Structure of the constitution was saying that we dont need to enumerate rights because the assumption is you have a right unless a prohibition was created. How would you expand upon it more eloquently sins you teach this stuffs . I think that is an adequate description of the assumptions underlying our constitution, that the assumption was that if congress had limited power, it wouldnt have the ability to infringe rights in the first place. And of course at the time the constitution was ratified, the states were thought to have, because the people are closer to their state governments, you know, states thats the point of federalism, citizens can have more policies and more influence over their state legislatures than the federal government. What role does the decorat n declaration play . The declaration of independent dense is an ex presence of ideals and our desire to be free of england. Its not law, however. The constitution is law. So the constitution is our foundational law and governing document. While the declaration of independence tells us a lot about history and about the roots of our republic, it isnt binding law. What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment . Speech, religion, press, assembly screech, press, religion, assembly, i dont know, what am i missing . Redress or protest okay. Why is there one amendment that has these five freedoms clustered . Why do they hang together . I dont know what youre getting at, on that one. You the mean what is the common denominator some are. Im getting back to the same idea the bill of rights was an attempt to do public, attempt to say we believe in limited arco oh we the founders, the brillian brilliance, but the 1787, 1788 conversation was to say we believe in limited government because we believe in the limitless rights of people. So they didnt have a bill of rights. Later when they started spelling it out its sort of like they got jazz did up, trying to work it out for the American People. This is amazing stuff. I want to hear you reflect on the glor its of the First Amendment, even though it wasnt needed as part of the structure, but once they added it, why have five of them in the same amendment . I dont know why actually as a historical matter those were grouped, im sure theres a story, but rather than being split up in different amendments, assembly and protest and speech, bear more relation to one another than necessarily free exercise, say. But i think they are in the First Amendment, you know, and i think that that reflects that those were core values, that reflects that the states ratified the constitution, the original constitution on the understanding that a bill of rights would be added, once protections like that to be included because they were really core to what the new americans thought was going to be america. Thank you. I agree with you, and i think that some of why its so useful to think about the five together in my mind, is because you dont really have freedom of religion if you dont also have freedom of assembly, if you cant gather you dont have freedom of speech if you cant publish your beliefs and advocate for them. You dont have those if you cant protest those in times when government tries to over step and curtail those freedoms. Some of the important questions about judicial modesty in some of the last three days of hearings are relevant and prudent to have had. I think there are times when theres been questioning that youve been put through that has implied that because you have Free Assembly rights as an individual, when you were a faculty member or as a wife and mom and neighbor in south bend, when you sign something walking out of church that implied that there was something inappropriate. When the default assumption in our system is that we all have these freedoms because the Civil Society associations are where we find happiness, joy and love. One of the things that not just judges wearing reasons need to have to demonstrate humility but all of us in our day calls on is Public Servants for a time that are eventually going to go back home to the cincinnati language of George Washingtons language to go back and sit under the tree at mount vernon is that this is not the center of the world. This is not the institutions of power is not where meaning is found. Its about trying to maintain a framework for ordered liberty so that the 3300th million americans live can be the center of meaning, that the heart of our system is actually volunteer, on re pren newer, and power is in the silver frame, the golden apple. The silver frame is to maintain the structure of liberty so that people can pursue the happy and neighborly in the center of the picture because thats where love and community is found. I would like to pivot to baseball for a minute if you will bear with me. Any of your kids play baseball or softball . Two of our boys had a very brief career in brace ball. Its not as great a sport as football but we can still call it the American Pass time. I would like to talk about the Houston Astros who are miserable cheaters, sorry cornyn and cruz, both of the texas senators sit on this committee, but i think all baseball fans know that the Houston Astros cheat, they steal signs, bang on cans, theyve done a whole bunch of miserable things historically and they deserve to be punished probably more than they have. But tonight its game four. Thank goodness the Fourth Amendment protects that right for him to express that opinion. If you want to defend cheating, that is the prerogative. It was going so well i notice that ted is wearing a Lone Star State flag, but not an astros mask. Tonight is game four in the American League championship series. If houston loses to tampa, they will be done. And that leads people to feel kind of desperate at times, right . There are times when you have a game that is your elimination game. You can imagine people wanting to sort of reconsider anything they can reconsider, the ends might just identify the means. You can imagine that the Houston Astros who have cheated in lots of ways in the past with sign stealing might try to go to the umpire and try to persuade somebody to expand the strike zone just for houston in the game tonight. That would obviously be inappropriate, right right. We cant have two sets of rules. Well i think that an umpire is obviously supposed to apply rules fairly to both teams. I think we can all agree on that as rules of fair play. Some of what weve seen in the questions over the last three days are trying to get an umpire to commit for a different set of rules. For different teams. And so for what its worth just to reiterate what i think so many of us have been trying to argue for in these hearings is the alleged equivalency between republican and democratic questioning here implies that republicans have been trying to get you to precommit to certain policy outcomes and i just dont think thats actually whats been happening in this hearing. I think that the originalism that youve defended a lot of us have been advocating for in advance of and during this hearing is not a request for republican policy positions to be advocated through the courts, it is rather a plea not just to you and future nominees but to our democratic colleagues as well to embrace a system where we distinguish for the American People between the two political branches and the a plate cal branch, a political branch. Youre cloaking your policy preferences in humility. It is obviously the case were all shaped by life experiences, people have lived in communities in the past and most people who end up as extraordinary jurists have been connected to or around the political process in their career. But that is not to undermine the eye deals we have in the american system that judges should not see themselves as super legislators, they should not see themselves as policy advocates and they have to take up this new oath to a greater humility. And it means that you lay down certain freedoms that are inalienable blue and innately yours when you become a judge so you dont have the appearance of bias in the future. I want to reassert the idea that we should be trying to excise from our language this idea of conservative and liberal blocks on the court, republican and democrat justices. What we want and i want this to not just be a republican aspiration but a democratic aspiration as well. We want people on the court who understand with humility and modesty the judicial role. Because it is a limited role. Its not a role to right all long or be a policy advocate and i think youve comported yourself extraordinarily well over the last three days as youve been repeatedly asked to be an umpire who prejudges certain cases and it isnt your job to do that until the reactive moment when youre actually on the court. Thank you for the civics lesson that youve offered the American People. Thank you chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, here we go. Mr. Chairman, i was tempted to make a parliament ri inquiry of the unjustified broadside violates july 19th of this body but i decided not to, when i came to the realization that nebraska lacks a professional baseball team. And at the time doesnt always have a winning Football Team either. So i view it more is a plea for help, that [ no audio ] thank you judge barrett for not interrupting us. Sent sent coons. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you judge. Good to be talking with you again. These questions of fairness and who follows the rules and who are the umpires thank you to your family and person who has traveled with you today. Judge barrett in accepting president trumps nomination to the Supreme Court you stated you shared the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia your mentor, the justice for whom you clerked. His philosophy is originalism. The idea that the authoritative meaning of the constitution is what it meant from ratified whether 150 years ago, 240 years ago, but meant when ratified. I think the American People need to better understand what that origin originalist philosophy could mean for their every day lives. I think it means our entire understanding of certain constitutional commitments around liberty, privacy and equality under the law could be rolled back to 19th or 19th century understandings in a wail unrecognizable to most americans. Many notions are routed in a landmark case decided in 1965, griswold versus connecticut. Married couples have the right to use concept i was in the privacy of their own homes. Justice scalia said this decision was wrong because under his originalist philosophy theres no such thing as a general right to privacy in the constitution. This is a question most currently serving justices have answered. When we spoke on the phone last week you said you couldnt think of any specific issue of law where you disagreed with Justice Scalia. Do you agree that griswold was wrongly decided . Well senator, as ive said a number of times, i cant express a view yes or no, a or f, in my other capacity i get to grade but not in this particular task with respect to precedent. I think that griswold is very, very, very, very, very, unlikely to go anywhere in order to griswold to be overruled you or a state legislator would have to pass a law prohibiting the use of which seems unlikely. And the lower court would have to buck it and say were not following griswold which is unlikely. I think its an academic question that wouldnt arise. But its something that i cant opine on. Particularly because it does lie at the base of substantive due process which is something that