Director Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The discussion and following Q&A centered on themes from Barrett’s upcoming book, Listening to the Law.
University President Father Robert Dowd, C.S.C. began the event with opening remarks, offering prayers for victims of recent tragedies, including those at Evergreen High School and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who was recently shot and killed during a public event at Utah Valley University. Muñoz called Kirk’s assassination “an attack on all of us who believe in argument, in debate, in free speech, and in the clash of ideas.”
“Mr. Kirk was killed on the university campus, assassinated for making arguments, assassinated for engaging in the very work a university is supposed to do,” Muñoz said. “We pray for his soul, for his wife, and for his children. We move forward with the resolve to continue our work of hosting spirited debates—of teaching the principles of American Constitutionalism—encouraging students, as he did, to think for themselves by presenting arguments from all sides.”
Barrett joined Muñoz onstage following his remarks. Graduating first in her class at Notre Dame Law School in 1997, Barrett went on to clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia before returning to become a professor in 2010. She was nominated by the Trump Administration to be a U.S. circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, but continued to teach at the Law School until assuming her position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in October 2020.
Barrett described the decision to accept her nomination as difficult, calling it “a radical life change.” She said, however, that she ultimately chose to “burn the boats” and accept the position with no regrets. Balancing her judicial role with her responsibility as a mother is a significant priority for Barrett, who has seven children, two of whom are adopted.
“The most important legacy I can leave is my children,” she said. “I think that both moms and dads should think that way about building their families in their careers … the children should not take a back seat to career advancement.”
Barrett is a self-avowed “originalist,” describing her judicial approach as one “that tries to interpret the Constitution consistent with its original public meaning.” While she credited Justice Antonin Scalia with maturing her originalist philosophy, Barrett said she had come to the philosophy as a young lawyer. She acknowledged that, while history can be hard to discern under an originalist perspective, “any other metric that one uses for constitutional interpretation also involves difficulties.”
Barrett also discussed the role of precedent in Supreme Court decisions, a question that has arisen several times during her tenure, most notably in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Barrett described the methodology behind Dobbs as deeply complex, especially in its treatment of historical precedent. She explained that Dobbs was not “a purely originalist decision,” noting that while it overturned Roe v. Wade, it did so by finding Roe “inconsistent with other precedents” interpreting the 14th Amendment. At the same time, Barrett acknowledged that the 14th Amendment’s historical interpretation is “not itself originalist,” since those who ratified it did not envision it protecting abortion rights—making precedent a problematic issue to reconcile.
“That is one of the difficult questions for an originalist. Congress can’t trump the Constitution. So then the question is, why can judicial precedent trump the Constitution, and how could the court ever choose to follow a decision that’s inconsistent with the text of the Constitution itself?” Barrett asked. “And my answer to that is … most of the time, that question doesn’t come up. When precedent is very well settled … those kinds of cases don’t get challenged because there is such wide agreement that we should just let that sleeping dog lie.”
Some students present for the lecture were critical of her response. Christopher Suarez, a sophomore from Coyle Community in Zahm Hall, enjoyed the lecture overall, but said that “what [Barrett] counted as well-established was less than clear, seeming to say that an issue wasn’t well-established if it came before the court.”
Like Suarez, Sorin Hall sophomore Will Michalski found the lecture valuable and educational. He said that, despite his leftward leanings, “[he] found Justice Barrett’s arguments in support of originalism … to be compelling.” He acknowledged that while he “[found] it difficult to apply certain constitutional provisions to the modern day,” he also saw the danger in having a “too loose and capricious interpretation of the Constitution.”
“I found the talk both entertaining and informative,” Michalski told the Rover. “Justice Barrett addressed both personal and professional issues with a lot of charm. I especially liked her point on the private unity of the Supreme Court justices, despite their significantly different views. That kind of mutual respect is very encouraging to see these days.”
David Murphy is a sophomore from Scituate, Massachusetts, studying economics and political science, with a minor in International Security Studies. When he is not crippled with schoolwork, he enjoys going on walks and working out in the gym. He also enjoys listening to audiobooks and is currently listening to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. He can be reached by email at dmurph23@nd.edu.
Photo Credit: South Bend Tribune
Subscribe to the Irish Rover here.
Donate to the Irish Rover here.
