Safeguarding the Independence of the Federal Judiciary with Senator Joni Ernst

Jennifer Braceras from Independent Women’s Law Center talks with Senator Joni Ernst about her work on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.

Transcript

Beverly Hallberg:

Hey, everyone. It’s Beverly Hallberg. Welcome to a special pop-up episode of She Thinks, your favorite podcast from the Independent Women’s Forum, where we talk with women and sometimes men about the policy issues that impact you and the people you care about most. Enjoy.

Jennifer:

Hi, everyone. I’m Jennifer Braceras from Independent Women’s Law Center. Today, I’m talking with Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. As many of you know, Senator Ernst is the first female combat veteran elected to serve in the United States Senate. She serves on five senate committees: Agriculture, Environment, Armed Services, Judiciary, and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Today, we’re talking with the senator about her role on the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today, Senator.

Sen. Ernst:

Oh, of course, Jennifer. Thanks so much.

Jennifer:

Oh, you’re welcome. Now, here at the Independent Women’s Forum, we are actually really thrilled that there are now two Conservative women on the Judiciary Committee. I think that’s so incredibly important, because as our listeners probably remember, when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, there were no Republican women on the committee. And I wonder what motivated you to seek appointments at this committee, if it had anything to do with that, or if you had other reasons for wanting to be a part of this committee.

Sen. Ernst:

Well, and of course, I am so honored to be there with Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, but like most Iowans, I’m not a lawyer, but I do understand the important role of our judicial branch of government. And as one of the first Republican women to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’ve taken very seriously my responsibility to confirm president Trump’s well-qualified nominees to our federal bench.

And it’s also been an important forum to work on issues that I’m very passionate about, like combating domestic violence and of course, supporting victims of sexual assault.

Jennifer:

Right, because the Judiciary Committee does so much more than just confirm judges, although the public probably thinks of the committee only in that role, because that’s what they see on TV.

I want to ask you a little bit about the role of the courts in a democratic society. I know you hear a lot of people say the president should nominate in the Senate to confirm only those judges with a particular political viewpoint. So Liberals will say, “Well, I want Liberal justices or judges,” and Conservatives will say, “Well, I really want Conservative judges,” but the judiciary isn’t supposed to be a political branch of government. I think that’s something that many people have forgotten. How do you see your role, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, in ensuring that the federal judiciary remain non-partisan and independent?

Sen. Ernst:

Well, and Jennifer, you are right. The judiciary is not supposed to be a political branch of the government, so an independent judiciary is the absolute bedrock of our democracy. And as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am tasked with evaluating nominees to the federal bench to ensure that they will interpret the law and the Constitution as written. And at the end of the day, my test for any judge, including a Supreme Court justice, is this: Will they defend the Constitution?

Jennifer:

And that is what the test should be. You’ve just completed hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court, and as usual, the usual suspects come out and claim that all sorts of terrible things will happen if she’s confirmed. The sky is going to fall. But just to give those critics the benefit of the doubt, what would you say to people who are genuinely worried about Judge Barrett? I mean, you’re a Republican senator, but you represent all of the people of Iowa, and what would you say to a constituent who said to you, “You know, I’m really concerned that this nominee is going to vote certain ways, and it’s going impact my life in negative ways?” And how do you explain to them they have nothing to fear from this nomination, even if they disagree with Judge Barrett’s politics or personal morals?

Sen. Ernst:

Right, and I was very blessed to be able to sit through the hearings with Judge Amy Coney Barrett and to hear her responses. And during those hearings, Judge Barrett affirmed her dedication to the rule of law and the proper role of a judge, and she made it very clear: A judge does not make policy, nor does a judge seek to undermine policy enacted by Congress. So I have confidence that Judge Barrett will leave the politics to politicians and legislating to legislators.

And of course, this was exemplified in her ruling in Price versus The City of Chicago, which was an issue on a buffer zone ordinance around abortion facilities. So while people may think that, “Well, privately she’s pro-life. She would always be ruling in favor of the pro-life movement.” Well, she did not, in this case. She used the law. She used the precedent and she ruled against the pro-life protestors. So this was just one example that I saw where she will uphold the rule of law. She will be very fair in administering that law.

Jennifer:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). We heard a lot about Originalism as an interpretive theory during the hearings. That’s what Judge Barrett says she bases her rulings on. Some people call this interpretive theory Constitutionalism. But the public sometimes hears that and thinks, “Oh, Originalist justices, that’s Justice Scalia. That’s Justice Thomas. That’s Judge Barrett. This is something only political Conservatives should support.” Can you kind of demystify that for us a little bit and explain why maybe even Liberal voters should want a Constitutionalist court?

Sen. Ernst:

Oh, absolutely. When Congress is making a law or makes a law that oversteps the Constitution, the ripples can be felt, whether it’s on farms, like in my home county of Montgomery County or in manufacturing facilities clear across the state in Dubuque. It can be felt in church services in Sioux City and in community meetings in Waterloo.

So, the Supreme Court’s only job is to rule on the cases before it and defend the Constitution, and to do that well, a justice needs to be thoughtful, restrained, and wise. And again, a Constitutionalist, a textualist, going off of the words of the Constitution. Again, it is their job to defend the Constitution. So it is important, because whatever thought process of the day is out there, whatever is the popular movement, we can see laws being interpreted differently, year in and year out. We really need to have someone who follows the Constitution as it is written.

