What is the US Supreme Court?

Welcome to family policy matters and engaging and informative weekly radio show and podcast produced by the North Carolina family policy Council hi this is John Rustin, presidency, family, and were grateful to have you with us for this week's program is our prayer that you will be informed and encouraged and inspired by what you hear on family policy matters and that you will fold better equipped to be a voice of persuasion, family values in your community, state and nation, and now here's our house to family policy matters. Tracy Devitt brings thanks for joining us this week for family policy matters tromped energized both his supporters and opponents last October when he nominated appellate court judge Amy Kony Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a new presidential and congressional term begins.

We want to take a look at the makeup of this. The third branch of our federal government, the courts and what Justice Barrett's addition to the high court could mean for the national legal landscape. Denise Harley joins us today to talk about this. Carly is a senior legal counsel with the alliance defending freedom.

One of the nation's preeminent law firms defending religious liberty. The sanctity of human life, marriage and family, Denise Harley, welcome to family policy matters to be talking according to a report by Bloomberg. The United States Supreme Court now has three women justices, one black member.

Six Catholic to Jewish and one Protestant, and a 63 conservative majority.

Tell us a little bit more about the likely direction of the court. Now that Justice Barrett has placed the late Justice Ginsburg report now that several of them are committed original. That is probably a word that you're a loser that heard the really important guidepost for judges.

It's not the only important criteria, but what it basically means is that the judges are committed to applying the law written methods originally intended to be applied to taking an evolving approach or letting their personal opinion affect how the laws applied the with originalist judges cases are decided in a way that's faithful to the Constitution in a way that's faithful to the statutes and laws that there actually written and you mean we see that played out in these justices continue to apply originalist as the majority of the court. We we really clean with Kate Locke precedent where Americans are seeing rely on what the law says and we don't have to worry that a judges continue their particular opinion to ship things in an unexpected direction.

That's not faithful to the way our laws are intended to be applied so we know about justice Barrett's judicial philosophy, but we know if you have it stellar record and we do this not only from her court decision, but also her academic writing and her teaching in terms of just hurt so she clerked for Justice Scalia, and we know a lot about his philosophy and she appears to be a very committed originalist, and we know that the call from her confirmation hearings on hope that most of us were able to watch it was really an educational experience. So one thing she said during the confirmation hearing is a judge may never twist the law to align it to her personal conviction. No matter how deeply the personal convictions may be held and so she really believe that her personal opinions and conviction do not affect the law and not critically important, we mean that played out in her decisions on where she has been in the minority when she believed that the corrections or predation blonde. She's been the majority.

Otherwise, we see a very collegial and intelligent writings from her as well and so I think we can expect her to be someone who is a protector of constitutional rights, which really is the role of the court about that. Let's assume that we've got some young people who are listening who don't really understand the role of the court which test in layman's language. Explain what that role is yes happy to so the role of the court. In a lot of ways, his defender right and protector of freedom and so the court and away are often the buffer between the government and citizens individual when the government does something that violate your constitutional right. Xavier's preschool site. You have a forum to be heard in the courts of the United date, and then this court can confirm what your rights are and issue a legal protection for those rights. And in that way curtail the government from overreach from targeting certain the defendant from taking it power in using in an unfair way and so the courts are really here to be able to call balls and strikes, but mediate and protect people from having their right there confirmed privileges from being taken away. The court is not a legislature. For one thing, for the court does not make up law should not be creating the law should not be saying what it thinks the law should be mentioned be writing what the law is in a new way that departs from what's actually on the books is the very distinct role. It should be a neutral arbiter. Listen carefully to the arguments of both sides and then in considering those arguments and looking at the court should simply state what the law is and make a ruling that confirms those right.

Those of us who are watching everything that's going on surrounding the election might have missed the fact that the US Supreme Court is already in the middle of its current term of cases, are there some cases that ADF is working on and watching in particular, there are ADF argue the case last week in United Supreme Court in 1900 by telephone.

We coded because that's how the court of protected right now because of COBIT and now with the really big free-speech case certainly want to watch this case have to do with really whether individuals can hold government accountable in the government infringes our free-speech rights.

So what happened in that case is a college student named Sheikh it was from these immigrant from Nigeria.

