Phillip:
I’m going to keep my introductions very short here because the two gentlemen here need no introduction. Joel Alicia is the St. Robert Bellarmine, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Director of the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. As I said earlier, he is one of the brightest young stars in academia. The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh is Associate Justice of the United States as the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Prior to his service on our highest court, he had a number of important positions in the executive branch in particular.
At Notre Dame, he wears at least one of his most important titles, which is dad to two Notre Dame students, and in our view, tuition payer. Our format tonight is Joel will host a lacking a fireside chat with the justice. So, gentlemen.
Joel Alicea:
Thank you, Phillip. Since Phillip had a chance to give some remarks earlier, let me just say before we get into our conversation that this event, the conference, this lovely dinner, none of this would have been possible without the support and the co-sponsorship of Phillip’s Center, the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government. And we’re just so honored and so grateful, Phillip. Really very grateful. And we’re honored to have Justice Brett Kavanaugh keynote this conference on Catholicism and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration. Justice Kavanaugh, in addition to being my former teacher, much more importantly, is one of the most prominent public figures in American life.
And one of the figures that has embodied throughout his career, the compatibility of Catholicism and patriotism to our Constitution and fidelity to the principles of the Declaration. So, I can think of no one better really to keynote this conference than Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So, Justice Kavanaugh, welcome back to Catholic University.
Brett Kavanaugh:
Thank you, Joel. And thank you also Phillip and Joel for putting this together. What a great group, a great conference today, set of panels. Thank you for the students I sat with tonight from Notre Dame and Catholic who are awesome. So, just really happy to be here.
Joel Alicea:
Well, thank you for that. Yes, our students were extremely excited to be having dinner with you, and so thank you for your generosity and taking time with them. I want to begin on a biographical note and just ask for your background in the Catholic faith. I know you grew up Catholic, you went to Catholic school, but could you just give us a little background on your growing up in the faith?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Sure. I grew up here in the DC area. I was a little kid, went to Little Flower Church on Massachusetts Avenue. And I remember 8:00 mass regularly on Sunday with my dad and mom. And Father John Enzler was a new priest then. He is still a great friend of mine to this day. He’s been head of Catholic Charities DC, most recently. A great mentor throughout my life. He always said, “Say yes when you can.” He would quote Matthew 25, serving others, helping those in need. He was a real influence on me wanting to serve and a great friend throughout my life. I went to modern day school then, a Catholic boys school. Chris Abel, teacher there.
I’m going to name a few teachers because of how influential teachers are. I know a lot of professors here, but in my life, teachers and coaches. But Chris Abel taught me religion. He also taught me English. He taught me To Kill a Mockingbird. I still have the me To Kill a Mockingbird that he taught me with from eighth grade in my office with the lesson on the inside of the book that it’s in my handwriting from eighth grade, standing in someone else’s shoes. He taught me to be a good person, and I think also to be a good judge. You have to understand different perspectives to stand in other people’s shoes. He’s still a great friend. I see him all the time.
Georgetown Prep then for high school, had this interesting guy two years behind me, Neil Gorsuch. But the motto of that school was Men for Others, all boys school. Again, the ethos of service. Mr. Fagan… Philip Rivers was here before. By the way, if anyone wants to leave and go watch him CUA on Tap, I might be right behind you. Famous quarterback. But anyway, I told him, Mr. Fagan, Jim Fagan, now 92 came to oral argument at the Supreme Court two years ago. He was my football coach. He brought me up Georgetown Prep helmet’s now my bookcase.
But I told him there, I said, “I would not be on the Supreme Court, but for you, Mr. Fagan, because of what he taught me about discipline and hard work and bouncing back all things I needed at various points along the way.” And it was great to have him there. And he was a model of faith as well. We had mass before every game and was very inspirational to me throughout all of that. My parents, of course, raised me in the Catholic faith and they’re still guiding me, as one might say, on that. And so, they’ve also been very much influences in my life. And from the beginning, it’s been an important part of my life in terms of honoring my faith and being Catholic.
