Legal Docket: The personal side of a justice

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning and a brand new work week for The World and Everything in It. Today is the 25th of July, 2022.

Good morning to you, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

And today, something a little different.

Back in April, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Center and Institute hosted an interview of US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Reagan Center Chairman Fred Ryan asked her about a variety of topics: her personal life, her nomination to the Supreme Court, and much more. The interview was about 45 minutes long, but we have trimmed it to fit our available space today. We think it’ll give you a good flavor of her personality and legal thinking.

REICHARD: About 6 minutes into the interview, a heckler interrupted while Justice Barrett spoke. She was answering a question about what she did to avoid the media while her name was being floated as a potential nominee by President Donald Trump.

It’s a little hard to hear from this, but the heckler yells something about “enslaver of women” as she interrupts the Justice:

BARRETT: …there was a you know, I don't know, five media trucks that parked outside of my house for days and days on end. And some were very aggressive as I told Fred, and I was trying to drive my car down the street and they would open the doors to block.

HECKLER: Enslaver of women!

An unsettling behavior, but Justice Barrett handled it beautifully. The recording stops at the heckler’s interruption, then returns once the heckler is gone.

Listen to Justice Barrett’s response:

BARRETT: Yes, fortunately, as a mother of seven I am used to distractions, um, and sometimes even outbursts. [Laughter, cheers]

EICHER: Here now are excerpts from Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s remarks at the Reagan Presidential Center in April with, again, questions from Chairman Fred Ryan:

RYAN: You know, an announcement is made that there's an opening on the court, and then names are circulated and weeks go by and then a decision is finally made. And the confirmation begins. I was just wondering if you could share a little bit with us about what it was like for you and your family in that process?

BARRETT: As you're describing Fred, it's typical, the vacancy arises, and then there are weeks and names are circulating. But mine happened on a compressed timeframe. And my husband and I were out to dinner on the Friday night that Justice Ginsburg passed away. And we were with two friends, both of whom happened to be lawyers enjoying this wonderful meal. And then our phones started going off. And we learned that Justice Ginsburg had passed away. So it was a very, I mean, it's it's the loss of a great American, very sad occasion, kind of, obviously put a damper on the meal. And we went home. And I had been considered for the vacancy that arose when Justice Kennedy retired in 2018. And we also knew that regardless of what happened at that point, I was likely to become the object of media scrutiny again, so that weekend in which I intended to go to Costco and go to my daughter's soccer game, the marshals advised me not to leave my house, just because they weren't exactly sure what would happen just given the intense scrutiny at the time. And that weekend. I was contacted by the White House Counsel and invited to come and interview that week. And it all just happened very quickly.

RYAN: And as far as I know, there's not a handbook for new justices or an orientation bootcamp. Who helped you learn the ropes in your first year as a justice?

BARRETT: All of the justices were so welcoming. I can't remember who called first but both the Chief Justice and Justice Sotomayor called immediately to extend their congratulations. Justice Sotomayor shared with me her law clerk manual that she used in chambers. And she said it had meant a lot to her when other justices had done that. And all of the justices came by to say hello, had lunch, offered advice. And I would say that starting the job, there is no handbook and I was starting midterm I was confirmed. And then there were arguments the following Monday. So I was scrambling, I had to set up a chambers and hire staff and get up and running on the oral arguments.

RYAN: You mentioned the law schools, and you are the only justice on the court at the moment who didn't go to either Harvard or Yale? What are your thoughts on the diversity of schools represented? And what should it be going forward?

BARRETT: I think diversity in every respect is good, including in background of education. I chose Notre Dame because I was attracted to it as an institution. I also had a full scholarship and I didn't know what I was going to do after law school and didn't want to be required to go to a large law firm to pay off debt. And so you know, I think, I think it's very valuable, to allow people to feel like they can make many different choices and receive great education at other institutions besides Harvard and Yale, without taking themselves out of the running to pursue certain professional opportunities.

RYAN: Do you have a view on how long someone should stay on the court?

