Thread by @ElieNYC

#ConfirmationHearings Day 3.

Going to live tweet the technical end of round 1 (Ossoff and Tillis). Then I'll keep an eye on Round 2 questions of course, but won't be doing a straight play by play because I have to actually write today and do some media.

If you're looking for more play by play, just hit up @RewireNewsGroup like I do. :)

I do wonder which Black authors the @GOP will get pissed off about today. I imagine @tedcruz will come prepared with Doc McStuffins slides.

I'm soft on crime, but draconian on white supremacy...this is probably why I'll never be a judge. :(

Cornyn is angry that Durbin is taking chairman's privilege to "editorialize" after Republicans lie.

When Democrats were in the minority I was pretty pissed that Republicans used their majority to yell and scream in defense of an alleged attempted rapist.

I think it's totally appropriate for @DickDurbin to come back and clear up lies and misstatements from the @GOP and I think he should keep doing it.

Kennedy doesn't think it's "productive" when Durbin points out their lies.

Kennedy somehow thinks that Durbin doing it doesn't give him a chance to speak. I think he wants to pray to Bari Weiss or something.

Durbin: "We're not going to have different rules when Dems are in the majority than when Republicans are in the majority."

EXCELLENT POINT. THIS IS WHY @SenatorDurbin HAS BEEN DOING A FANTASTIC JOB.

Grassley thanks Democrats for the fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't try to rape anybody in high school.

Grassley is still pissed that Republicans didn't ask for information debunking their own dumb attacks.

Ossoff asks if Jackson likes coffee or tea and she screamed "I LIKE BEER. I STILL LIKE BEER."

Wait, no, sorry I was having a flashback.

... these GOP fucks for real put a guy on the court who used teenage alcoholism as a shield to an attempted rape allegation and now want to MEMORY HOLE why Democrats were pissed.
Jesus Christ why do people let them get away with this.

I think Ossoff just asked "Y U NO LIKE MONARCHY THO" :). I think/hope that this is going to be a wrap around to the attempted coup by the previous president, which somehow did NOT come up yesterday.

Ossoff asks about Gideon v Wainwright... pretty sure that's the first time it's come up in a confirmation.

It's the case that makes sure you can have a lawyer even if you can't afford it. Makes the 6th amendment real.

It's relevant to Jackson because Republicans have been hitting Jackson on her federal public defender history with Gitmo detainees. And, Gideon stands for the principle that WE NEED people to do the job that Jackson did.

Ossoff now asking about Brandenburg v Ohio. We're doing all the 1L Con Law hits.

Fingers crossed for Griswold v Connecticut next.

Ossoff: "The question of prior restraint has been litigated."

@ossoff, buddy, the line is: "For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint." :)

Ossoff is *so close* to asking about Jan 6 and I just want him to GO FOR IT.

He's the most junior and I wonder if someone told him not to so he's dancing around like this.

Anyway, even if he doesn't go there... asking Jackson to explain cases and explain amendments is a MUCH MORE ACCURATE look at her "judicial philosophy" than the reductive silliness that @SenSasse was trying engage her on yesterday.

He might do the 'aww shucks I just can't understand" thing... but if he's paying attention he's GETTING HIS ANSWERS right now. He's just not getting it in the spoon fed, dumbed down way he wanted.

See. SEE... Ossoff just went from 4th Amendment to phone booth to... cell phones. Which is what Sasse was asking about yesterday. But THIS is how you get to cell phones. GROUND IT in the 4th amendment... instead of grounding it to SCALIA like Sasse was trying to do.

If Ossoff gets gets reelected enough, he's going to be the chair of this committee someday.

I mean... to the extent that Marcus Licinius Crassus Trump allows us to have judiciary committees in the future.

Tillis up. He says that the "behavior in the Kavanaugh hearing was inappropriate."

No. NO. KAVANAUGH'S BEHAVIOR WAS INAPPROPRIATE

I understand that Democrats on the committee are never going to DEFEND the THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS of people who tried to stop an alleged attempted rapist from getting on the court... showing EXACTLY the kind of direct public action our side sometimes lacks. But goddamn

It's really, really hard for people who work in activism to get people motivated to show up, put their bodies on the line, and run through walls when OUR OWN ELECTEDS won't get in the trenches and FIGHT.

But... whatever.

Thom Tillis makes @WeDemandJustice mention #1 today.

Please donate Federalist Soc money.

The fact that Tillis is pulling this all from the @WeDemandJustice website kind of shows that we're NOT "DARK" money but... I know that details like TRANSPARENCY are not important for Republicans.

Tillis now defending the filibuster... a think that is not in the constitution.
Now Tillis is lying by suggesting that Harry Reid took away the filibuster for SCOTUS when it was MITCH MCCONNELL who did it to put Trump's nominees on the Court.

I have no idea how nuking the filibuster would hurt the Supreme Court and neither does Tillis but, again, we're operating the post fact universe.

Tillis wants SCOTUS justices to speak up against court packing. They do. Often.

*I* WANTED SCOTUS justices to speak out when Mitch McConnell changed the number of justices from 9 to 8. But nobody did.

Lower court judges are coming to congress constantly saying the workload is too great and we need to expand the lower courts. Again, these facts would matter if Tillis was even tangentially tied to reality.

Here's the argument for lower court expansion that @ThomTillis will not read because he doesn't like to know things

thenation.com/article/politi…

Republicans don't like buffer zones around abortion clinics because they think it's okay for them to yell and scream at women going to get medical care.

This are the same people who thought it was okay to yell and spit at black girls going to school, so this makes sense.

Jackson: [explains things]
Tillis: "I'm not an attorney. I watch law and order. But [completely misstates the law]"

Tillis says that law enforcement's moral is low.

@ThomTillis should ask: Jason Walker, Daunte Wright, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Alton Sterling, Botham Jean, Phillando Castille, Stephon Clark, Terence Crutcher, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner ABOUT THEIR MORAL!

Sorry, while I was typing I missed a whole thing of Jackson schooling Tillis. Essentially Tillis tried to only read part of her opinion and Jackson directed him to the REST OF HER OPINION to answer his dumb ass question.

I think recidivism is, always, a vexing problem. But @LindseyGrahamSC way of handling that appears to be The Man in the Iron Mask so I don't think Republicans have the right of it.

Okay, I gotta write. Keeping my ears up for unforgiveable stupidity.

I'm surprised Grassley is bringing up nationwide injunctions because under Trump Republicans hate them but under Biden Republicans love them.

In any event, Jackson hasn't issued any and she's trying to explain it to Chuck but I doubt he's following.

Oh, @LindseyGrahamSC, who walked out in coordinated huff after screaming for prisoners to die in prison without due process, decided to come back when it was his turn to be in front of the cameras again.

Quelle surprise

And now we're back to other black women.

Has anybody asked why @GOP didn't nominated JANICE ROGERS BROWN to the Supreme Court instead of alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh?

Or is that not something we're allowed to ask them.

So... Lindsey Graham is going on about the Make the Road case. It's one of the rare times Jackson was overturned.
It's worth pointing out that the person Graham totally agrees with over Jackson is the Obama appointed Patricia Millet.

Lindsey Graham, who as a Senator could support laws to more directly address child pornography online... has instead decided to scream at Judge Jackson about child pornography

Graham promises to not do the Kavanaugh thing to Jackson without RIGHT AFTER saying to America that she was an advocate for child pornographers.

Graham is now blowing by his time, Durbin tried to stop him and he blew by... WILL SOME SENATE DEMOCRAT SHOUT THIS FOOL DOWN

LIKE SOMEBODY GET THE FUCK IN THERE

If Jackson started yelling... LIKE KAVANAUGH DID... she'd get in trouble. Graham is STILL not letting her finish her sentences. Durbin is trying to redirect but SOME OTHER DEMOCRAT needs to stand up and GET IN THERE.

FEINSTEIN AND LEAHY are up there like bumps on a goddamn log. FUCKING TAKE THE FIELD AGAINST THIS MAN

WHY ARE THEY LETTING HIM DO THIS

All the Democrats aren't even THERE because it's not their super special turn with the camera so they don't give a shit.

THEY ARE STILL LETTING GRAHAM MAKE SPEECHES. WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK.

This is unfair, Jackson *CAN'T SAY* what she really thinks because she'll in trouble for being emotional AND she can't say because cases may come before her.

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS

GRAHAM IS OUT OF THINGS TO SAY. You can tell because he's now repeating himself. HE DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE ALLOWED TO GO ON THIS LONG.

Oh, now they move to Feinstein and it's her turn to make nice with the cameras and she goes right to her talking points instead of FIGHTING AGAINST the bullshit Graham just spewed.

A Republican nominee is accused of trying to rape somebody and Republicans spend FOUR YEARS DEFENDING HIM

A Democratic nominee is accused of... using her discretion in sentencing, and Democrats can't spend TWO FULL DAYS in beastmode.

See.. and just like with Kavanaugh... after Lindsey sets the pace on having screaming histrionics, and NOBODY STOPS HIM, it inspires the rest of their band to do the same.

Cornyn is being rude as fuck right now, much worse than yesterday, because there is NO DEM PUSH BACK

Republicans are like shitty children. If they get away with punching kids on the play ground, they will punch more. They will keep punching until somebody punches them back. And then they'll run and cry to the nurse.

They just said @SenSchumer showed up to the hearing room. I bet $10 bucks that it's to put some fire up the Dems asses.

I'm going to have to turn the hearing off to do some media and miss @SheldonforRI. I'm just going to assume he does all the things while I'm away.

Cruz is saying that Jackson can't define what a woman is. Jackson starts to answer his stupid question and he, of course, cuts her off.

This is such bad faith and nobody is going to stop them.

And, as usual, the stupid Republican definition of "trans" amounts to them arguing that people wake up in the morning and decide their gender

Cruz says that he wants to look at all of her child porn cases, AND THEN IMMIEDIATLY SAYS that he's excluding some of her child porn cases, because those cases don't fit his definition of child porn.

I'm not sure who is falling for this but everybody who is, is stupid.

The next time Cruz interrupts her a Democrat should interrupt him and give her a chance to answer his bad faith questions.

He interrupts her again. He has literally not let her finish a single answer so far.

@SenatorDurbin: Will you give her an opportunity
@tedcruz: No

DOES THIS NOT FINISH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT CRUZ IS UP TO?

Cruz: She said she wasn't going to answer
Jackson: I didn't say that.
Cruz: Okay
Jackson: [starts to answer]
Cruz: [interrupts] You know the interesting thing [switches the case he's talking about]

Cruz again LIES and says that Jackson is refusing to answer.

Cruz: You never applied an enhancement
Jackson: I applied an enhancement
Cruz: you're right but do you think the number doesn't matter?
Jackson: [starts to answer]
Cruz: {interruptes]

What just happened there is that Cruz LIED, TO HER FACE, ABOUT HER OWN RECORD. She corrected him. Cruz pretended that the correction of his lie was inconsequential. Then he doesn't allow Jackson to answer.

Now he's over time and Durbin tries to stop him and Cruz accused DURBIN of interrupting and Durbin... just LETS HIM KEEP TALKING

Now Cruz is just screaming

And of course Senator Coons is supposed to go next and Coons is just nicely waiting his turn

Durbin "At some point you have to follow the rules"

Apparently that day is not today

And now Coons is just going along like everything that just happened didn't happen.

I fucking hate it here

Coons: we are having a policy dispute

NO... WE ARE HAVING A SMEAR CAMPAIGN CARRIED OUT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT and this woman's party is doing FUCK ALL

Again, the GOP showed more fight DEFENDING A MAN ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTED RAPE, then Dems are defending a judge's SETENCING DISCRETION

Chris Coons suggests people go watch a video. I'm not making that up. He's got 20 minutes to showcase Jackson's talents and he's like "if you want to know more, watch a boring Sentencing Commission video. Catch the fever."

Basically the best argument for the Dems "strategy" here is that it's all in the bag and nothing matters so let them smear Judge Jackson for another few hours with QAnon bullshit because it's almost over.

Ben Sasse... who sat silently by as his colleague Ted Cruz spent 15 minutes yesterday complaining about books, is now doing the cancel culture concern thing.

I assume the @nytopinion is just taking this down word for word for their next column.

Sasse worried about "Shunning" ideas.

YOUR COLLEAGUE SPENT 15 MINUTES HAVING A CONNIPTION ABOUT A CHILDREN'S BOOK. HE MADE POSTERS!

Ben Sasse, who yesterday called people protesting an alleged attempted rapist "yokels" and "jackwagons".. admonished the Senate for mugging for the cameras.

Arguing against cameras in the courtroom, Sasse says that audio of oral argument is made available just a few days later.

Does @BenSasse *not know* that SCOTUS has been doing live audio for a year? This guy knows he's on the Judiciary Committee, right?

Sorry, I'm hard on Sasse because I don't buy his schtick. He's a phony who isn't even an inch deep and you can tell in these hearings.

Sasse is back to asking about judicial philosophy.

She's explained her methodology
She's gone through how she understands MANY amendments and cases
Whitehouse explained how have *a philosophy* isn't great.
... Sasse still wants her to fit into one of his pre-defined boxes

Did media, came back, @TedCruz is complaining again, he's asking to be recognized, he is not recognized, he is talking anyway. It was @maziehirono's turn.

Jackson's last answer to Hawley, about the difference between possession when it's in a physical space versus on the internet, was a really really strong answer.

It's pretty cool what she can do when white men LET HER FINISH HER SENTENCES

Hirono asks what Jackson does in the creative part of her life. I think she's saying crotchet.

If this was Amy Coney Barrett, half of the Republican questions would have involved yarn.

For my creative outlet, I practice fabricating reasons to my wife for why I haven't folded the laundry, with the goal of making our whole family live out of a laundry basket like God intended.

Wait what? After spending two days allegedly caring about the victims of child pornography, Republicans want to go into pre-sentencing reports?
These hypocrites are just dirty.

Aside from this being just unconscionable, it's clearly just a delay tactic from Republicans.

To be clear what's happening here: If you are a victim in one of these cases, you are not public. Your friends, employers, and family might not even know you are a victim.
Now the GOP wants the right to send your details to 22 Senators (and their staff)

To a committee that leaks like a sieve. After a long delay to redact the materials.

This is bullshit.

THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT ALLOW BRETT KAVANAUGH'S FRIENDS TO BE CROSS EXAMINED UNDER OATH ABOUT RAPE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE NOMINEE PERSONALLY.

Cotton is now wondering why Jackson sentenced a guy to more jail time after they violated the terms of their release.

This is hard for Republicans to understand because Paul Manafort repeatedly violated his terms but got pardoned.

Cotton is incredulous that Jackson doesn't remember why she re-sentenced a guy and he's straight up calling her a liar.

He somehow thinks that because Republicans are fixated on it she's supposed to remember it better.

And then, with literally NO EVIDENCE, Cotton claims that he was resentenced because of child porn

So, to recap, to not remember one case over the 9 years and over 500 cases you've decided in your career, while black, means you're lying, According to Tom Cotton.

Now Cotton is implying that she's lying about how a case she worked on a Biglaw case ended up at the Biglaw firm.

Not for nothing but, in addition to Cotton's inability to believe that black people can tell the truth, he also doesn't know the answers to the questions he's asking. Like, he WANTS the answer to be what he wants, and thinks she's lying when it's not, but he doesn't know shit.

I'm sure @politico and @nytimes will struggle to note the "racial overtones" of this racist ass Senator voicing incredulity at the LITERAL ANSWERS ABOUT HER OWN MEMORY the Black woman just is giving.

But most Black people know EXACTLY where this crap comes from.

Cotton: Senator Cornyn has said you called them war criminals and you have disputed that and Senator Durbin has disputed that and I gotta say you didn't call them "war criminals" but...

DID YOU CALL CATCH THAT? WHERE COTTON ADMITTED THEY'VE BEEN DISTORTING THE RECORD

Meanwhile, Cotton is pretending that he doesn't know the difference between calling someone a "war criminal" and filing a lawsuit alleging "war crimes."

Jackson explains it to him and Cotton says he can't understand it. Great. I love how Cotton rousingly closed out his questions by admitting he's a goddamn idiot.

Booker; "I'm not letting anybody in the Senate steal my joy."

Booker says there were law preventing Jackson from marrying her husband "not that long ago."

He might have brought up that one of his colleagues, @braun4indiana is interest in overturning the SCOTUS decision that allows those marriages.