'Why Is It So Hard For You To Tell Me What You Think?': Kennedy Grills Biden Nominees | 2022 Rewind

we will reconvene at 1pm Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman um counselor you're at Butler snow yes uh your your partner yes it's a good Law Firm um I have some experience with our Department of Motor Vehicles in Louisiana I uh I spent a year there one time trying to get my son's lost license renewed I remember uh remember all they had I didn't bring any reading and I remember all they had were copies of Popular Mechanics from like 1997 or something to read our problem in Louisiana is uh our employees they're good it's our it's our politically appointed managers uh I was asked for one time how many managers do we have at our how many managers work at our Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles and I said about half ah let me ask you a couple of questions first you you did I understand you your participation in Boys and Girls Club tell me about that briefly okay thank you senator for that question so as a youth I grew up Devil's uh like my home away from home from the time I was not in Europe nine years old uh until I went off to until I went to college it's a really good organization absolutely every every year or two um Mr Denzel Washington who's one of the five coolest people on the planet uh comes up here to uh Lobby for money not for himself for boys and girls club so I've had a chance to get to know a little bit about it um you worked at the well let me ask you this do you think America is mostly good or mostly bad uh thank you senator for that that question you're welcome I believe that America is the greatest country in the world um I don't know in any other country where I could be in this position to confirm where I come from and be in the position to be nominated to the sixth circuit and the speaking to uh Senators I could have never imagined this uh happening and maybe it happens in other countries but this uh it's the greatest country in the world to me um I agree with you look I don't know whose fault it was um but you may want to go back and talk to your friends at the White House it is it is uh it's very unfortunate that that Senator Blackman and Senator Haggerty didn't have a chance to sit down with you and and I don't want to get into whose fault it was uh but it's the the White House's job to make sure that that happens if they really care about what we think and I gave this same speech to employees at president Trump's Lighthouse as well um for for a while my experience with some of the people in charge at the Trump White House was different from senator uh durbins um um I was brand new and their attitude was toward me was pretty Cavalier I just sort of sit down and shut up and uh uh it's just it's it's it's it's not cool when our nominees don't take it apart upon themselves if the White House doesn't encourage it to go sit down with the Senators it's not fair it puts us in a horrible position it's disrespectful you're going to be appointed if you're confirmed but one of the most powerful jobs on the planet and that's not an exaggeration um you have a lifetime appointment and I wish you'd deliver that message tell me in the few minutes I have left tell me to your work yeah well let me let me try this it's been it's been suggested you don't have any experience okay and you don't have the experience to be on the court of appeal can you address that tell me what your answer is to that uh thank you Senator Kennedy for uh that question um throughout my career I've handled uh 23 appeals to conclusion I have one matter pending before the sixth circuit in the vast majority of the appeals that I've handled I have been the primary drafter uh of those uh of the Appellate briefs uh I've argued 10 cases to the Tennessee court of appeals and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals uh I have not argued a case uh to the sixth circuit um addition I have significant trial experience having tried uh 19 cases in Federal Court and state court and that doesn't take into account the I've litigated hundreds of cases and and as as you know some cases are sometimes resolved by settlements some by dispositive motions so I have that experience as well okay I'm over over time thank you Mr chairman thanks Senator Kennedy I want to make a matter of record here when any Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was nominated Kennedy I went a little over and you're welcome to do the same if you wish my friend uh congratulations to all of you I hope to be able to ask each of you some questions but I do want to stay within my uh my time limit let's start with Ms Clark um you've been nominated by President Biden served on the federal district court which means of course that uh the court of appeal is going to review all of your decisions um what is this the Appellate standard of review for um question of fact I thank you for the question Senator I'm I have not uh worked on an appeal in my my 14 years of experience um I believe that um uh it is reviewed um based on abusive discretion would be this no it's uh clear error clear as the federal district court judge you're going to have a lot of of discretion uh on determining facts How about if somebody appeals one of your decision and they say you made a mistake on the law what's the Appellate standard review uh thank you for the question Senator again I I mentioned um I have not uh worked on appeals if a question like that came before me um I would thoroughly research the law I understand that there's de novo review abusive discretion and clear error are the are the different um standards okay but you don't you don't know today the answer thank you for the question Senator it would be something that I would need to research further um how about a mixed question of of fact and law what's the standard of review on that thank you for the question Senator again um uh my understanding are that the different levels of review are de novo abusive discretion and clear error well but not a question of law in fact is going to is different thank you for the question Senator again in my 14 years of experience that is not an issue um uh that has confronted me okay all right well if you're you're you've been nominated for the southern district I think is it right that is correct so you'll see a lot of Securities cases yes okay tell me what uh SEC rule 10 B5 is uh that's a rule that deals with fraud um I have uh uh not litigated a Securities uh matter uh if I were um uh to