And I’ve never been shy about talking about it publicly. I’ve been in public life, but I think it’s been important in terms of the values it’s taught me. And it gives me great grounding, I think, in terms of understanding the bigger picture and not getting too caught up in the day-to-day, particularly in the public jobs that many of us in this room have. So, that’s been important as well.
Joel Alicea:
Yeah, I think that is distinctive about you in that there are a lot of Catholics in public life. It is very different now than it was 250 years ago, or a lot of Catholics in leadership in public life, but not as many until maybe very recently who have been so public about their Catholic faith. But you have always been quite upfront about your Catholic faith. And you mentioned a number of people who’ve been influential to you on you in your development of your faith. If there’s anyone else you’d like to mention about on that point, I’d certainly be interested to hear it, but I’d also be interested to hear about, if you don’t mind my asking a personal question, just kind of your spiritual practices.
Besides going to Sunday Mass, are there any other spiritual practices that you have?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Yes. And on the faith point, just quick follow up on that. Senator Lankford, when I was going through my confirmation process and I met with individual senators, he actually thanked me for, in my speech that I’d given when I was nominated, expressing my faith. And Father John, the one I had met, Little Flower, was there in the crowd at the White House with me that night. And so, that was nice reinforcement. In terms of practices, I’m a regular at 5:30 at Blessed Sacrament Church in DC. I, during Lent, try to go do as many daily masses as I can at St. Joe’s Church. Get a good crowd of about 18 to 19 there on weekdays with Father Gurney who appreciates it.
I am a lector at Blessed Sacraments, so every six weeks or so I’m a lector, which actually, I think being a lector deepens your understanding, appreciation for scripture, which has been important. I’m a regular volunteer at Catholic Charities serving meals. I started doing that with Father John, who when he was head of Catholic Charities and served meals for the homeless on Wednesdays at 9th and G Street. That’s an important part of helping others in need living out what Father John talked about. In fact, I was confirmed on a Saturday night back in 2018. My first oral argument was Tuesday. Monday night was the event at the White House.
My first oral argument was Tuesday, but Father John, who had been calling me or texting me every day through the whole confirmation process, that weekend called and said, “Oh, you should come serve meals.” And I said, “Of course, I’m going to continue to do that.” And he said, “Wednesday.” Like, “I’ve got some things.” I’m like, “Got to figure out how to get from my office to the courtroom.” But that Wednesday at 5:00, I was there at 9th and G with my baseball cap on serving meals for the homeless. And Father John was, because it had been a tumultuous process to state the obvious, and he was reminding me of what was important. And I appreciated that from Father John.
I have tutored for many years and now don’t tutor, but I tutored for many years at Washington Jesuit Academy, which is a school for lower income kids here in DC. So, when I was on the DC circuit, I would go over and help tutor. Now I give them money, but I don’t tutor in person. But I don’t give them much money though, because I am a government employee with multiple tuitions, but I give them as much as I can. And now I have two daughters. They’ve gone to Catholic school as well. And I’ve been very involved in the Catholic schools community in DC from having gone there, from having two girls who play sports, basketball, lacrosse, field hockey, ice hockey, four sports between the two of them.
And when I got on the Supreme Court and they were in fifth and seventh grade, that was not ideal state, something that’s apparent. And so, I decided I’m going to try to be as regular present dad. And the number one way I can do that is show up at their games. And I’ve been at a great percentage of their games over the last six years. And that’s been really fun because I think those teams, as they were for me, have been very influential for them. But just to be part of the Catholic school community here has been really great. It’s very supportive community, Gonzaga, St. John’s, Georgetown Prep, Stone Ridge, Visitation, Holy Child.
I don’t want to leave any out, but there’s so many O’Connell, Bishop Ireton. And it’s just a community. And again, I don’t want to dwell too much on it, but during 2018 when that community really rallied, really, really rallied for me and I was very grateful for that.
Joel Alicea:
Well, thank you for sharing that. I really appreciate it. And we’re going to come back to the relationship between Catholicism and the Declaration in a minute, but I just want to table set because you have you as a Supreme Court justice here and one of the perennial debates, a debate that’s been going on for a very long time is the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution and whether the Declaration plays a role in constitutional interpretation. Do you see the Declaration as being relevant to interpreting the Constitution? If so, why? If not, why not?
