Thread by @ElieNYC

All righty, Confirmation Hearing question day. Durbin says it's "Trial by Ordeal" #ConfirmationHearing

Jackson describes her 3 step process;
1: Start from a position of neutrality
2: Evaluating all the facts from various perspectives
3: Apply law to facts, while observing the constraints on judicial authority. (jurisdiction, precedent, "ADHERANCE TO TEXT")

She says she's constrained by the "original public meaning" which is the buzzword that conservatives know. But then says "sometimes that's enough."
And of course SOMETIMES it's not, but conservatives oversell their hands by acting like it always is.

To summarize: Jackson says her judicial philosophy is to look at everything, including text and original public meaning.
If conservatives were intellectually honest they'd love this answer. But since she comes to OUTCOMES they don't like, they won't vote for her.

Durbin asks KBJ about court packing. She gives *exactly* the answer ACB gave, and literally invoked her in her answer. :)

For the record, I do not expect that ANYBODY up to be one of our nine overlords supports expanding the bench to include more overlords and reduce their power.

That's the kind of argument you need to make from the OUTSIDE. :)

Jackson answering the Josh Hawley pedophilia smear directly. "The statute doesn't say "impose the highest penalty for this sickening crime."" Then she quotes the statute.

She's centering her answer on the perspective of the children abused and talking about what she actually says to these criminals when she's sentencing them and they are crying.

I bet Josh Hawley didn't actually look at that. Because he operates in bad faith.

LOL... Durbin brings up that Missouri judges downward depart 77 percent of the time. Then talks about how a judge Hawley SUPPORTED and nominated by Trump sentenced a person to 60 months, when the guidelines called for 130.

DURBIN OFF THE TOP ROPE!!

Live shot of @DickDurbin and Ketanji Brown Jackson this morning.

Jackson explains the CONCEPT of Federal Public Defenders "you have to defend who comes it. It's a service."

Unfortunately, Republicans don't really understand the concept of *service* so this is going to be hard for them. :)

Live your life so that when Josh Hawley tries to come at you entire staffs stay up all night just to embarrass him.

Grassley: "Do you believe that the 1st Amendment right to protest apply equally to conservative and liberal protesters."
KBJ: "Yes. Senator"
Me: Now, are these the questions I was called here to answer? Phone calls and foot lockers? Please tell me you have something more, Senator

OH JUST COME OUT IN FAVOR OF CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM IT IS GODDAMN 2022 WE ALSO DON'T DO POWDERED WIGS ANYMORE

I have no idea what Grassley is talking about right now but I assume it's "folksy" based on the guffaws in the courtroom.

MSNBC just cut away for more war.

We're into Qui Tam whistleblower actions and... knowing that we're talking about whistleblowers represents the sum total of my knowledge on this area of the law.

Sorry. You can have Few Good Men or Qui Tam but not both. :(

Grassley is quoting the one MLK line that Republicans know.

What's going to happen next is some suggestion that KBJ has *NOT* been picked for the content of her character but actually because Joe Biden is racist against white people.

Wife: What?
Me: I can only understand half of Grassley's questions
Wife: No, really, the words he said don't add up.
Me: I agree.
Wife: HOW IS SHE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER THAT??
Me: No, see, she can no answer whatever question she feels.

Grassley: "Sitting Supreme Court justices have said it's a bad idea."
Jackson: "Respectfully Senator, other nominees have not."
Grassley: [Then... I'm just gonna put words in your mouth]
Jackson: [stares motherfuckerly]

Grassley is asking about international law.

To remind you of the post-9/11 arguments Republicans used to make, they were very afraid of "Sharia Law" coming to the US. This was before Republicans took over the court and started applying fundamentalist Christian Theocracy.

It's a little more on point for Jackson than most people, because Breyer was a big proponent of actually looking at what other countries have done for additional information, and Republicans flip out because Breyer spoke French and the GOP hates FREEDOM FRIES and all that.

Jackson, who clerked for Breyer, was just like: Yeah. Whatever. I don't really look at international law.

Grassley basically said that she answered his questions but was going to ask more questions anyway... which at least is honest. I'm going to pee.

Grassley: Of the 115 other justices, is there any one that your judicial philosophy is like?
[this was a good question]
Jackson: I'm a trial judge. And most justices don't have that experience [boom]. Except Justice Sotomayor [Iron Man Boom]

Grassley: Y U HELP IMMIGRANTS WHEN WE SAYZ NO?
Jackson: It's pretty complicated by your law was pretty stupid for reasons you can't understand but let me quote your actual statute back at you and explain how I did the stupid thing you wanted me to.

Jackson: EVEN WHEN YOU WANT TO BEAT IMMIGRANTS YOU STILL NEED TO APPLY DUE PROCESS YOU DOLTS
[I'm... paraphrasing... translating... telling you my imagination of her internal monologue.]

Grassley is looking like he just showed up to office hours with "more of a comment than a question" and then had to sit there while getting wrecked.