confront one I would thoroughly research second circuit and Supreme Court precedent and I would apply the law to the facts Miss Clark you've been nominated to the southern district of New York it's where most of our Securities cases are litigated and Rural SEC rule 10 B5 is about as basic as you can get you won't take another crack at that and tell me what rural 10 B5 does I thank you again for the question Senator I I regularly confront new issues of Law and in my practice and when I do I thoroughly research the issue I know you're going to thoroughly research it but are you telling me today you don't know what rule 10v5 is I only have that basic understanding okay all right um let me ask Miss Franklin and Miss Williams a question your jurisdiction let me be sure I get the title correct privacy and civil liberties oversight board I got that right your jurisdiction is pretty broad isn't it uh so the jurisdiction is brought in some ways in that the board has oversight over counterintelligence programs across the intelligence Community uh with regard to privacy and civil liberties but it's focused on counterintelligence with or it's focused on counterterrorism not all privacy and civil liberties issues right right okay I I think this is a very important board but I'm sitting here thinking we spent three four years with some some not all I'm going to emphasize that but some not all members of our heart FBI and our department of justice selling the Steele dossier does that embarrass you so Senator I think um you know there have been three Inspector General reports with regards to some of the things that went on and um I think that the recommendations in them are are a good recommendation let me ask you this deep this way do you think the steel dossier is true Senator I have no basis to believe uh it's true or either way I I you don't have an opinion I mean I I don't I don't have any factual basis to know whether or not I I do what I from what I've read it sounds like there's some concerns with the way it was procured so you know I don't understand do you believe it's true or not true so I I haven't read the steel dossier but from from the news reports it sounds like there may be falsehoods in it but again I don't have personal knowledge of it um Franklin do you know if do you have an opinion on whether it's true or not true I also have not had access to read the dossier but I can say that I share your concern I don't know if it's true I'm gonna ask I want to understand where you're coming from do you believe it's true or not true I believe that the inspector general of the justice department found uh significant problems in three reports including 17 significant errors or omissions in the fisa applications regarding cartilage I believe that the inspector General found these errors and omissions which are highly concerned I agree with the Inspector General I I find the inspector General's report very convincing yes okay so you don't believe the steel dossier is true I why is it so hard for you don't tell me which thank you that's pretty basic I would turn to the errors and Emissions that the inspector General did point to which were significant and I uh know that Congress has attempted to take steps to address those well here's what I'm getting at I mean I can tell y'all the one answer and I really really regret that I mean I this to me is it's not political it was this these allegations that turned out not to be true it doesn't matter who they were about but the some members of our federal government put the full force and weight of the power of the office behind the starsier and it didn't matter whether who they were and I I can't believe you can't agree with me that it's not true I mean there have been three inspectors General reports where where where was your agency did anybody at your agency stand up and say wait a minute before we make all these allegations on the basis of the steel dossier shouldn't we check whether they're true I mean FBI director Comey sold this thing for five years James Clapper was prepared to make a public statement that that we we're not sure if the if the dossier is accurate and and uh director Comey called him and said no don't say that where were you guys at the board you're supposed to protect civil liberties you're supposed to protect privacy doesn't matter whose privacy and simply civil liberties are being infringed either one assistant I wasn't at the board I haven't been at the board yet but I agree with you that that is exactly the role of the privacy in civil liberties oversight board right thank you sure to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties are of Americans are taken into account and to make sure that our intelligence agencies are being completely forthright and truthful with decisions thank you for that you were there miss Franklin right you weren't there no no Senator okay well when you when you both get there I I wish you would talk to your colleagues over there they ought to hide their heads on a bag they're in charge of protecting American civil liberties and privacy and it doesn't matter who you are and they sit there sucking on their teeth like a bump on a log and never said a word I'm done thank you for your Indulgence Mr chairman and father likes your haircut haven't had one in a while thank you Senator Kennedy and uh I'd just like to say to those who are new to this environment that the mini bar exam that Senator Kennedy gives to many of these uh Witnesses reminds me of my anxiety in law school where I sat in the last row and slumped down the point where I have curvature of the spine in the hopes that I wouldn't be called on to answer what 15b is or anything like that but nevertheless always entertaining and always well presented the second objection made by the senator relates to your lack of Candor on this side of the table we're a different branch of government than what you're aspiring to by and large and we have opinions on everything and express them willingly particularly if it's televised and very seldom hold back we know that on the judicial side the opposite is true you don't want to put yourself on the record in the city situation that may disqualify you from a case and the frustration Senator Kennedy feels with some of your lack of Candor we felt on the Democratic side with any other Administration it is by nature a reflection on the branches of government being a little different in philosophical approach to say the least so before I join today I want to thank you for