Brett Kavanaugh:
I see the Declaration as explaining some of the principles that then formed the foundation of the Constitution, both in terms of its expression of liberty and equality, of course, but also the specific grievances then translate really directly into provisions in the Constitution. And the Declaration I think is background for why we have a separation of power system of the kind that we have. So, you see in the Declarations list of grievances, things like taxes imposed by the king, you see that control of the military. So, trace that to civilian control of the military. Trial by jury, the fact that the king had deprived the colonies of trial by jury that connects directly to the Constitution.
Perhaps obviously self-interested, most importantly in my view, a provision of the grievances, which says that he had replaced judges at will and reduced their salaries and that traces directly, of course, to the provisions in the Constitution that give life, tenure and salary protection, both of which are the foundations as we went over back in Separation of Powers class at Harvard Law School many years ago together, the foundation of judicial independence. And I think judicial independence is just absolutely central to the rule of law in the United States. And while it’s not perfect, it’s better than the alternatives in my view. And so, you trace the Declaration.
So, I think you do the Declaration and it explains why the constitutional provisions are there and why they’re important in many respects. That’s how I think about it.
Joel Alicea:
Yeah. Just a quick story on that is, I’ve said this the last time that we had a conversation together here at Catholic University, but the very first day of my course on separation of powers that I took with Justice Kavanaugh at Harvard, he gave, I think it was like a 45-minute, 60-minute lecture just going provision by provision through the Constitution. No notes, just his beaten up copy of the… Wwhich he still has…
Brett Kavanaugh:
Still here. The same one, still here. It’s even more beaten up now, but enduring, right? That’s enduring. Yeah, yeah.
Joel Alicea:
And just gave a mini lecture on each provision and the principles behind it, why it exists, what the implications are for our current politics. And I will say that that 45- to 60-minute lecture was more attention to the text of the Constitution than I got in the other three years of law school at Harvard. So, that was really useful to me. Well, I understand what you mean by the principles of the declaration being kind of backdrop, a kind of background for understanding the provisions, the provisions of the principles being a backdrop to the Constitution.
But even if the Declaration isn’t kind of directly relevant to constitutional interpretation in the sense of being a source of positive law, what about the natural law tradition out of which the Declaration emerges? Is the natural law tradition relevant to constitutional interpretation?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Well, the way I think about that is I think about originalism and the fixation thesis and constraints. The text is fixed at the time of ratification and it constrains judges going forward. And I think of those principles as growing really out of the natural law of tradition in terms of what judges are supposed to do. Natural law can mean different things to different people. And I don’t think natural law just kind of or general moral principles are a basis for judges to make decisions distinct from what the law says and as interpreted by its text, history, and tradition. I brought some props. Do you want them? Do you want some props?
Joel Alicea:
Of course. Yes.
Brett Kavanaugh:
Okay. Bork, I’m a Bork guy, okay? And Judge Bork, the fall of my first year was going through his confirmation process. Little did I think as the first year in Paul Goetz’s Con Law class, yes, this will be me and it’ll be just as many protests in the hall. That was not really what I had in mind. But anyway, I was listening to Judge Bork’s hearing and he would say things like, “Judges should interpret the law and not make up rights.” And that was very controversial at Yale Law School and I didn’t understand why that was controversial.
Joel Alicea:
It’s a mystery.
Brett Kavanaugh:
And then I’ve got Justice Scalia. I’m also a Scalia guy. And similarly, he was opposed to, and he was just getting on the Supreme Court then, opposed to judges making up rights or creating rights based on things that were not rooted in text, history, and tradition as well. And here’s a reading assignment too. It’s not printed, it’s a law review article, and we don’t talk enough about Rehnquist. And you’ve heard me say this a thousand times. Rehnquist, when I was in law school, was key because he, as the lone ranger in the 1970s, really shifted the debate about constitutional interpretation. In his article, The Notion of a Living Constitution in the Texas Law Review in 1976, I read in law school and it had a profound effect on me.