Shorter Pat Leahy: MERRICK GARLAND YOU ASSHOLES

Jackson: "When I'm sentencing a defendant, I'm always very clear: 'Here is the problem. Here is what you've done to society.'"

Talking about how being a public defender informs her sentencing.

Not coming up in this hearing so far, but I think it's going to be GREAT to have a public defender be on emergency Death Row appeal duty. I think she might literally *save lives* if confirmed.

KBJ is explaining that her first representations of Gitmo detainees was just to file Habeas petitions.

A Habeas petition is basically just a filing that says "HELP. I'M LOCKED AWAY IN HERE. CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY???"

Obviously, Republicans are generally against doing this kind of work because they miss the days when throwing prisoners in the freaking Bastille was okay.

Did Leahy just say he's been able to vote on TWENTY Supreme Court nominees?

Jesus christ y'all. The 22nd amendment didn't go far enough.
(22nd is the term limits for president. You can remember it be 22 = Only 2 terms)

Good question from Leahy: "what do you take from being reversed?"
I can't recall anybody asking that.
*My* answer would be, of course, "SCREW those weak ass motherfuckers. I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT."

KBJ is like: Welp, you try to learn why they disagreed.

I feel like Leahy and Jackson are taking a stroll through a quadrangle some where

Graham asks Jackson what her faith is (she says non denominational Protestant) and asks if she could judge a Catholic (yes).

Now he's asking her how often she goes to church

And now he's trying to relitigate the Barrett confirmation.

Equating Jackson to Barrett on this issue is fucking dumb but literally WHATABOUTISM is something Republicans think is actually intellectual

Now Graham is doing the thing where he's talking about a different Black woman (Janice Rogers Brown) that Graham would have liked better.

Graham: "You're in the Black law school society"
Jackson: "The Black Law Students Association."

Lindsey--Black people are safe as long as they only travel in the daytime-- Graham is coming out

Graham's entire line of questioning seems to be re-litigating other nominees.

Just, like, let's remember that Amy Barrett has WRITTEN about how her faith should INFLUENCE her judicial opinions, while Ketanji Jackson is saying her faith SHOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with her decisions.

GRAHAM HAS YET TO ASK A QUESTION THAT RELATES TO ANY POSITION OR DECISION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON HAS MADE.

His first 15 minutes has been ENTIRELY about guilt by association.

Shorter Lindsey Graham:
* Are you aware that Joe Biden and the Democrats want to throw Christians to the lions? I'm glad you think that's wrong. Cause I think that's wrong. Now, can you explain why we can't throw Muslims to the lions??

Lindsey Graham is now angry that Jackson wrote a brief for the CONSERVATIVE @CatoInstitute over whether the president can hold enemy combatants INDEFINITELY.

Indefinite detention is really something that we haven't done since the Revolution but whatever.

What Graham is doing to Jackson would be like having me on to talk about my book and then just asking me questions about the Jovenel Moïse assassination in Haiti.

Graham: "When you sign onto a brief, does it not become your argument."

NO IT DOES NOT. THAT'S LITERALLY NOT HOW IT WORKS. LAWYERS TAKE CLIENTS WHO THEY DON"T AGREE WITH ALL THE GODDAMN TIME

Graham: Why would you write a brief for the @CatoInstitute
Any Biglaw Lawyer: THEIR CHECK CLEARED!

Is @CatoInstitute gonna get in here and EXPLAIN HOW LAWYERING WORKS to their boy Graham?

Graham: "There are some people who are going to die in Gitmo without a trial for very good reasons."

Well, see I don't agree with that. That's not lawful.

Demand Justice mention #1 today.

Graham: "Did you know a lot of people on the left were trying to destroy Michelle Childs. Did you know that?"

And we're back to guilt by association.

Lindsey is now just reading quotes that Jackson never made.

Graham: "You didn't know?"
Jackson: "Senator I did not"
Graham: "Okay. I'll take you at your word. What I'm saying is, what is your judicial philosophy?"

"That considers the constitution 'trash'" -- Graham. I believe that was a reference to me. :)

PUT SOME RESPECT ON MY NAME @LindseyGrahamSC, YOU COWARD!! :)

Graham's hope that people die in jail without due process of law is ON-BRAND for authoritarian Republicans, and a good example of why we always have to fight these people.

Live shot of my Twitter feed right now.

Feinstein trying to establish that Kavanaugh and Barrett both said that Roe and Casey were settled precedent. Jackson says she agrees with those two.

I suppose it will be nice to know that Kavanaugh and Barrett lied when they overturn Roe this summer.

Feinstein is giving Jackson a chance to talk about her family in law enforcement and entered into the record how much law enforcement loves her.

I know this is done to inoculate her from the stupid, baseless, "defund" attacks. I also know that Marsha Blackburn doesn't care.

Feinstein asks why it's important to have gender balance on the Court and Jackson responds that it gives children role models.