continues to be litigated in courts today. Well judge for the benefit of watching, chief Justice Roberts said he agreed with the griswolds courts conclusion and shared your view hes the comfortable talking about it because it doesnt appear to be an area to come before the court, Justice Alito and kavanaugh and alito, said i do, that shes willing to speak to it, and as ever nominee as, i do support the findings in griswold. Is i understand youre saying youre going to be your own justice and youre hesitant to talk about this case because it is an anchor to substantive due process. Let me say are you unwilling to say that at least griswold is not wrong . I think griswold isnt going anywhere unless you plan to pass a law prohibiting couples or all people from using birth control. I think the question seems unthinkable that any legislature would pass such a law, i think the only reason that its even worth asking that question is to lay a predicate for whether roe is rightly decided. Because griswold does lie at the foundation of that line of president dent. Because griswold involves substantive due process, an area that remains one, subject to litigation all over the country i dont think its an issue, a kasich opine on. Nor do i think griswold is in danger of going anywhere. To be clear what it underlies its not just that it was a case that underlines a lot of personal autonomy that was extended to unmarried couples, to the right for women to control the reprosecuted duck at this cases and was extended ultimately same section couples have an equal right to marry. The reason im taking a few minutes with this is that Justice Scalia publicly agreed with or dissented in each and every one of these cases. He wrote it reflected the court adopting the socalled homosexual agenda. Thomas and alito said it needs to fix problems from its holding in observe wearing if he would. I think youve made it clear its largely your philosophy. Im trying to help viewers understand what it means to replace Justice Ginsburg with someone who may more closely follow Justice Scalias approach. If Justice Scalia had his way we would be in a different place with regard to gender discrimination. Just stills griswold struck down the male only. Justice scalia was the sole discenter in that case and accused the court of destroying vm i which stands strong to this day. Im getting at how closely you would ally yourself with Justice Scalias jurisprudence. Would you agree that the decision was wrong . Cents or coons, to be clear as i said in response to this question yesterday i do share Justice Scalias opinion on text but in the litany of cases that you just identified, the particular votes that he cast are a different question of whether i would agree with the way that he applied those principles in particular cases. And ive already said, and i hope that you arent suggesting that i dont have mile own mind or i couldnt think independently or that i would decide let me see what Justice Scalia has said about this in the past because a sure you i have my own mind. But everything that he said is not necessarily what i would agree with or what i would do if i were justice barrett. That was Justice Scalia. So i share his philosophy but ive never said that filled always reach the same outcome as ed. Understood. But i think a case like this is a striking example of what it might mean to replace Justice Ginsburg and her methodology and approach to someone closer to Justice Scalia. Frankly to me this comes back in part to the president who nominated you. President trump did not nominate you to carry on Justice Ginsburgs legacy. He wants to under minor change or shift that legacy and hes been very clear repeatedly before you were chosen about his intent to knowledge nate justices in the mold of Justice Scalia. You recognized yesterday that replacing justice griswold, with judge garland would have changed the balance of the court. You wrote it in in 2013. You recollection thighs did balance shifts are way supreme your knowlednominations are at n president ial elections. Do you recognize that you will profoundly impact the balance of the court and the way it impacts future cases i think when i was having the interchange with senator leahy was about an interview i gave shortly after Justice Scalias death, and i used that phrase, Lateral Movement what i meant by that, i agree with sent sent sasse that we shouldnt talk about republican judges and democratic judges because i think there are just judges. But of course its true that judges have different judicial fill loss sir. I think Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia are a great example of this. Help sometimes had public debates with Justice Scalia advocating originalism and Justice Breyer advocating active its not about having your colleagues on the other side of the aisle and all of you in the room have different policy platforms, but judges dont have policy platforms but judges take different approaches to interpreting the text. Feel that is what i meant when i was surprising how the balance of the court would shift. It would be a way from one balance and toward another in terms of how judges think about the text. What i want to explore with you in the time remaining is exactly how the shifts in methodology in approach it may we will have a dramatic impact on the policy outcomes on what is and isnt upheld as law Going Forward . On the board behind me, ive asked my team if we would go back and look at cases . All of this is cases listed, its roughly 120, have something in common. Justice ginsburg was in the majority, Justice Scalia was in the minority dissent. These are cases that touch on nearly every aspects of modern american life. I talked a lot yesterday about health care and the Affordable Care act, yes thats on there.