Yeah, this is what judges are supposed to do in terms of sticking to their assigned role under the Constitution, deciding cases and controversies, leaving the policy decisions to the states and Congress and the president and not getting outside their lane. And so, I consider myself in many ways a Bork-Scalia-Rehnquist guy. And then when I clerked for Justice Kennedy, I will say his commitment, I learned a lot from him about civility, about our constitutional history, but also commitment going back to the Constitution to free speech and freedom of religion.
I know we’ll get into that, but those are, if you’re asking what are my foundations, where did I learn these constitutional principles that I adhere to? I think those role models that I developed in law school and in the early years thereafter still guide me today as the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. So, I thought I’d bring these books out of the bookcase for show and tell tonight. Read that Rehnquist article.
Joel Alicea:
Two of the students who you had at your table took my American Constitutional Theory course where they were required to read that Bork book. So, they have a copy and they…
Brett Kavanaugh:
That is music to my ears. I’m so proud. It makes me want to cry.
Joel Alicea:
So, quite apart from its legal significance, the Declaration’s legal significance, I think there can be very little doubt that it has a significance in our culture and our political culture in constituting us as a people. And that means that we’re constituted in part by certain principles. And what do you see as kind of the main principles of the declaration?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Well, I think equality, the “…all men are created equal”. The principles of liberty that are expressed in the Declaration, I’ve already mentioned the grievances really are the flip side of separation of powers, of course. Governments, depending on the consent of the government, very important to our system that we all believe the people are in control, the people are the most powerful and from the people are the powers of government derived. And I think that’s critically important. I also think God’s role is prominent throughout the declaration, both at the beginning and the end.
And I think that’s a principle, not that people are forced to have any particular religious faith, but I think it’s important for me at least to recognize their understanding of God’s role in helping them create this new country. And remember, they risked their lives for this. They were really signing their death warrant by doing this. So, it took a lot of bravery for them to do that. So, I think about the courage that they did when I think about the principles of the declaration as well. It wasn’t just an academic exercise, it was a life-or-death exercise and those pleas to God were very meaningful, I think. So, it’s important to recognize that as well.
Joel Alicea:
You keep mentioning the specific grievances. One of my favorites, in part because of the way that it’s phrased is this one, “He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent Hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” So, how do you think about the relationship between the principles of the Declaration and the administrative state?
Brett Kavanaugh:
I knew it would be a Chevron question before Loper Bright these days. I actually think it’s quite relevant in thinking about the structure because the structure comes out of those grievances and the structure sets forth a system of separation of powers, in which I’ve already talked about the judicial role, but the importance of executive power being exercised within the bounds set by the Constitution and by Congress, and that it’s important therefore that courts, it cases or controversies that are properly before them to referee and police those boundaries that are set forth in the Constitution, which again could come I think out of the concerns, grievances that were expressed in the declaration.
So, again, I see it’s always important with the Constitution as we discussed. Yeah, there are words on a page, but where did they come from? Why did they develop the way they did? If you don’t understand that, you’re not going to understand the text and the structure of the Constitution as well. And as you say, many of the principles come out of the Declaration. And at Administrative Law writ large, I think comes out of those grievances where we’re concerned about unilateral power. We’re concerned about one person or one group of people having all the power.
And it’s frustrating to have power divided and separated the way we do, but we do that the better to preserve liberty as the Declaration aspired to. And I think that’s why it’s important to pay attention to those limits on executive power. At the same time, we got to pay attention to the limits on judges and judges don’t have free rein just because they don’t like the exercise of executive power in a particular case to invalidate it. So, it’s always a balance and it’s always a bit tricky to figure out, but this separation of power system, which undergirds administrative law, I think does come from many of the provisions of the declaration originally.
Joel Alicea:
So, circling back to the main theme of our conference, which is the relationship between Catholicism and the Declaration, really since the beginning, since the beginning of our country, many non-Catholics have questioned whether Catholics can really fully sign on to the principles of the Declaration. Do you see any incompatibility between the principles of the Declaration and Catholicism, your faith?