Good answer.

Also would have accepted: BECAUSE ASSHOLE MEN KEEP TRYING TO TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES

One interesting bit of Republican hypocrisy: they'll say child predators are the worst and do a whole QAnon thing, but then when the VICTIMS of these assholes grow up and run afoul of the law and liberals give them leniency, GOP lashes out with "soft on crime"

Cornyn "Can you nerd out with me for a little bit."
two seconds later
"I never understand why judges speak in Latin"

NERD FAIL SENATOR

Cornyn asking if it was correctly decided to overrule Dred Scott and Plessy.

Dred Scott wasn't overruled by the Court. It was overruled by the 13th Amendment.

NERD FAIL 2 SENATOR

Cornyn: "Have you ever heard of super duper precedent."

...

Cornyn asks if Jackson celebrated Clarence Thomas being confirmed to the Supreme Court. She says "yes."

She's a few years older than me, but I think that means she was in HIGH SCHOOL when that guy got put on the court.

Cornyn: "Did you study under @tribelaw at Harvard?"
Jackson: "I did not."
Cornyn: ...I'm going to go on and ask this stupid question that has nothing to do with you any way.
Jackson: I can't stop you
Cornyn: Hang on, I need to stumble over the words my staff wrote for me.

Cornyn says that Dred Scott adopts a substantive due process framework and IT DOES NOT because also SDP HADN'T EVEN BEEN INVENTED THEN as it predates the 14th Amendment but... this is what passes for intellectualism among conservatives.

Cornyn pissed that the Supreme Court "invented" a new right of same sex marriage under substantive due process.

To be clear: Kennedy used SDP... or something
Liberals woulda gotten that done under Equal Protection logic.

I explain this distinction in my book. :)

Listening to Cornyn is like listening to a college junior pre-law student read a Supreme Court opinion. Like, they can pronounce all the words, but don't actually understand what's going on so the emphasis are in all the wrong places.

Cornyn: Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution
Jackson: It is not
Cornyn: And freedom of religion is
Jackson: It is.

... His point seems to be that religious people have the right to deny the CONTRACTUAL right to marry and... that's just wrong.

For those who haven't read my book, Substantive due process is about the rights that must exist to make the other rights make sense. Conservatives don't think SDP exists.. EXCEPT for corporations, of course. Businesses get SDP, nobody else, according to conservatives.

The argument that Cornyn is making here is THE SAME ONE conservatives used to make against interracial marriage. It's copy pasta from those days. People like Cornyn didn't like it then and don't like it now.

Also not mentioned in the Constitution: the right of the Supreme Court to invalidate public health and safety regulations during a pandemic.

... but people like Cornyn don't seem to have a problem with that now do they.

Cornyn wants to make it very clear that he thinks VOTERS should get to decide what marriages are legal or illegal in their states.

Under that logic interracial marriages would have been illegal in Alabama until... 2000!!

I believe Cornyn has not devolved into making an argument AGAINST the Ninth Amendment... which is an interesting position for someone who claims to be concerned about what's IN the constitution.

Cornyn: "As a member of the circuit court you were bound by the Supreme Court. But as a Supreme court justice you are bound by nothing."

I mean... technically they're bound by SCOTUS precedent by PEOPLE LIKE KAVANAUGH AND BARRETT are NOT binding themselves to precedent.

See.. and Jackson says that SCOTUS justices are bound by precedent but then Cornyn DISAGREES and says "Thank God" Plessy was overturned.

So... which IS IT @JohnCornyn, do you want SCOTUS justices BOUND or NOT???

Sorry, I know, asking for intellectual consistency from Republicans is like asking a dog to pee in a toilet.

To recap: Cornyn wants justices who will only apply the rights IN the constitution, except for the 9th Amendment, and then he says SCOTUS justices are not bound by anything and that's bad, except for when it's good.

WHITEHOUSE TIME!

Right now, @SheldonforRI is doing the equivalent of slowly walking to the mound to let a pitcher clear their head. He entered a bunch of testimonials into the record and then asked her about a judge she clerked for.

Every friendly side does this for their nominee.

Nice. Whitehouse calls the Republican bluff. You want to get rid of dark money? Fine. Let's pass legislation. I GOT THE LEGISLATION RIGHT HERE.

And now Whitehouse is making the point that the @GOP literally outsources their judicial picks to @FedSoc, including their guy Don McGahn who picked the last two justices.

There is NO liberal group with that kind of access to any white house.

Whitehouse now doing the math on it all. With charts. And now he's hitting Judicial Crisis Network.

Now he's doing the thing about how @JCN (a dark money group) literally took out ads criticizing the Biden nominee for being a dark money pick... BEFORE BIDEN PICKED A NOMINEE.

If I had the kind of money that JCN and FedSoc had... I'd be live tweeting the hearings from Hawaii.

In case you are wondering... @SheldonforRI asked *exactly* this many questions of Amy Coney Barrett too. :)

I think that @SheldonforRI walks around with those charts in at all times.