Jennifer:

Right, as a text. And I think what some people don’t realize is a really good judge sometimes makes decisions that he or she isn’t comfortable with politically, like the case you mentioned about the abortion clinic buffer zone in the case of Judge Barrett. In the case of Justice Scalia, people often point to the flag-burning case, right? Justice Scalia, obviously, was not personally in favor of burning the American flag, but as a matter of First Amendment interpretation, he had a famous case where he said that was okay as a form of political protest. And that’s really what a good judge does. That’s what a Constitutionalist judge does. They don’t seek Liberal results or Conservative results, as you said. They just seek results that are consistent with the Constitution.

Sen. Ernst:

Right, mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jennifer:

I want to shift a little bit. In your remarks that I had the opportunity to watch during the hearings, and also since then, you’ve praised Judge Barrett’s credentials and work ethic with the phrase, “This is what a mom can do,” which I really like. But I wonder if you could elaborate on that a little bit and just tell us how you sort of came up with that and how it applies to Judge Barrett.

Sen. Ernst:

Yeah, absolutely, and I have said that over and over again, and if confirmed, Judge Barrett would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the high court. And as any mother can attest, that balance of school work, dinner, and bath time when you’re juggling emails and conference calls and job duties, all of that is harder than ever. And with seven children, Judge Barrett’s willingness to jump into serving on the Supreme Court is a real boost to what we call #mom power.

So, I’m glad that that women all across the country, whether it’s from our working moms to our young girls, they have Judge Barrett to look up to. She’s a role model and an example of the great freedoms that American women have to be who they want to be. It doesn’t mean that they have to exclude being a mother or a wife. She is showing that this is what a mom can do.

Jennifer:

Mm-hmm (affirmative), and in addition to being the only justice with school-age kids on the court, she’s also going to be the only current justice who didn’t attend Ivy League schools. She’s a person … She didn’t spend most of her life or career on the east coast, like the rest of the justices. What does it mean to you, as a daughter of the heartland, to have on the Supreme Court justice, someone who’s from middle America?

Sen. Ernst:

Well, as a fellow Midwesterner, I am very glad that the American people have had the chance to see Judge Barrett for who she is. And despite the attempts from folks on the left to paint her as this kind of TV or cartoon version of a religious radical, Judge Barrett’s temperament has really shined through. And as we’ve said, she’s a working mother of seven. She has a strong record of professional and academic accomplishment. She is a practicing Catholic with a detailed record of service and compassion. And all of those things, I think, are really important to folks across the Midwest, and she represents middle America so well.

So again, reaffirming to people across the United States: You don’t have to be an Ivy League or you don’t have to live on the coast. You can live as most Americans do and still achieve the greatest level of success in your career field.

Jennifer:

It’s so true, and I also think, as a matter of legitimacy, it’s important for people to see that the Supreme Court that decides all of these cases that affect us, that it’s comprised of some people who possibly understand our daily lives, and not just these elite philosophers. And that was also an important thing about the nomination of Justice Gorsuch. We hadn’t had somebody from Colorado or the 10th Circuit on the court in a long time, and I think the American people, if they’re going to have faith in our institutions, they need to see that they are reflective of the diversity of American experience. Not just the coastal experience.

Sen. Ernst:

Yeah, I agree.

Jennifer:

I want to talk for a minute about where we go from here. Judge Barrett is likely to get confirmed, but the fight does not end with confirmation. I know a number of your colleagues, including Vice-Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris, have suggested that if Democrats take both the Senate and the White House in November, they will seek to pack the court with additional nominees, in retaliation for this nomination. What do you make of that plan, and are they likely to succeed?

Sen. Ernst:

Well, last week, we had the chance to hear from Judge Barrett and actually see for ourselves how talented and qualified she is. And what we saw was that because they couldn’t attack Judge Barrett on her qualifications or character, the Democrats spent the entire week telling us the proceedings weren’t normal. And well, here’s what’s not normal: threatening to pack the Supreme Court with justices that will impose their policy preferences.

And for the last 150 years, the court has had nine justices, and in fact, the late Justice Ginsburg, who I truly greatly admire, disavowed the idea of packing the court. Iowans firmly believe in the role of an independent Supreme Court to defend our Constitution and not one that will act as a super Legislature for Congress, that frankly, won’t come together, discuss tough issues, and do its job. So again, we don’t want to see them acting as a super Legislature and politicizing our third branch of government with the Democrats’ radical plan just goes against everything our founders intended the court to be.

Jennifer:

How likely do you think they are to actually try to do that? I mean, in light of history, where FDR tried it and even his own Democratic party stood fast against it. Do you think it’s just rhetoric or is this something that if they control two branches of government, they’re really going to try to do, to control the third?

Sen. Ernst:

Well, I know a number of months ago, even before Justice Ginsburg had passed, Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, was making those threats already, and he has all of his Democratic caucus behind it. So I think they have mobilized, and I think they are prepared to do it, should they take the Senate majority as well as the White House.

Jennifer:

Well, that would certainly be too bad, and well, hopefully, that won’t happen.

Sen. Ernst:

Yeah.

Jennifer:

Okay, well, thank you so much for joining us today, Senator Ernst. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us at She Thinks.

Sen. Ernst:

Oh, always a pleasure. Thanks so much, Jennifer.

Jennifer:

And if you’re interested in learning more about the Supreme Court and the nominations process, check out the work of the Independent Women’s Law Center at iwf.org. And be sure to check out our Supreme Court resource page. From all of us here at Independent Women’s Forum, you are in control. I think. You think. She thinks.