Brett Kavanaugh:
I don’t, and I think history is a good guide on that. Obviously, Catholics have had prominent roles in our history in government and have survived and thrived in America. And I think that shows, I think, that they’re not incompatible.
Joel Alicea:
Well, there are also concerns on the other side, right? There have been concerns by some Catholics about the compatibility between the principles of the Declaration and our faith. I think today there are many people, especially, well, I would say I have, in my experience, almost exclusively young men who have…
Brett Kavanaugh:
Young men who visit Professor Alicia in office hours.
Joel Alicea:
Had many such conversations and-
Brett Kavanaugh:
Sorry.
Joel Alicea:
… there’s a concern among some Catholics about the principles of the Declaration. I think it’s rooted in a sort of anxiety about the state of the country, about where the church is in America today, and what many perceive as a very aggressive attacks on religious liberty, on the teachings of the church. And a lot of that can inspire people to reach for more radical solutions, for solutions politically that are perhaps not compatible with the Declaration and its principles. And I wonder what thoughts you might have, reflections you’d have for people who have those concerns about the compatibility between the Declaration and the faith.
Brett Kavanaugh:
Well, I think having worked on religious liberty issues since the 1990s, when I think I was head of the religious liberties practice group in the Federalist Society, religious liberty has never been stronger than it is right now, in my view. And that doesn’t mean it can’t be stronger still, but in terms of where it was in the 1990s and where we are now in terms of the judicial protection of religious liberty, and I’m proud to have been a small part of that in terms of cases we’ve had over the last many years.
When I was in the ‘90s, discrimination against religious people and religious speech and religious organizations was thought to be demanded by the Constitution, not just even tolerated by the Constitution. And I thought that was an absurd situation as a matter of constitutional principle and equality and equal protection. And we got to the point in the early 2000s where religious, at least the state could treat religious people and speech and organizations equally without violating the establishment clause. And then we got to the point in the recent years in a variety of cases that in my view have been among the most important that I’ve participated in.
We said the Constitution requires that religious people and speech and organizations not be discriminated against and treated equally. And I think that’s a profound change from the hostility to religious that was in the ‘80s and ‘90s and both the… So, the free exercise clause has played an important role in that, the equal protection clause, and also correcting the over-interpretations or overly expansive interpretations of the establishment clause, which was interpreted in a variety of cases to almost try to cleanse the public square of religion. And that was, in my view, a very negative situation.
All of that, cases like the American Legion case, all of that has been much improved jurisprudentially. And my colleagues on the Supreme Court and people came before me, and I again mentioned Justice Kennedy, of course, Justice Thomas, my colleague now. And when I was a law clerk, he was there then too, and may he still be there when one of you on the Supreme Court. And I think that’s been just a fantastic change in terms… And when things improve, sometimes you forget where you came from, but I don’t. And I think it’s been good.
And then you think about Dobbs, and obviously I think the most significant case, certainly among the top couple, but probably the most significant case that I’ve ever been a part of. And the Bork hearings were all about abortion. The Court is the abortion court, and abortion was assigned to the Supreme Court, and Judge Bork really was defeated because of his view that it shouldn’t be. And then Justice Thomas and Justice Alito on my hearings were all about that. And Justice Scalia talked about that and his dissent in Casey, exactly that problem among many other problems.
And I think Dobbs recognize that the Constitution does not take sides on that issue and leaves it to the Democratic process as Judge Bork had said in his hearing. So, I viewed that as that’s not religious liberty per se, but certainly related and I think that was a huge change from thinking about the Bork hearings to thinking about where we are now. So, I guess I’d look at things class half full or more than half full on a variety of fronts that have been important. And again, if you think back to nightfall of 1987, I’m the first year and we’re talking about this and then the ‘90s working on religious liberty where discrimination is required against religion.
I think we’re doing well. It doesn’t mean we’re perfect, but we’re doing well.
Joel Alicea:
And importantly, I think to your point, these were all decisions where the court was, at least in its own understanding, trying to vindicate the original Constitution, trying to vindicate the original principles undergirding our constitutional order, not to depart from that, but to restore that.