He's a believer. He was one of the witness on his public college campus and so the campus had tiny what they call the free speech zone and they had a speech code as well, which limited free-speech certain hours all of that is unconstitutional because of the public property abided by the speech code here by the speech zone and yet still campus police told him to desist from peacefully sharing the gospel and threatened him with expulsion of the colleges argument to the Supreme Court was once we've stopped violating his rights. The policies overrun for team against him anymore. So the case is really over. There's nothing to see here an argument is know they still damages the government still of damages. If, for any period of time during printing on someone's free speech right so the question is whether that's correct. And whether that even if the violation is over. If you have suffered a free-speech violation by a government policy. You can still obtain what's called nominal damages that illustrate the downs of a valuable and really priceless right now taken away from you temporarily. The second case, I would point to absolutely interesting one to watch as an abortion case out of Mississippi and has now been rescheduled and relisted on many many many weeks which means something is going on there. So when it's relisted it means the court for a conference and does or does not discuss the case and then says okay we need to discuss it again. That case is called Dobbs again, it's out of Mississippi and to do with Mississippi 15 week limit on abortions to Mississippi past the law with the gestational limiting abortion can't be performed after the 15 weeks this will be the first major abortion case to the Supreme Court, and several years this case directly because of the question row because row said that before viability of the baby estate can't place was called an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose abortion and so 15 weeks is before viability, as we you know are able to deal with medical technology right now. I really obviously the moving line but to uphold the law would be here.

He is undercutting a row which would be extremely exciting and so I think see this court take a case like that, a challenge to row so quickly is surprising to me, but it's also very exciting. If that case is taken, it will be heard next fall which would mean we would have a decision sometime before June 2022. So it is also representing the leadership of North Carolina's Gen. assembly in defending several of our important pro-life measures that we passed in recent years and now are under attack constantly by state and national pro-abortion groups. What's the status of that every woman deserves to know better option than unexpected pregnancy North Carolina's law protect women in this way by providing for fixed through informed consent, providing a brief informed consent. For the woman to consider the information and for making sure that abortion facilities meet basic health and safety requirements. These laws, the been on the books for several years, but earlier this year, last aired out Planned Parenthood and several other abortionists brought a lawsuit challenging the very commonsense health and safety protections for women and their argument is that this is depriving them of what China Constitution called the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. So it's an interesting claim because I think the abortion industry is really tipping his hand because it's openly saying no, we want to do more of these, we make money off this. This is the fruit of our labor you're preventing us from doing as many abortions as we want wherever we want and we want to use people that are licensed physicians. We want to have more clinics everywhere and you're standing in our way.

Essentially the same thing away. The problem from their perspective is that the state have always had the ultimate power to protect the welfare and safety of their sentence. Of course the state can make sure medical procedures are performed by those who are qualified and trained. Of course the state to make sure that people undergoing medical procedures are only doing so after valid informed consent even from Ruby Wade acknowledges the state has a legitimate interest in protecting fetal life and potential unborn life. These are future citizens of North Carolina and the state can make her that it put in place at least minimal protection so that that life isn't squash out without consideration and we are very grateful for all that you have done on this front as well as so many other important issues. I do think it's important to state that state laws on abortion are very important because if Roe V Wade is overturned at some point.

That's what's gonna happen right it's going to throw the onus back on to the states and so those state laws are strong. That's at least a good start command of the important point.

Yes, if the day comes when Roe V Wade overturned, it simply means there is not a federal constitutional guarantee of a right to abortion but it doesn't mean it couldn't permit abortion if they wanted to and so a wonderful thing to see the states putting pro-life laws in place that they've done a fantastic job for several years now for just about out of time before we go. Denise Harley works her listeners go to follow the good work of the alliance defending freedom, love your listeners to hop on our website@adflegalductworkadflegal.org. There you can follow along with the cases and all of other cases and sign up for Iran's alert to get weekly update on some of the key cases on religious freedom, my marriage and family free-speech. You can also find out to be involved in prayer for our cases are ministries that even if you're so led to donate and support our ministry. We would greatly appreciate that where a nonprofit pro bono group so that means we don't have to charge any of our clients for this work. We get to do that.

We love having ministry friends on the nation who aren't with us and help us make sure that these fundamental freedoms are protected. Denise Harley senior legal counsel with alliance defending freedom. Thank you so much for being with us today on family policy matters. You been listening to family policy matters.

We hope you enjoyed the program employment to begin next week to listen to the show won't want to learn more about NC families want to inform, encourage and inspire families across a lot of our website it NC family.award that's NC family.org books again for listening and may God bless you and your family