what matters is removing any , ensuringconflict there is confidence in our election, in the supreme court and in its role, that is critical. we were assured yesterday you would not be attacked on the basis of your faith. that did not last 24 hours. i am not surprised. from theeard tax democrats on nominees on the basis of their faith, including you. we talked about this yesterday. the second senator to speak questioned and criticized you for speaking to a christian group that has a program for christian law students where you gave a lecture once or twice on constitutional interpretation. let me ask about that. you have talked about your faith.

you accepted an invitation to speak to a group of christian law students on the topic of your specialty. tell us why you accepted. ms. barrett: several colleagues had participated in the program, lecturing and i heard great things about it. we had a contingent of students from notre dame attend, they were among our most engaged and smartest students. i went and did it in the first time i really enjoyed it. the students were very engaged. i might have done it four or five times. i would go and give a lecture that was one hour of the summerlong program. and i my one hour lecture thought it was fun. we talked about the constitution. you aware ofare anything in the constitution

that says it is a disqualification for office? for a believer to go and lectured to law students of a similar faith in her area of expertise? i want to be careful i am not veering into answering a hypothetical. i did not think there was anything wrong speaking to a group of christian law students. sen. hawley: senator lacey raised a pledge that you signed regarding abortion and you told question,onse to his you and your husband signed it. i'm looking at the portion you signed, you signed it on your way out of church. ms. barrett: i did. that was almost 15 years ago. there was a table set up for people on their way out of mass validatingtatement

their commitment to the position of the catholic church. recall at it i don't the time. by thes like it was right to life group, the statement i signed, it was affirming the protection of life at conception a natural death. sen. hawley: you made reference it was in church. why would it have been in the back of church? why would this have been available to sign or not? because that is the position of the catholic church on abortion. i feel like i should emphasize here as i did to others, i do see as distinct my personal religious views and my task of applying the law as a judge. sen. hawley: safe to say the

signature that you went reflects your understanding of your church's teaching and your own personal views, that is what this says. ms. barrett: what i would like to say, i signed that almost 15 years ago. in my personal capacity as a private citizen. now i am a public official. while i was free to express my views at that time, i don't feel like it is appropriate anymore because of the context to express an affirmative view at this point in time. what that statement says is when i signed the statement, that is what i was doing as a private citizen. sen. hawley: i am not aware of any law or provision that says if you are a member of the catholic church and adhere to those teachings or have religious convictions in line with those teaching you are barred from office.

are you aware of any provision? the religious test laws would make it unconstitutional. no religious test should be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. can you give us your sense as a scholar and judge of the six forance of article a constitutional scheme? ms. barrett: it prohibits this generallyovernment from disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs. the hawley: and guarantees freedom of religion. one. article, amendment i want to ask about that in a second, religious liberty. article six sets out one cannot office based on

his or her belief. you don't have to get someone's approval over what you believe. doesn't meet this test or not. do they like it or not. you don't have to get a sign off. is that a fair characterization? ms. barrett: denomination or belief can't be a reason to disqualify someone. sen. hawley: that is why i say it is vital we underline in the constitution this test clause and we insisted be applied in the context of your confirmation and every nominee for every high office before this committee. there are no religious test for office and the attempt to be resisted in must on the basis of the constitution. let me ask about the free exercise of religion. that is how the first amendment begin, congress shall make no iorld law -- no law prohibit

ng the free exercise thereof. this in american life. why is it protected like this? ms. barrett: its presence in the it was onehts shows the people for generations beginning in 1791 considered to be essential to being a free people. sen. hawley: there's no indication religious believers are second-class citizens. ms. barrett: the free exercise suggest to the contrary. and it suggests the get specialreligion protection. it is singled out for protection after speech, press, the right of the people to assemble. religion is given a special