Brett Kavanaugh:
Exactly. To restore because the court in too many different areas and cases had departed from the text and the history and the precedent, but the text and history, particularly of what the Constitution meant. And so, to correct that has been an important mission, I think important responsibility really of the current members of the court and those who went before us.
And again, I look back at Justice Rehnquist, Justice White’s dissent in Roe, I look back to some of Justice Rehnquist’s dissent on religious liberty and establishment clause issues, and now you know why I talk about Rehnquist so much because I think he, even before Scalia, was laying the groundwork on administrative law, on religious liberty, on unenumerated rights in ways that have been realized wish he were around to see it.
Joel Alicea:
Oh, one of the original dissenters in Roe, heroic in his efforts. Well, actually that point about Dobbs and obviously a very controversial decision, it’s a good segue into this next question, which is we’re living in a time of great political polarization, a time when Americans seem to fundamentally disagree about deep questions, questions about the nature of the human person, about justice, human dignity, the common good, and yet we’re here to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration. Is it possible for us to really celebrate the 250th anniversary as one people coming together to celebrate the Declaration when we are so divided on so many important issues?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Yes. Yes. Divided. How about the 1860s, the Civil War? How about when I was a little kid, but I remember the 1970s, Vietnam and Watergate. And I remember in September 11th Iraq wars, Afghanistan wars, too many people died in those, but the numbers pale in comparison to the 58,000 who died in the Vietnam War. And there was a draft. And talk about division in the country. And I was, again, a little kid, but I do remember that. And it’s important for everyone to go to the Vietnam Memorial Wall and think about that. The country was very divided.
And Watergate, of course, country very divided by that and very much affected, I think, undermined our trust and institutions Watergate did and lots of reforms that were made thereafter. I mean, I guess I worked for President George W. Bush for five and a half years, and he always talked about living on the sunrise side of the mountain, not the sunset side of the mountain, seeing the day that is coming, not the day that is gone. And he would say, “Be optimistic about the future. Be grateful for what you have,” which I am, and be optimistic about the future. And I am both of those.
And I think when I think about President Bush, the first thing comes to mind, and some of you have heard me talk about this before, but September 11th aftermath, when again, the country was completely destabilized, and I think about in September 14th, his speech at the National Cathedral, and for the students who are here who haven’t watched that video, some of you weren’t even alive then, which it’s hard for me to believe, but watch that video at the National Cathedral and watch him then on the rubble that afternoon of September 14th on the rubble in New York, where the country, it’s just no one who wasn’t alive then can quite appreciate the crisis of confidence and lack of security and fear about more attacks that were coming that were almost certain to come.
And when he said, “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people knock these buildings down, we’ll hear all of us soon.” And then all the firefighters and rescue workers cheering wildly. I mean, that was the number one moment of the Bush presidency in my view, but it was also critically important because it rallied everyone and gave everyone confidence. And then that next Thursday night, Mark, September 20th, 2001, he gives a speech to Congress. And again, for the younger folks here, to watch that speech, he wasn’t known as the great order. It is a great speech in terms of rallying the country, organizing why this had happened, what we were going to do and how it was going to proceed.
And it’s a real rallying. And then of course, probably capped off by something important in America, and it may seem trivial, but going out to the mound at Yankee Stadium with a bulletproof vest and massive security and taking a real risk that the Secret Service didn’t want him to take. But he was like, “No, I’m going out there and showing the country.” And when he walked out to the mound and everyone’s chanting the whole crowd, Republicans, Democrats, whatever, chanting USA, USA, and then he, thank God, throws a strike that was… I mean, we did joke. I got to know him real well when I was staff secretary and traveled over three years.
What if you had just fired that over the catcher’s head into the backstop or something? That would have been really bad, but it was a perfect strike. Watch the documentary. It’s only 30 minutes on that, it’s called The Pitch, and it’s really a special moment. And so, he had one job. I always say this, President Bush worked for him. On September 12th, 2001, he came to the Oval Office and he said, “This will never happen again in America. This will never happen again.” And that was his mission for the next seven plus years. This will not happen.
Every night when he went to bed, every morning when he got up, he had everything else to do, budget, environmental issues, healthcare, immigration, all the really important things, but his mission was to keep the country safe. And that’s a huge burden as the country went on and we went on and he wanted the country to move on economically and otherwise. But for him, I always say this, for him, every day for the next seven plus years was September 12th, 2001. And that was a huge burden for him to carry. And I thought he carried it well and he performed his role. I was honored to be part of that, but his message of optimism and positivity I carry with me now.
So, sure, we have divisions now, but Civil War, Vietnam, 1968, assassinations and Watergate, and then looking at the destabilization at the wake of September 11th, I think we need to keep things in perspective and be positive about, grateful for what we have, positive about how we can make it better and where we’re going, but also of course realistic about fixing problems. So, I’m sunrise side of the mountain.
Joel Alicea:
Yeah. Those moments from 2001 that you described were really formative for my political consciousness growing up. And I always, when I teach Con Law I and War Powers cases, a lot of these 9-11 Guantanamo cases, I often tell my students, “Go watch that 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.” It’s one of the most electric moments of political rhetoric.
Brett Kavanaugh:
Well, when he starts with Lisa Beamer, who’s the wife of Todd Beamer, who had stormed the cockpit in flight in ‘93 and saved maybe me, who knows, that plane was going to the White House or the Capitol while I was in the White House that day, that you will have trouble not tearing up watching that. And it’s a reminder. And he did a great job of reminding the people of the bravery at the same time in the National Cathedral speech of recognizing the loss as his phrase there. We’re in the middle hour of our grief. And it was very powerful. And you can tell from me talking about and having word form, that’s a central day of my life in America.
And so, I still think about that. And then I think about where we are now, and I guess that gives me perspective to be positive and optimistic.
Joel Alicea:
Yeah. A great reminder of a moment when we were extremely divided before 9-11 and a real rallying after that moment of commonality, common purpose. So, I’d like to close, you’ve been extremely generous in taking time with us this evening. I’d like to close by asking you to reflect on the fact that we are here celebrating 250 years since the Declaration. As you said earlier, when those brave men signed the Declaration, pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, they seemed likely to be signing their death warrants, right?
The long odds that confronted them of defeating the British Empire, the mighty British Empire, it was not at all a foregone conclusion in their minds that we would be here today 250 years later celebrating their achievement for themselves and for their posterity and for all that the Declaration has meant to the rest of the world, not just to the American people. So, in closing, what are your reflections as you contemplate the fact that we’re now 250 years since 1776?
Brett Kavanaugh:
Well, I think about those people who risked their lives and had the courage. And then I think about the young people here in the room tonight and the young people throughout America and the older people too. And we need to be inspired by those brave patriots to serve, to participate, to be involved, to not shy away from the public square because our views might be unpopular to participate in government, whether it’s local government or county government or city government or state government or national government. To get involved, to participate, to not be afraid of standing up for your principles.
One of my favorite being, of course, at Catholic University, and going back to your very first question, one of my role models throughout life is Pope John Paul II, who I was fortunate enough to meet with President Bush at the Vatican in 2004. For a Catholic kid to be with the president and the Pope, it’s like all downhill from there, but it was great to see him. But “Be not afraid!: was… Of course, that’s a phrase throughout the Bible, “Do not be afraid.” And “Be Not Afraid” was the phrase he used all the time to stand up to communism in Eastern Europe, to stand up for the values, the Catholic values that he articulated and represented and reiterated and stood for.
And so, I think it’s important to think about the future with optimism as President Bush certainly taught me, to think about it with courage as the Patriots of the Declaration and as Pope John Paul II instructed us and exemplified and to get involved, to get involved. You don’t have to spend your whole life in public service, but I go back to Father John, say yes when you can, as he taught me as an altar boy and to the young people, say yes when you can, get involved.
And being with the table tonight here gives me, with these great young people, a lot of confidence about the future of America and confidence that if we keep on the path we’re going, which can always be improved, we can always do better, but God willing another 250 years and then onward from there.
Joel Alicea:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for helping us celebrate 250 years. Please join me in thanking Justice Kavanaugh.
