During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) questioned Whitney D. Hermandorfer, nominee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, about her qualifications.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Three letters I want to submit for the record before I begin my questions.
00:06One is from Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, and then a letter from 24 State Attorneys General,
00:14and also a letter from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Scramatti.
00:19Without objection.
00:21And to Chairman Durbin, I'll be happy to talk with him about the Tineo Network.
00:25My son and his wife and so many outstanding young individuals really benefit from that.
00:34It's been beneficial in their lives.
00:36So I'll be happy to enlighten you at a future time.
00:39I want to also mention, and for all of our nominees, my Democratic colleagues ask nearly every nominee this Congress
00:50whether the executive branch must follow court orders.
00:54And then they attack the nominees if they don't give a categorical yes or a no
01:00because the question is nuanced in its academic.
01:05Now, yesterday we had a hearing on overreach of district court judges and the universal injunctions.
01:14Now, my colleague Senator Kennedy posed essentially.
01:19I deny everything.
01:20You can't deny this one, buddy.
01:25And so he posed essentially the same question to the panel, asking whether they would advise a client to defy a court order.
01:37Professor Shaw was the witness for the Democrats.
01:41And here is how she answered, and I'm going to quote her.
01:47I would not rule out ever the possibility that a sufficiently egregious order, there should be some consideration if there's some way I think it's a qualified answer yes.
02:01So the Democrats' own witness at yesterday's hearing on the issue of judicial overreach disagrees with them.
02:20I suggest when nominees are asked this question that is intended to be a gotcha question, that they just refer back to Professor Shaw's answer.
02:35I think it's unfair to attempt to conjure up disputes with a hypothetical, and these nominees are clearly committed to the law and to the rule of law.
02:49Ms. Hermandorfer, I am so pleased that you were before us.
02:54I want you to just lay out for this body why you are qualified to serve on the Sixth Circuit.
03:02So my substantive experience ranges across complex areas of law.
03:12I've litigated, as counsel, dozens of cases in the federal courts across nine circuits.
03:19I've argued cases in federal district court, circuit courts, and counsel of record in supreme court cases, state trial courts, state appellate courts.
03:29So I think my litigation experience serves me well, as does my clerkship experience, in which I was working within the judicial branch, getting a firsthand view of the deliberative process and the importance of treating every case and every party with care and respect.
03:45I think perhaps the most important qualification in my recent work is that I'm not a stranger to litigating cases that I know are going to be in the public spotlight and on which people have strongly held views
04:03in either direction. And when you're in a case like that, it is absolutely imperative that you treat every issue and every party and every opposing counsel with respect because you have to model civility
04:18the most when you're in a hot button type situation. And I've also gotten a bit of a backbone by knowing that what I do will not always be well received by all members of the public.
04:33And I've learned how to take criticism and I've learned how to take criticism and attacks and personal threats and move forward with professionalism and integrity.
04:42I know you're going to apply the law and you're going to protect people's individual rights.
04:49So let's talk about how you will approach cases that come before you and describe your method of statutory and constitutional interpretation.
05:01Sure. So my method reflects that the enacted text or the ratified text reflects the will of the people as of the time of enactment or ratification.
05:10And so the Supreme Court has instructed that if the meaning of the text at the time it was enacted or adopted is clear, then that is the meaning that fixes your interpretation and governs the legal issue that might be before the court.
05:25Of course, there are situations in which you use other tools of interpretation, statutory structure, history, precedent, and you use all of those tools to get to the answer that binds the parties.
05:39And in no instance is your own view about what the policy should be govern or enter into the inquiry.
05:50Yell back.
05:51Senator Whitehouse.
05:53Thank you very much.