place which the supreme court has recognized. let me ask attempts to disfavor religious believers on the basis of faith. is it your understanding, can a city,ment, federal, municipality, can they treat religious believers differently? can they single them out for disfavor? is that permissible? ms. barrett: that is a complicated question. there's a lot of doctor and surrounding that. there are not great rules. that would come up with facts and would require the judicial decision-making process. it is not a hypothetical like can answer. sen. hawley: let me ask about the court's decision that touches on some of these questions, a question about a church's ability to hire and decision,he unanimous

the court says houses of worship are different. they are unique. they are given special protection under the first amendment. they must be accorded special status. they have to have the ability to hire and fire ministers. those that are going to perform the religious functions, state cannot interfere. do you agree with the teaching of that case? do you think it remains good law? the way to answer that question, as i've said, i cannot grade precedent, but i can talk about my cord. i was on a panel that decided a case that applied the situation of a jewish school which had and the teacher sued and the question was whether that school was entitled to treat her as a minister.

my court, the panel i was on said she was a minister. and saidhe factors you look at the cluster. it was designed to give religious institutions the to hire and fire their ministers. in this case one of the jewish faith. as consistent with the practice of their faith. was embracedours by the supreme court last term. sen. hawley: it is vital in this time when we see many challenges to religious independence, many to be ability of churches to termst worship with equal

institutions, the trinity lutheran case which is a recent important case as well, i will just say for myself, the lines the supreme court has drawn regarding the status of houses of worship and the rights of religious believers, now more than ever it is vital those be respected and the constitution be fully enforced and the line of cases that is now multi-years old be followed. you willly hope respect and apply that precedent going forward. let me shift gears and ask about another attack that has been made on you today having to do with the cantor case. senator durbinut asked about it, senator klobuchar, first of all it's a case about the second amendment.

the right to keep and bear arms. someone whohether had been charged and convicted of a felony could keep and bear arms under certain circumstances. is that a fair summary? from myrd repeatedly colleagues that you write in keepdissent the right to and bear arms is an individual right. the right to vote is not an individual right. maybe i am reading a different opinion. of the of your opinion, joint opinion, your dissent, you refer to civic rights, voting rights and you say civic rights are individual rights. say the right you to vote is held by individuals. let's set the record straight. in this case, you say the right to vote is an individual right.

distinction between a civic right and the second amendment, that is not a distinction you invented. to a chain ofing cases and also scholarship. ms. barrett: that is correct and the litigants argument. in other words it gives us a stake in our democracy. you never said the right to vote is somehow secondary or less than any other right. is that fair? ms. barrett: i never said that. your whole point in this case, this is not a voting right case. nothing to do with voting rights. your whole point is you think your colleagues constricted fundamental rights narrowly.

aght to keep and bear arms is fundamental right. you colleagues were constraining that. ms. barrett: we did disagree about the scope. sen. hawley: the supreme court has said over and over the right to vote is fundamental. you have a firm to that and recognize today that is supreme court precedent. this is to bring korda said they adhered to be one person, one toe standard, the keystone that entire doctrine. your opinionn challenges or changes that are or calls into question or critiques, nothing. i'm glad we are clear on that. as part ofbin said his line of questioning, he

suggested perhaps your opinion in this case, nothing to do with voting rights, makes you friendly to attempts to deny people the right to vote on racial grounds. we all comeo say to, every judge, all of us that come to the law, comes to the bench with their own individual experience and viewpoints. let's talk about that for a second when it comes to be vital issue of race and your own experience with that. you and your husband are the parents of i multiracial family. can you give us some sense in your experience what that has been like for you and what that means to you? what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this context? it barrett: i could say how

has shaped me as a person. a lifer you have experience that makes you aware in your interactions with others , it gives you empathy for them. the same is true is having a son with a disability. that whileake clear my life experiences, i hope they have given me wisdom and compassion, they don't dictate how i decide cases. before and aed couple of times, sometimes you have to decide cases where you don't like the results. while i hope my family has made me a better person, and my children have given me perspective on life, i still don't let those experiences dictate the outcome. sen. hawley: