‘’What Is Or Is Not?’: Adam Schiff Grills Trump’s Judge Nominee To Define Judicial Activism

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ballou, in a questionnaire for the Kentucky Supreme Court, you expressed a strong dislike of what you described as judicial activism, referring to it as one big problem across America. So I want to ask you about that. If a judge were to overturn decades of precedent because of a judge's personal views or cultural views or religious views, um would you view that as judicial activism uh senator if the judge overturned precedent based on anything other than the law then sure yes sir and how about a judge that during the confirmation swore to uphold precedent respect precedent and then departed from decades of precedent what would you think about that would you think that judge was exercising judicial activism as part of the big problem across America? Yes, it sounds like it. So when the Supreme Court in Dobbs overturned decades of precedent to reverse Roe v. Wade, that was an illustration of the kind of judicial activism that is one big problem across America? Well, Senator, as a state court judge and potentially a federal judge, I can't comment other than on cases that have been decided. So I think it would be inappropriate for me to get more specific than what I've already answered you on those issues of activism. I'm trying to get a sense of what you mean by judicial activism, because there, of course, the Supreme Court did overturn decades of precedent, right? Yes, sir. Let me ask you about another illustration. How about Citizens United? Court there also overturned decades of precedent. appeared to have an agenda to allow more unbridled spending by corporations, something that's good for corporations, I suppose. Is that judicial activism? Senator, it would be inappropriate for me to speak to specific cases on what is or is not judicial activism. If you want to know what I think judicial activism is, I'd be glad to tell you. Well, I thought you just told me that it was overturning decades of precedent with some kind of personal, religious, cultural, or other agenda, right? Well, you gave me an example of someone coming in for a confirmation hearing and saying, I'll go by the law, and maybe then they didn't. But what I mean when I say judicial activism, and a lot of judges, and possibly most, I don't know, but a lot of judges have really good intentions, but they get outside of their AOR, their area of responsibility. and they try to fix things that the judiciary can't fix, shouldn't fix, it's outside of their lane. So that's what I mean by judicial activism. So if justices took it upon themselves to make changes to campaign finance, in contradiction actually of what the Congress legislated, that would be kind of egregious form of judicial activism, wouldn't it? Senator, Senator, I'm not going to comment on what justices of the United States Supreme Court or Kentucky Supreme Court. The reason I'm asking you is if you sit on the bench at any level and you only view judicial activism when it's contrary to your own personal religious cultural beliefs, that's a very convenient definition of judicial activism. Would you feel comfortable departing from precedent because it was in conflict with your personal religious views? I wouldn't depart from precedent anyway. I'm not allowed to do that. It would be inappropriate for me to do that. It would be inappropriate. Would you uphold, if the law required it, would you uphold a state law that provides access to abortion for women? Senator, I would uphold any state law that is constitutional. You know, I've been going by the rules that I may or may not agree with for 24 years. Is your answer yes, you would uphold the state's right to provide a free, not a free, but a legal abortion for women? Senator, I don't think it's appropriate for me to get specific other than to say that I will go by the law whether I like it or not. And if I could ask the same question very briefly to Mr. Pemberton as well, would you uphold a state law that provides a right of access to abortion for women if it was consistent with state law? You're asking me to opine on a potential case or controversy that could come before me? What I'm really asking you, because you're clearly not willing to answer, what I'm really asking you is, are you going to put your own religious or ideological views ahead of following the law and do so to the detriment of the citizens of this country? I apologize for the interruption. Listen, that's a different question as I understood the first question. But absolutely, I set aside my religious beliefs and ultimately uphold the law as it is. And I don't impose my beliefs in a courtroom. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.