Like, dude could be at a clam bake and somebody could say "how much money does @fedsoc spend on SCOTUS?" and he'd crack open a lobster and out would come one of those charts.

Whitehouse and Jackson are now educating the country about the role of an appellate court (and how they're not the finder of fact) and I'm just remembering that John Roberts DECLARED RACISM DEFEATED in 2013 and somehow "judicial restraint" Republicans were cool with it.

Ooooh... I was trying to figure out where this discussion on the jury was going. Now I see "tampering with the jury is pretty serious." Jackson says she agrees.

Tampering with the jury is something that Trump gets accused of doing, from time to time...

And now we've morphed into an attack on forced arbitration.

This is a live issue as Roberts and co LOVE forced arbitration. LOVE IT THE MOST.

We're back. Durbin starts off clearing up some misinformation thrown out there out of context by Cornyn.

Mike Lee is back talking about textualism.

Fun fact, Professor @jamalgreene has called me "surprisingly textualist." And I am. I read closely what these assholes have said throughout history, and I don't forget.

Lee worried about Americans who are "one judicial decision away from making their own health care choices"

... sure, when you're going bankrupt trying to keep your spouse alive you're thinking: thank God the Constitution is interpreted according to people who believed in leeches

The 9th Amendment says that the Constitution does not include a full and complete list of ALL possible rights and the reason why it's there is because James Madison worried that writing a Bill of Rights would lead to fools like Mike Lee thinking there were no other rights.

Lee: could [the 9th] mean that SCOTUS could decide new rights based on what they feel at the time?
Jackson: I don't think so.

I mean, the woman is giving them the answers they claim they want. So I really don't know why they're going to object to her agreeing with them but okay.

[of course I DO know what they object to... because the Republicans are NOT ACTUALLY CONCERNED WITH JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY... they're concerned with judicial outcomes and they don't GIVE A DAMN about philosophy as long as *outcome* is treating women as second class citizens.]

Lee asks Jackson about her talk with Biden

Didn't Amy Barrett establish that people weren't allowed to talk about their private conversations with the President? Or was that Jim Jordan? Or was that Kevin McCarthy? Or was that Steve Bannon. OR WAS THAT THEIR WHOLE DAMN PARTY?

All these questions about when it's "okay" for the government or an employer to treat somebody different on the basis of race... they're all driving to Lee (or one of them) eventually saying that Biden was racist to white people by picking Jackson.

It's a particularly stupid argument (first surfaced by Hack @JonathanTurley) of course, because if Presidential appointments were governed by, like, the EEOC, I'd have a HELL of a case against the Trump administration for its race and gender biased appointments.

I mean come on: 226 judges appointed and 85% are white? 75% are men? NO black men appointed? Dear God, a know a BUNCH of employment discrimination lawyers who would take that case.

Lee is talking about the dormant commerce clause.

It's... basically Lee is making the kind of deregulator arguments you hear in law review pages and lawyer cocktail parties held on somebody's boat.

Lee is incredulous that Jackson went low guidelines on in all the non-distribution child porn cases that Hawley mentioned.

Jackson says in the cases the GOVERNMENT was asking for a sentence below guidelines. Should be game set match. But won't b/c the GOP operates in bad faith.

Amy Klobuchar, an actual prosecutor, says KBJ's position on these cases makes sense to her. Which a lot of prosecutors say but GOP doesn't care because again their positions are not intellectual but just trying to smear.

Klobuchar brings up the Shadow Docket. First mention of the hearing and first mention in *any* hearing that I can recall.

This is the first answer of Jackson's I don't love. She could have come out stronger against deciding cases on an "emergency" basis when no emergency exists.

She's trying to be careful and I get that but the Shadow Docket it a new and alarming problem.

Klobuchar asking about anti-trust law. THIS IS HOW YOU "NERD OUT" @JohnCornyn! Not be flummoxed by Latin phrases but deep cut anti trust stuff.

And... since I'm not a nerd and very cool, I turn the floor over to @Kathryn1 to tell me what the hell these people are talking about.

BRING UP THE BLIZZARD-ACTIVISON DEAL SO I CAN PLAY ALONG!

. @amyklobuchar: I want to bring up NYT v. Sullivan because we're seeing attacks on journalists.
@nytopinion: Yes. Also white people sometimes have to bite their tongues now or risk being socially shunned.
Klobuchar: ... STFU
NYTOpinion: CANCELLED! We're being CANCELLED!

Klobuchar puts in a letter from Judge Luttig --who Ted Cruz clerked for-- supporting Judge Jackson.
And she reminds Cruz of that by name.

Cruz reveals that he and Jackson overlapped on the @Harvard_Law review. I didn't know that.

Also Cruz sucks.

Ted Cruz now brings up @nhannahjones. I fucking want Cruz to keep her name out his mouth. But we're going to do the "were the slavers who wrote the constitution slavers" stuff.

Cruz says that the @The1619Project has been "roundly refuted" and it hasn't and he's lying but none of this has anything to do with KBJ

Cruz now doing Critical Race Theory

Jackson: "It wouldn't be something I rely on, on the Supreme Court."

End of discussion? Course not. Cruz is now onto Marxists.
Jackson, again "I've never studied critical race theory."

Cruz asking Jackson about her board membership on the Georgetown Day School. Jackson has said that the school has a mission to "social justice" and Cruz apparently has a problem with that.

Uh oh. Jackson said "Thank you for giving me an opportunity..."

NOW should going IN on the history of segregation in DC and Georgetown Day's role in de-segregating

Now Cruz is saying that Georgetown Day school is "filled" with critical race theory but... here's the thing, the GOP basically makes everything that don't like "Critical Race Theory"

Now Cruz is going in on @DrIbram

Jackson just took a DEEP SIGH before responding to this nonsense from Cruz.

Cruz: I read the entirety of the book
Wife: that must have been a first

Cruz, quoting @DrIbram, saying that the idea that we don't see color is convenient for people who don't want to stamp out racism.

KENDI ABSOLUTELY RIGHT OF COURSE, but it doesn't have anything to do with KBJ.

Cruz: "I see an activism and advocacy as concerns sexual predators"

This is... not true. For instance, of the two people in this interlocutory only ONE of them has voted to confirm a person who has been accused of attempted rape .

Only ONE of them endorsed for President a person who has been accused by 25 women of sexual misconduct.

Perhaps Cruz doesn't understand what "advocacy" for sexual predators looks like but he might want to start by looking at his own record.

Jackson answers very well, clarifying her law review note as a question about post release registration of sex offenders. Jackson says her note asked if they were punitive or preventative.

Cruz has no evidence that they're preventative. But, you know, facts are not what he does.

Republicans are attacking Georgetown Day... which is funny because Republicans think all judges should come from Georgetown Prep.

Cruz is asking questions that he should direct at Chris Wray but won't because Wray is one of his boys from the @FedSoc

Right not Ted Cruz is the Nate Silver of child porn sentencing guidelines. He's cherry picked five cases and is doing MATH... with RED PEN... to show... literally nothing
"Every single case, 100 percent of them" (after excluding two cases from his data set)

Jackson: Your chart does not include all of the factors that congress tells a judge to use.
Cruz: we don't have those factors
Me: THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I would really like for somebody to steal the Ted Cruz chart from him, Daniel Kaffee style, and ask her "did all of these people go to jail?"
And then she says yes.
And then write on the other side: "Now let's look at the following police officers who murdered black people"

But, you know, I'm just a Black guy who isn't intimidated by the fool.

Here's the thing: Is the ACTUAL ARGUMENT the Republicans want people to believe is that Judge Jackson will use her position on the court to help people molest children?

NO? Then the WHOLE LINE OF ATTACK is made in bad faith to rile up dumb people.

Coons asked if KBJ has every cited the 1619Project. And asks if she's ever cited Critical Race Theory

Jackson says no.

My wife didn't know @DrIbram wrote a children's book and she's buying it now for our kids. So... thanks for the book recommendation @tedcruz

Coons is bringing up one of Jackson's best cases. I've been waiting for this one. This is where Jackson ruled IN FAVOR of Trump's dumb ass Wall. Ruling that, at least when it came to some environmental laws, Trump was allowed to waive certain requirements under the APA

Like, Trust me, I would have gone *OUT OF MY WAY* to rule against Trump's monument to American bigotry, but in this case the law wasn't on my side and Jackson ruled appropriately.

Coons: "You understand why the robes of our justices are black, not red, not blue."

I mean... personally I think judges should have the groups who supported their nominations on their robes like NASCAR drivers but sure.

Sasse up: "You are likely to go onto the Supreme Court"

Is he going to vote for her? No. You're going to let other people do that work.

Guys... I think Ben Sasse is reading my Twitter feed

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1505976180666679297?s=20&t=ynG-_z8jchsRBJpKsnyPkw

Sasse again asks Jackson which Justice Jackson is most like and Jackson again won't tie herself to anybody.

Folks, when you are the *first* and you're looking to be the first, you often don't act like you are emulating someone else.

I just... do you know how REDUCTIVE it is for @BenSasse to be sitting here asking her to "NAME A JUDICIAL PHILOSPHY" and Jackson is like "I'm not in a box" and Sasse to respond with "YOU MUST HAVE ONE"
Like why? Why does she have to label her self to make things easier for Sasse

Sasse: Name your favorite dessert
Jackson: Depends on the meal
Sasse: NO. EVERYBODY HAS A FAVORITE
Jackson: I can tell you how I pick a dessert
Sasse: STOP BEING EVASIVE: ICE CREAM OR PIE??
Jackson: Dude.
Sasse: WHAT WAS SCALIA'S FAVORITE DESSERT? WHY WON'T YOU EAT IT?

