JUDY WOODRUFF: It is one
of the most important
choices a president makes.
And, in this critical

moment, the stakes are
high for the future of
the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Yang examines President
Trump's nomination and
how it comes with the
election as a backdrop.

JOHN YANG: Democratic
vice presidential nominee
Kamala Harris led her
party's criticism of

Supreme Court nominee
Amy Coney Barrett today.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA),
Vice Presidential Candidate: If
nothing else, the voters should

be very clear about one thing.
President Trump and his party
and Judge Barrett will overturn

the Affordable Care Act,
and they won't stop there.

JOHN YANG: Barrett, a
Trump-nominated federal
appeals court judge
and former Notre Dame

law professor, says her role
model is the late Justice
Antonin Scalia, a conservative

icon.

AMY CONEY BARRETT, Supreme Court
Justice Nominee: I clerked for
Justice Scalia more than 20

years ago, but the lessons I
learned still resonate. His
judicial philosophy is mine

too: A judge must apply
the law as written.

JOHN YANG: If confirmed,
Barrett would succeed the
late liberal icon Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

perhaps the greatest ideological
shift since 1991, when Clarence
Thomas replaced Thurgood

Marshall. Liberals lamented
the potential change.

OLIVIA RIESEN, Opposed to Amy
Coney Barrett's Nomination: As
someone of color, as a female,

I hope this doesn't get through,
because I'd really like to see
some real justice and someone

to uphold RBG's legacy.

JOHN YANG: Among her strong
supporters are opponents
of abortion rights.

EMILY HARRISON, Supporter of
Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination:
It is definitely a change from

having a liberal in the
Supreme Court to having
a more conservative
Catholic who is able to

speak out about our beliefs
in the Supreme Court.

JOHN YANG: When the
Senate confirmed Barrett
for the appeals court
in 2017, she said the

court's Roe v. Wade decision
establishing abortion rights
was settled precedent, even

though she has said it
was wrongly decided.

On the appeals court, she
has appeared sympathetic
to state laws restricting
access to abortion.

If she joins the court by
early November, one of the
first cases Barrett would hear

would be the latest challenge
to the Affordable Care Act. As
a law professor, Barrett wrote

in a 2017 law review article
that Chief Justice John Roberts'
5-4 opinion upholding the law

pushed the act beyond
its plausible meaning.

Health care has been at
the center of Democratic
presidential nominee
Joe Biden's opposition

to Barrett.

Democrats hope to steer clear
of the kind of questions about
Barrett's religious faith

that came up in her appeals
court confirmation hearing, and
led some social conservatives

to brand them as anti-Catholic.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA):
When you read your speeches,
the conclusion one draws is

that the dogma lives
loudly within you.
And that's of concern.

JOHN YANG: Judiciary Committee
Chairman Lindsey Graham has
set Supreme Court confirmation

hearings to begin
in just two weeks.

So, who is Amy Coney Barrett
and what does her record tell
us about what she might be

like on the high court?

John Adams was a clerk for
Judge Barrett on the federal
appeals court in 2017 to 2018.

He's now in private practice in
Chicago in Madison, Wisconsin.
And Victoria Nourse is

a Georgetown law professor. She
was chief counsel to Joe Biden
when he was vice president.

Welcome to you both.

John, let me start with you.

Over the next couple of weeks,
we're going to be hearing
a lot about Judge Barrett's

judicial philosophy, hear
her legal writings and
academic writings dissected.

But you can tell us something
that isn't going to come through
that. What is she like as

a person? What was she like as
a boss when you clerked for her?

JOHN ADAMS, Former Law Clerk
For Judge Amy Coney Barrett:
Professor Barrett, when I first

met her, and then Judge
Barrett, was an amazing boss.

It has been downhill ever since
I'm not able to spend time
with her on a day-to-day basis.

She is unfailingly kind. She
is courageous. And she is fair.

And she is also someone with
an unrivaled sense of humanity,
humility, and humor, given

all the tremendous
responsibilities and
accomplishments she possesses.

She is a principled jurist, who
will also put the rule of law
before any personal preference

or public pressure
that she may receive.

JOHN YANG: On Saturday night,
when she said that Justice
Scalia's judicial philosophy

is her judicial philosophy,
explain that. And how does it
show itself when she approaches

a case?

JOHN ADAMS: Well, in two facets,
she has explained the impact
that Justice Scalia has had on

her.

She has professed she is an
originalist. And originalists
believe that the meaning of the

law is fixed at the time it is
ratified, and the meaning of
the law, the original meaning,

the ordinary meaning of
the law, is what controls,
if it's discernible.

And she's also a textualist.
She believes that she's confined
by the words of the statute

that's duly enacted
by our legislature.

JOHN YANG: Professor Nourse, you
have said that you have -- you
have challenged or questioned

the idea of textual
interpretation in a justice
on the Supreme Court.

What's your objections, or
what's your problem with it?

VICTORIA NOURSE, Georgetown Law:
Well, it sounds really banal
and obvious that you follow

the rule of law.

But it is kind of, as Justice
Scalia would say, a wolf in
sheep's clothing. Justice Scalia

read a book call "Reading
Law." And I wrote a book called
"Misreading Law," because what

happens is not these fine
statements that John has said.

And Judge Barrett -- I have
known her and debated her as
a law professor -- is a fine

woman. But I have to tell you,
the philosophy is not so fine
and it's not so nice for the

American people.

