The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From Judge Jackson's Confirmation Hearing
There were no disruptions because only guests of Senators were allowed to attend.
Today I attended Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing for about thirty minutes in the morning, and for about an hour in the afternoon. It was my first Supreme Court confirmation hearing. It's striking to think that in the span of a decade, between 1994 and 2005, we had zero Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And since 2016, we have had four Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
For those watching on TV, you may have noticed that the room was packed with spectators. What may not have been clear was that every attendee was either Senate staff, or a guest of a Senator. There was no general admission line. Tickets were handed out by Senate offices for thirty minute increments. And every thirty minutes, the attendees rotated out. The upshot of that policy is that every guest was screened, carefully. There was no potential for disruption like during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Under the Senate's COVID policy, members of the public can only enter the building if escorted by a Senate staffer. In the past, the public could enter a Senate building for any reason or no reason at all. I asked a Capitol Police Officer when that policy would be relaxed. He joked, and said never.
I was able to watch questioning from Senators Leahy, Cruz, Coons, Sasse, Blumenthal, Hawley, and Hirono. There were some fireworks during Cruz's time, which I'm not sure were fully captured on camera.
Photographs were prohibited during the hearing, but I was able to get a picture of Judge Jackson walking out during a break. She is in the blue dress.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These hearings are a collossal waste of time, nothing more than kabuki theater. They should be done away with.
Agree? Disagree?
Agree. Even the harshest, most vicious of such hearings failed in the goal to block the nomination of Beltway Brat, Ivy indoctrinated, lawyer dipshit, Kavanaugh. I wrote to Trump asking him to nominate Barrett, not Kavanaugh. The votes will be along party lines and along partisan agenda lines, no matter what is said.
Jackson, this servant of the Chinese Commie Party will embolden criminals. She will surge the murders of young black males. If you are an extreme, genocidal maniac, white supremacist, KKK member in the Senate, you definitely vote for her confirmation, to hurt black people and all other Democrat constituencies, including women she could not define, by opening a dictionary, as suggested 135 times by the Supreme Court.
For your convenience:
woman
woo͝m′ən
noun
An adult female human.
I would add, a dude with a dick is not a woman. I define myself as rich, and expect everyone to send me money and to stop disrespecting my self definition. Also, my preferred pronoun is, Fuck You.
These hearings only started in the early 1900's. Senators could not believe a Jew had been nominated, and started this tradition. They had to learn more about Brandeis. They wanted to hear him talk. They could not believe their eyes.
Then only a minority of Justices attended a law school. Returning to tradition will be good for this country. Anyone who has passed 1L should be excluded from the Supreme Court by a new Judiciary Act.
In times I have spent with lawyers, I have noted that they are sticklers for language. Annoyingly so at times. The definition you gave for woman is a social convention not a legal one. Can you cite a legal definition of woman in statute?
I can cite the 135 times the Supreme Court said, the definition of of a wordis the one in the dictionary.
No, you can't.
I just checked an on-line version of Black's Law Dictionary, Second Addition. There are a significant number of definitions related to woman, including "gentlewoman" or "widow" but no definition of "woman".
Perhaps because the answer is so obvious that no formal definition is needed?
That's not how dictionaries work.
Considering we are closer to nuclear war than we’ve been in a long time because of a group of senators pet projects of expanding NATO and sending Ukraine lethal aid…I think I prefer senators jibber jabbering in front of TV cameras. 😉
These hearings are a collossal waste of time, nothing more than kabuki theater. They should be done away with.
Agree? Disagree?
Disagree, but only because they are worse than that.
"These hearings are a collossal waste of time, nothing more than kabuki theater."
That remark is insulting to....Kabuki Theater.
Theres no disruptions because by and large compared to progs, the more conservatively inclined tend to have jobs or jobs that don't have the free time to clown around as an activist and disrupt meetings.
The employers of the more conservatively inclined must have been able to secure a day off for 01.06.2021, because that gathering was serious and not at all disruptive.
The electoral college vote count could have proceeded that day because nothing else going on was at all disruptive. They could have proceeded with the count even while the gentleman wearing viking horns was at the lectern, because that day was indistinguishable from the typical tourist day. There was no clowning around because there wasn't a clown to be found anywhere around, since they were all serious and non-disruptive.
I agree. Compared to the multitude of more violent much longer BLM protests the jan 6th picnic was very small and short.
Apparently you missed January 6, the trucker convoy, and hundreds of Trump rallies.
The "I only see things that fit my preconceived narrative" filters run strong in that one.
The lynching of Kavanaugh compared to fairly temperate hearings here are stark.
The only way a white male will breeze through going forward is if he chops his balls off or converts to Islam!!
Violent protest is effective when supported by the tech billionaire owned media.
Josh,
Can you talk about what you observed during Cruz's questioning, from your perspective? I mean, from our perspective as TV viewers, we saw him being a total Ted Cruz, which merely falls under the "fish gotta swim; birds gotta fly" banner. What else did an in-person observer see that we missed while watching on TV?
I'm glad you had the chance to watch. Not many of us will ever get that opportunity, of course, for geographic as well as event-rarity reasons.
I pray Josh is vaccinated and did not catch Covid during that enclosed, airless, super spreader event.
The I of "we" heard this repeated exchange:
Cruz: In every single child pornography case before you, you issued a sentence far below the minimum guidelines. Why?
Jackson: Senator, no one case stands for a judge's entire record.
I personally think it's valuable to understand that the best she can do to explain away the egregiously one-sided pattern to her sentencing for that category of cases is deflect the question, infer the pattern doesn't exist, and pray for Dick Durbin to ring the bell.
She apologized to a child porn felon for sentencing him.
To 3 whole months in jail.
"Senator, in every single one of those cases, I gave the sentence that Congress said was appropriate. If you think that's too light, it's your responsibility as a legislator to do something about it. Don't blame me for following your instructions.
As it happens, I, and almost every other federal judge, think those guidelines you refer to — which are just recommendations, not legally binding — are far too high."
Funny, that usage of "appropriate" and "instructions." Almost as though Congress was looking over her shoulder and delving into the facts of each case.
I think the phrase she might have more candidly used is "the statutory minimum."
Which leaves the question -- why in every single case she chose a sentence at the extreme low end of the spectrum -- fully unaddressed. As I imagine in your better moments you well understand.
Funny. I'm not aware that Cruz, or Hawley, have pushed legislation changing the sentencing rules.
Why, it's almost as if they are complete assholes who just want something to assail the nominee with, and don't really give a flying fuck about anything but making the news and appealing to their ignorant supporters.
I'm guessing you must have replied to the wrong comment, since nothing you said addressed anything I said.
In any event, what are the particular "sentencing rules" you're referring to, and how do you feel they relate to the question "why do you uniformly exercise your discretion to impose bare-minimum sentences in child pornography cases"?
There was no potential for disruption
Well, by spectators, anyway.
I'd say Cruz and Graham did a pretty good job disrupting the hearing.
HA!
Beat me to it.
Picture sucks, Josh!