Sasse is saying that he needs people to define themselves in "schools" so it's simple for him to understand. He's a longstanding member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. FREAKING SKILL UP instead of needing things fed to you like a child.

Then again, maybe Sasse really *doesn't* know what he's talking about because if he's going to ask Jackson about Scalia's opinion on the 4th Amendment he's going to find that the 4th Amendment was one of the only ones Scalia thought constrained the bigotry of the state.

Anyway, Jackson is now accurately explaining the originalist position on cell phones. Because it's not hard.
Sasse asks if there are non-originalist ways. Jackson says yes and is explaining it.

My *non-originalist* take on cell phones is that the state has no right to search your phone without a warrant and people telling you otherwise isn't about originalism v. modern, it's jackboot v. civil liberties. :)

Jackson is basically trying to explain how a judge does their job the way a firefighter lets kids slide down the big pole.

This is an entirely mainstream dissertation so I'm wondering why he's gonna say he's not voting for her this time.

Sasse says that KBJ "shows how much Scalia's and Bork's work has moved the field."

I agree that those two assholes have moved the Overton Window far far to the right. I just think it's time for liberals to start pushing back.

Blumenthal asks KBJ to list some of the obstacles she's overcome to be here.

She's going to do a normal thing but I would straight up say "As I think you've seen today, assholes like Ted Cruz are everywhere and they're tiresome"

Blumenthal goes back to cameras in the courtroom and KBJ still won't share her view.

:(

Blumenthal brings up ethics. THIS IS IMPORTANT

thenation.com/article/politi…

Jackson: "Certainly if Congress is taking anything up that requires our review, I would consider it."

See, I have a whole argument that SCOTUS ethics *should be* eligible for SCOTUS review as Congress has clear authority under Article 3 to make ethics rules for courts.

But you'll note how Republicans and team judicial philosophy haven't said BOO about the ethical concerns posed by Clarence Thomas and his wife.

COULD ONE DEMOCRAT AT LEAST ASK JUDGE JACKSON ABOUT HOW SHE HAS STOOD UP TO TRUMP AND HIS CRONIES'S ATTEMPTS TO EVADE JUSTICE BY IGNORING SUBPEONAS??

Hawley is up. My goal is to not get fired or arrested over what I tweet in the next 30 minutes.

Hawley is talking about heinous crimes and the thing that he wants people to forget that the LEGAL distinction here is between the person who made the video and the person who uploaded the video.

Hawley is fast-talking about how Congress has set the range of the guidelines and Jackson was within those guidelines but she didn't max out the guidelines and... that's his entire point.

Jackson is saying that evidence that Hawley won't even describe is evidence that she had to actually look at when sentencing. And that she has to find a proportional sentence.

I know that Republicans can understand that, because they just APPLAUDED when a judge went to the near minimum for a cop who ACTUALLY SHOT SOMEBODY TO DEATH.

But today it doesn't suit their political points so they're making totally different arguments.

She's also making the case that JAIL isn't the only form of punishment. I wish more people would understand that. It's not *just* jail, there lots of kinds of punishment but carceral people never think of them.

And, again, I generally am on the more carceral end of these cases. I'm a book thrower-at-er for these people.
But acting like there is no reasonable other judicial position here is just intellectually dishonest.

(book thrower-at-er on the front end. After they're out I'm very against double punishment)

Here's the point. Jackson is saying that she doesn't handle these cases much differently than her peer judges and SHE"S RIGHT and Dick Durbin pointed out what judges in Missouri do.
Hawley brushes it off "Lets keep talking about this case"

Again, you have to ask what Hawley is trying to do. The questions he has have been answered 8 ways from Sunday, not just by the nominee but by many others in the legal field. But he's not satisfied is he?

Again, here's Josh Hawley's boy, Neil Gorsuch, worried that punishment against sex offenders are too restrictive.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1505557574967513093

Durbin getting back to the judge Hawley supported, who also downward from the guidelines. Hawley says that his judge followed the prosecutor's guidelines.

Right, and sometimes people *don't* follow THE PROSECUTOR'S guidelines. People get that right?

HIRONO!! Asks if Jackson has ever been accused of sexual assault. Then asks if she's ever settle a sexual assault case.

No to BOTH.

NOT ALL JUDGES THAT HAWLEY SUPPORTS CAN SAY THAT, CAN THEY????

Hirono now going through all the Republican appointed judges who have sentenced child porn defendants to below guideline punishments.

This is part where stone throwing Republicans in glass house cry

Not gonna lie: My enjoyment watching Hirono go in on Hawley might mean I'm soft on violence.

Hirono is the kind of person you don't want sitting next to you at the poker table. Because after a big bluff like Hawley you want the next person to "Fold" and Hirono is all like "Raise."

Also, Hirono asked almost identical questions to ACB. She just didn't do the first ten minutes embarrassing Hawley last hearing.