And why? Look at the health
care cases. You don't have to
believe me. One of them went

up there for what I have argued
is a single word that was
wrong in the statute. That is

an anti-democratic way
of looking at statutes.
And she's got answers
that you will hear at

the hearing.

But I fundamentally believe,
if you look at what Justice
Scalia has done -- and she has

adopted his views on reading
law -- you will see that
he reads selectively.

JOHN YANG: John, I want to
ask you, I mean, obviously, to
respond to what Professor Nourse

has said, but also get your
take on how you think, if
Judge Barrett is confirmed, how

Justice Barrett would change
the court, change the direction
of the court, taking this big

ideological shift from
Justice Ginsburg to
potential Justice Barrett.

JOHN ADAMS: Well, John,
let me begin by responding
to Professor Nourse.

Textualism, as Justice Kagan
has famously said, we are all
textualists now. Textualism

allows judges to follow
the words of the statute
duly enacted by the
legislature, instead of

searching for unknown purposes
that could have been behind
the legislature's minds or

intents.

And, in my view, textualism
supports consistency and
predictability in the
law. It also prevents

judges from being legislatures
from the bench. And it also
prevents judges from imposing

their own views or their own
public policy preferences
into the law, because they're

constrained by the words of the
statute. They can't go beyond.

And Professor Nourse does bring
up the point that there are
times when a statute can be

ambiguous. But, of course,
there are canons of construction
that can guide a judge to

identifying the ordinary
meaning of the statute,
and then neutrally
applying the statute to

the facts at hand.

I think what you would see of
a Justice Barrett is the same
thing that you would see -- that

we have seen of a Judge Barrett
on the Court of Appeals in
what she has participated in,

over 600 decisions.

She approaches every case with
an open mind and a foundational
commitment that either

side might be right, and
it's the law and the facts
that guide the decision.

JOHN YANG: Professor Nourse,
let me ask you the same question
about, where do you think

this shift on the court,
this new justice, if she is
confirmed, how would this change

the direction and
ideology of the court?

VICTORIA NOURSE: Well, I have
to say, I think that this is
going to be the biggest shift

since the early 1930s,
before FDR attempted to
pack the court, which I
believe was unconstitutional,

by the way. I
don't support that.

But it's tremendous, because
you will have six votes. Justice
Scalia's philosophy about

reading text is not traditional.
It's not Blackstonian. It
doesn't go back to 1787.

And it's been very hostile to
laws, and that because it would
have -- if she voted as Justice

Scalia did in the first health
care case, as she said, we
would not have Obamacare.

There was a second case. Again,
Justice Scalia rewrote that one.

So, what we are going to see
is a continued hostility toward
the Congress. And this court

also loves the presidency.
They're very interested
in what Justice Scalia
misquoted the Constitution,

in my view, when he said,
the president has - - quote
-- "all executive power."

That's not what the
Constitution says.

So, I think it's a momentous
appointment. I -- unfortunately,
I think it's going to

be mired in a terrible
politics. And I hope people will
focus, as John and I have, on

these theories and what they
really mean, not just the
sayings. They all -- all lawyers

are happy to give you
great words about the rule
of law and all of that.

Look at what people have
done with the philosophy,
not what they say about it.

JOHN YANG: Because you -- you
talk about this momentous, this
big moment, short time before

the election, a
fundamental shift in the
balance of the court.

You worked for Joe Biden,
not only in the White House,
but on the Hill, when he was

on the Judiciary Committee.

What -- we're going to hear
a lot in these hearings. What
is fair? What's a fair line

of inquiry and what do you
think is out of bounds.

VICTORIA NOURSE: I certainly
think her children are
out of bounds. I think
her religious views

are out of bounds.

When I -- I was actually
nominated to her court, the
Seventh Circuit. I never got a

hearing. But my kids
were threatened.

I think people have to
be very careful now.
People are so worked up
because of the pandemic.

And there's just way
too much enmity in this.

And Biden was one who taught
me that I can really enjoy
Amy Barrett's, Judge Barrett's

company, and we can have a
great debate, but I can say, I
think her views are dangerous.

And so I hope that we work
hard to focus on the views,
stay away from the kids.

JOHN YANG: John,
you know the judge.

She has been placed in this
situation not of her own
making, the environment in which

her nomination is going to be
considered. How do you think
she's going to be able to

handle it?

JOHN ADAMS: John, I think
she's going to be able
to handle it very well.

I know Judge Barrett. She is
someone with amazing fortitude
and poise and principle.

And she will carry those same
attributes as she goes through
this very difficult process.

Professor Nourse, I appreciate
you saying what's out of
bounds. I agree with you.

But I respectfully disagree
with you that her views are
dangerous. She is someone who

neutrally applies the law. And
you can see that her neutral
principles have been respected

by the unanimous, bipartisan
support that she received as
a law professor from the Notre

Dame law faculty, as
well as her co-clerks.

When she clerked on the United
States Supreme Court for
Justice Scalia, every single one

of her co-clerks for all the
justices supported her during
her confirmation to the Seventh

Circuit. And it's that type of
neutral application of law that
will make her a great justice.

JOHN YANG: John Adams, Victoria
Nourse, we're going to have
to leave it there. But I think

we have gotten a sense of
what we're likely to be going
through for the next couple of

weeks.

Thank you very much.

VICTORIA NOURSE: Thank you.

JOHN ADAMS: Thank you very much.