BARRETT: No, I think it's a very personal decision. I think it really depends on you people know, people have people age differently. You know, Justice Ginsburg used to say, as long as she could do the job and do it well, and, you know, I think that's the philosophy that many have about their working lives generally.

RYAN: Speaking of opinions, this term, the court will likely issue opinions on some high profile, emotional subjects, that regardless of how they're decided there will be a certain segment of people who are disappointed and maybe even angry. When we live in a time where institutions are always under attack and being diminished, how does the court preserve the integrity of the institution and retain the respect and dignity that it deserves?

BARRETT: So I think that writing the opinions and I think I would urge all engaged and interested Americans to read the opinions. I know that speaking for myself, and I've heard several of my colleagues say, as well as colleagues on the lower courts that when they write opinions, they try to write them in a manner that would be accessible to informed Americans. And so I guess I would say that it's perfectly fair game to say that you dislike the results of a case. And it's also perfectly fair game to say that the court got it wrong. But I think if you're going to make the latter claim that the court got it wrong, you have to engage with the court’s reasoning first. And I think you should read the opinion and see, well, does this read like something that was purely results driven and designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority? Or does this read like it actually is an honest effort, a persuasive effort, even if one you ultimately don't agree with to determine what the Constitution and precedent requires,

RYAN: Somewhat related to that, I know you've spoken out about concerns that the court not be viewed as a partisan body. What can the court do to correct this perception?

BARRETT: I think, actually, this is the measure, I think this is the standard by which the American people should judge the court. Is the court laying out its reasoning. Is its reasoning that of a political or legislative body, or is its reasoning  judicial? Is its reasoning, reasoning from all the traditional tools that inform our body of precedent, you know, prior cases, statutes, the Constitution itself. I think the way that justices talk about the court and relate to one another, the court truly is very collegial. And even when we disagree with one another about the results of the case, how a case should be decided the reasoning of a case - and I think Americans would all be better off if we all showed that level of respect even for those with whom we disagree.

RYAN: Do your friends call you, Amy still or Justice Barrett? Do you, uh, does it help adjudicating differences among your children, you know, to be a Supreme Court justice?

BARRETT: If my children were impressed at all by the fact that I was a Supreme Court justice, maybe it would help adjudicating their disputes. One thing that I love about being back in South Bend, Indiana is that I am just Amy. And so I really, particularly treasure these days, my long standing and old friendships. For the people to whom I am just Amy. It is a little bit harder to make new friends. In the fall, I was chasing around our youngest son who has Down syndrome at a fundraiser to an outdoor fair for the school that our youngest daughter is attending. And a very sweet mom at the school came up to me and said, I just thought I'd introduce myself to you because I bet a lot of people don't talk to you. Which was true. Even when you know, I have my hair in a ponytail and I'm chasing a child around the playground. There is a different barrier to relationships, and you know, and making new friendships, you know, than there has been in other parts of my life.

RYAN: I would wonder, is there anything that you would say about how you would like your work and your life to be an inspiration for future generations?

BARRETT: When I think about what future generations could contribute to the law and to the country and to the legal profession, I think what comes to my mind is, first civility. Lawyers. You know, it can be pejorative, when people find out you're a lawyer and you're they think that you want to argue and nitpick. I think lawyers have a real opportunity to show how one can disagree and debate with another person without having it devolve into being ugly.. I think that we as a country have to maintain respect for the rule of law, and not become cynical and think that there is nothing to the rule of law. And so I would say to aspiring lawyers, you know, please do that. Please don't be cynical about the law. Please take the law seriously and study the law seriously. And then take civic education. Take civic education seriously, I think you've been in social situations, even when you're at cocktail parties, and you're talking about the law, talking about things that the Supreme Court has done talking about decisions, talking about in an intelligent way that respects the rule of law and shows how people can debate and disagree without having it disintegrate relationships, I think is a contribution that I hope lawyers will make in the future.

REICHARD: That was Associate Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in April speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Center and Institute in Simi Valley, California.

You probably will want to hear the whole thing so if you visit wng.org you’ll find today’s program transcript and I will place a link in there for you.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.