Anyway, people always sleep on Hirono in these hearings, but she's a lawyer with a Georgetown Law degree and she knows her stuff.

Watch this, Hirono is coming for Graham

Aww, cut off.

OMG.. Ted Cruz is saying that Hirono made reference to information that Cruz doesn't have access to and there's really no evidence that Hirono has anything that Cruz doesn't.

My gut is that they all have everything but Cruz's people were lazy and didn't read everything.

Anyway, Hirono read a lot of quotes from Republicans about the proposition that lawyers should zealously advocate for their clients, and I think one of those quotes was for Graham, but she didn't get a chance to close the point.

Ted Cruz says that they were handed something that the White House made available to everybody who asked for it.

Cruz and Kennedy are crying foul.

So, if I understand what happened:
*Yesterday: Hawley says some mess
* Today: Some Dems ask the White House for more information
* Information given
* Republicans who didn't ask didn't get it
* Or Dems who didn't ask
* And now Republicans are pissed they were lazy.

Now Mike Lee is angry that Dubrin called Hawley's attacks "attacks"

Now Durbin is saying the information was published IN A NEWSPAPER and Cruz is still complaining that his side didn't read the news paper.

Just to help @tedcruz's weak ass staff keep up: HERE'S WHAT @PeteWilliamsNBC IS SAYING ON THE TV BOX.

https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/1506401472019324932?s=20&t=ynG-_z8jchsRBJpKsnyPkw

Cotton is up: he's angry that Jackson will not answer whether the united states needs more or fewer police... which, you know, not something a judge has discretion over.

Cotton asking if people are more or less likely to commit crime if they are more certain if they're going to be caught convicted and sentenced.

This is actually not a simple question but Cotton and and Talking Baseball people really really want it to be so.

Cotton is getting very angry that Jackson is trying to use facts to answer questions.

Like, he just desperately wants to be right without nuance and this has been a problem of his since law school.

Cotton asking if 17 years is too long or too short for murder.

I'M A GODDAMN COLUMNIST and I can't answer that question because I have no goddamn idea about the specifics of the murder.

I don't think 17 years is too long for Derek Chauvin. But probably too much for Kim Potter

Cotton: "Do you think we should catch and imprison more murderers or fewer murderers?"

WHAT THE FUCK QUESTION IS THIS?

Jackson "we should hold people accountable for their crimes."

LIKE HONESTLY WHY IS THIS MAN ACTIVELY STUPID?

He's just decided to be an idiot for 30 minutes apparently. We're onto should we or should we not imprison rapists.

SHOULD WE SAVE MORE KITTENS OR KILL MORE PUPPIES?? It's a SIMPLE question. Why can't you answer??? -- Tom Cotton soon.

My response to @TomCottonAR right now.

If you ever want to understand what the Know Nothing Party sounded like in real life, just listen to Tom Cotton. He's an anachronism, he's literally proud to be unable to understand how things work.

Cotton talks like he's afraid his brain will catch up to his mouth.

Wife: He prepared this. These questions are literally the best he could do.

Tom Cotton has discovered that sometimes people sell drugs. He is very concerned about this.

So... the issue here is that Cotton is pissed that Jackson was sorry that there are racial disparities in sentencing.

Cotton: "Did you contact that victims?"
Jackson: "I did not contact the victims in this case BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VICTIMS"

Cotton then says that 100,000 people are killed in drug crimes a year.

So now Cotton wants people to be sentenced based on crimes they DID NOT commit?

It's also, like, the guy asked for compassionate release and she DIDN'T GIVE IT TO HIM and Cotton is still pissed.

Cotton "I suppose if you are confirmed we can expect you to always rule in favor of retroactivity"

Jackson: "no"

Booker is up and as a sponsor of the First Step Act I want him to go in on Cotton but we'll see.

Booker: "You went to an elite law school. I went to a gritty inner city law school. Yale."

Booker point out that Jackson is being supported by victim's advocacy groups and child victims advocacy groups and so calling her a pedophile sympathizer really doesn't make sense.

This is the "law enforcement loves Ketanji" second that I know needs to happen but is just not something I'm going to get up for. It's the "No ma'am, he's a decent family man" thing where you get it but it's not how I'd respond to the issue.

Friends, I'm still reeling from the fact that Tom Cotton asked Ketanji Brown Jackson if she contacted the victims to a crime for which were were no physical victims on the record.
It's the dumbest thing I've heard today and, like, I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE SENATE ALL DAY.

Booker: When you get knocked down, where do you get the grit or the guts to keep going.
Jackson: My grandparents.

Good. Cause if she said "Chumbawamba" I might have rescinded my support. :)

Booker asking Jackson what it means to be a mom to her.

Just to remind you guys: When it was Amy Coney Barrett almost EVERY Republican gave her an opportunity to talk about her family. Like, THAT WAS THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONS at least once in their 30 minutes.

To close the loop, I mean, a lot of people on my feed are like me and would have spent 30 minutes basically challenging Tom Cotton to a fight. But @CoryBooker did his thing and produced the most humanizing half hour of the whole hearing.

I point out the differences in approaches just because I think a lot of times, on the left, people who want to be nice think that people who want to fight are ruining it, and vice versa. When in fact there's room for BOTH, and we need both.

Oh, I didn't realize we were back, for ol' country Rhodes Scholar Kennedy

Kennedy: How do we know you'd practice judicial restraint.

Me: Hmm.. Probably the same way I *knew* Brett Kavanaugh was a lying sack of shit who would take away women's reproductive rights regardless of precedent at the first opportunity.

Kennedy: Don't you consider the amendment process means that the founders thought "Here are you rights. We wrote them down. IF you want more you can amend it."

No. NOOOO. JAMES MADISON LITERALLY WROTE THAT IT WOULD BE BAD FOR PEOPLE TO THINK THAT WAY.

Kennedy: When does life begin?
Jackson: [won't share her religious view]
Kennedy: When does equal protection attach.

And this is the GOP thing of trying to get *fetal personhood* to be a thing. Basically the GOP wants the fetus to have more rights than the mother.

Kennedy is feigning confusion at not understanding the Supremacy clause.

Basically states can go over and above constitutional protections. They can't provide LESS. They can't CONFLICT with the constitution.

Kennedy knows this but enjoys playing dumb.

Here's the 9th Amendment that so far multiple Republicans including Cornyn and Kennedy have tried to pretend doesn't exist

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It just straight up means that the Republican arguments that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are *all* the rights are JUST PLAIN WRONG. *According* to the Constitution that they claim to love.

Padilla asks Jackson why she wants to be on the Supreme Court and she somehow doesn't say "So I can make fun of Cruz and Cotton at the reunions for the rest of their miserable lives" and I think that proves her discretion and restraint.

Padilla: "for the benefit of the people watching at home."

... I think I'm the only one still watching and I can only assume that I was a slaver who wrote a constitution in a former life and now I'm being punished.

Padilla going in on Roberts.

Ooh. @AlexPadilla4CA said that he's looked at Jackson's record on tribal rights and... I have not.

This is important because Gorsuch is a fan for tribal rights. So, if Jackson is like Breyer here that's 4 votes and they just need to get one of the other Republicans.

Padilla asking now about her clerkship hiring process. Remember, the clerks of today are the Article III judges of tomorrow.

These are two great questions back to back by Padilla.

And, it's particularly important to ask and make a big deal about it in the conformation hearing because if wanna be justices know this is going to be a factor they might hire better.

So I went through three years of Harvard Law School and I didn't *really* get how SUPER IMPORTANT it was to pursue a clerkship if you wanted to do what I've ended up doing until I was out of law school for like 2 years.
Jackson explaining this to minority kids is VERY needed.

Blackburn is up. Don't be racist, don't be racist, don't be racist.

I just cannot handle the patronizing accent. I really can't. It's how my Room 101 sounds.

Blackburn is manipulating the numbers. Saying 79% of women support "some restrictions" on abortion is the NOT THE SAME as saying 79 percent of women are "pro life."

The numbers say over 60% of women think abortion should be legal in most cases.

Now she's suggesting that all women in church are "pro life" which... again... we know is not true.

Unbelievable, Blackburn is asking if Jackson will respect the decision in Dobbs... Which Blackburn expects will NOT respect the decision in ROE. Not withstanding that the last 2 justices have said that they will respect Roe and will use Dobbs to show they were lying.

Blackburn is now going to Jackson's 3L paper. Which, again, fine, just remember that when it's Rao's turn.

My 3L paper was about compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, or lack there of.

I think... I don't actually remember all that well. :)

Blackburn says that "we know CRT is being pushed in our public schools" which... like... it's not... but also SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DON'T SET K-12 CIRICULUMN AND IF YOU THINK THEY DO YOU FAILED K-12

Blackburn back to her trans bigotry points.

Jackson has honestly no idea what the hell this woman is talking about.

Blackburn wants Jackson to define the word "woman."
Jackson: I'm not a biologist

good line.

Blackburn, who literally think that women should be turned into incubators from the moment of conception, thinks that respecting trans rights turns women into "second class citizens."

You can't make this level of hypocrisy up.

In case you are wondering, the Constitution does not define "women" but does say that people need "equal protection" of laws so Blackburn's question should have been "Are trans people, people" because IF YES then the Constitution is pretty clear.

Blackburn says "One of Demand Justice's Board Members wants Democrats to add 10 justices to the court"

She's talking abut me.

I'm in favor of adding 20.

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY FROM MARSHA BLACKBURN FOR DISTORTING MY VIEWS

In any event, Court packing will not come before the Supreme Court because it wouldn't be up for judicial review. The Constitution gives the power to set up the Supreme Court to Congress. Explicitly. So I've outflank her entire wrong and dumb question. :)

Perfect ending for me.