Transcript for Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS
Supreme court confirmation hearings are set to start in two weeks, and this weekend nominee Amy coney Barrett talked about the past justice who taught her about her responsibility to the court and to the American people. Take a look. 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. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle, and certainly not for my own sake. I would assume this role to serve you. Now since Democrats can't really do anything to stop this, it looks like it's going to happen. So what are your impressions of her, Sara? I thought her speech was impressive and good. There were points that landed with me, but impressive I would expect from any nominee to the supreme court. I did like when she recognized that the friendship between her mentor justice Scalia and justice Ginsburg, I liked something she said. These two great Americans demonstrated that even arguments about consequence need not destroy affection, and I think we're at a shortage for those things, but I still look forward to the hearings. I tend to think when you replace someone on the court, you should make it a more lateral assignment, someone that interprets the constitution similarly and considering this -- justice -- not justice yet. Amy coney Barrett would be replacing Ginsburg. I wish they had more similar ideolo ideologies. She said she's a student of Antonin Scalia. That's diametrically opposed to justice Ginsburg. On its face, I'm nervous about what this means going forward, but I look forward to the hearings because the only thing you can find in the hearings is things she said in the past. She's been a judge for three years. That's not a prerequisite for being a justice. I'm more supportive of people being a judge for ten years. I would like more court opinions and more examples of judicial philosophy, and she's only been a judge for three years. So I look forward to seeing more of what she has to say. I am nervous, but -- what about you, joy? Well, I would like to keep an open mind about anybody that is on the court, but the facts are that trump has pledged to only nominate an anti-choice judge. So he must be very confident that Amy will be an anti-choice judge, and from her background during the three years on the seventh kir cute court of appeals, she voted in favor of restricting access to abortion. That tells me a lot about her. She also spoke against justice Roberts when he voted to uphold the ACA. I don't know how you can be pro-life if you are against health care, but I just want to say one small thing here because I think these numbers are interesting. Abortions fell 26% under Obama, 30% under Clinton, 9% under George W. Bush and 4% under Reagan. I think it's clear that the pro-life party is the democratic party. What do you think, sunny? What should we be focused on? Well -- well, I think we need to make sure that she is vetted properly because this is a lifetime appointment. I certainly have confidence in the training that she received at notre dame law school. It was the law school that I attended. It's one of the finest law schools in the country. It certainly is known for training a different type of lawyer, educating a different kind of lawyer, lawyers there are trained to serve the good of all. I don't think people need to be concerned that she is a catholic, a devout catholic. That doesn't matter, but I do think what matters is that she has suggested in her writings that catholic judges should recuse themselves in cases involving the death penalty. So if she made that suggestion, she cannot recuse herself when she is on the supreme court, right? And so in my view, where there is a conflict between what the church teaches her and what the law instructs, how does she strike that balance, and I'm concerned about that. How does she separate the two? Will her faith instruct her jurors' prudence? I think that really needs to be explored during these hearings. Perhaps if we can keep in mind that the United States of America is made up of so many different religions and groups that your religion is just part of the religious thought process in the United States. So when you are ruling as a judge, you can't rule as a catholic judge or a jewish judge. You have to rule as a judge. You cannot bring what you think you need to do because we're not a catholic country. We're not a jewish country. We're the United States of America. We have lots of muslims. So you can't go by your faith. You can only go by the rule of law here. That's my first thing, and maybe judges need to recuse themselves because if you are a judge of faith and you come upon something you don't feel comfortable deciding on, you're going to go with your faith. You're not going to be -- you're not going to separate it, and that's -- that's my concern that if you -- as you just said, sunny. You cannot recuse yourself, there is going to be an issue then. Then how do you not -- how do you not recuse yourself when it comes to something like this? If you can't put your judge hat on and say, this is the law as Scalia said -- you have to go with the law. The law says, this is legal. So you got to follow that.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.