cooperation patience especially to Caroline and Jamie are they still back there good good job kids questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5 PM on Wednesday January 19th and the record remains open until that time to submit letters and similar materials and with that this hearing is stands adjourned Matt thank you both thank you Senator Senator Kennedy from Louisiana is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh Governor director congratulations on your nomination uh Governor I realize at the Federal Reserve that you have a a big staff that advises you on inflation and based on their track record my guess is they also advised people to buy condos in Las Vegas in 2007. they accepted their advice so with respect to your predictions on inflation how did you get it so wrong well uh Senator could you move closer to the mic for me yes of course thank you for your question Senator you're welcome so I think you know nobody got the pandemic right the pandemic is unprecedented but I'm asking you about inflation yeah so um I think as as forecasters private forecasters certainly uh the forecasters um the SCP uh the the whole committee we thought that perhaps we would see a more rapid resolution of the pandemic and the supply demand mismatches in particular in cars excuse me but I don't have much time do you think you are you saying that inflation was caused by the pandemic so we certainly have seen the perpetuation for instance of the Delta variant uh leading to excuse me but are you saying that the inflation is caused by the pandemic I certainly think the supply demand imbalances that have been the biggest contributors um to the very high inflation we've seen are directly attributable to supply chain issues distortions and demand well but here's what troubles me about that um I would I'll agree that inflation is spreading but I don't see people going around coughing inflation on each other uh I I think and I understand supply chains matter but so does the demand side and so does too much money chasing too few goods and and uh I I don't think and I don't think any fair-minded person thinks that inflation is solely the result of the pandemic let me let me move on do you think that uh Federal regulatory authorities should use their considerable power not just the Federal Reserve but Federal regulatory authorities do you think they should use their considerable power to discourage private Banks from lending money to oil and gas companies no ma'am no okay do you think that those Federal regulatory authorities should use their power to discourage private Banks from lending money to gun manufacturers and dealers it's not our job we don't tell Banks what sectors to lend to we just ask them to risk manage and we make sure they have good processes and I agree with you and I thank you for that will you issue a statement to that effect if you're confirmed well I certainly uh have made that statement will continue to make sure would you issue a separate statement saying I want to make it clear to for what it's worth to all my colleagues in government I don't think that you should use your power to to discourage private Banks from lending money to oil and gas companies and uh and the gun manufacturing will you do that well I won't tell other Regulators what to do but I will be happy to talk about what we do at the at the Federal Reserve what are what our statutory authorities require us to do okay um I'm gonna follow up with you on that okay Senator uh I take that as a yes and and I'm looking forward to that statement um director gosh this is this is America's debt I'm not gonna have time to ask you about it because I want to ask director Thompson a quick question I mean yes director Thompson direct Madam director are you familiar with President Biden's uh risk rating 2.0 uh pricing scheme for the national flood insurance program uh sir I'm not familiar with the details of that program well I need you to take a look at it you talk about affordability President Biden is about to make housing for at least 505 million Americans unaffordable by raising their flood insurance from a thousand dollars a year to five and six thousand dollars a year and you're going to have a problem um real quickly Madam governor do you think we've got four big Banks they have market share between 30 percent and 50 percent in the greatest economy in all of human history they're not really Banks they're countries do you think power economic power is too concentrated in those four Banks well I certainly think that from a financial stability point of view when you have very very large institutions that are systemic uh you need to have very very big Capital buffers and liquidity buffers and risk management because it would be very very difficult to resolve those banks in a moment of financial stress okay thank you Mr chairman you've been together Kennedy time with your time my office will work with you on that statement about oil and gas and gun manufacturers thank you thank you okay Senator Warner from Virginia is recognized thank you Mr chairman I want to first of all take a moment um I know normally in the Banking Committee we don't introduce our Witnesses um judge Sykes do you think America is mostly good or mostly baked Senator Kennedy I think America is mostly good thank you how about you uh councilor Roshan I agree I think it's mostly good how about you judge mostly good Senator okay thank you um I'll start back here again uh judge Sykes tell me about uh tell me what the Dober some say doe Bears some say dobbert I'm from Louisiana so some sometimes we say do bear tell me what the Dober or Dober standard is Senator Kennedy in my eight years of practice as a superior court judge and presiding in the state of California I have not had occasion to hear that the Doe Bear so I can assure you though that I have had occasion where in a civil matter I may not have known something and I do the research necessary to discover and to research whatever it is that I need to do to make myself familiar with that so I can assure you that in this case I would do the same so you'll look it up yes Senator I would do whatever it takes to make myself familiar with that and be prepared to go forward art can you tell me um as a as a federal judge give me an instance where you will apply Federal procedural law but State substantive law thank you senator for that question in regards to an instance I cannot think of an instance off the top of my head but I am familiar with the Erie Doctrine which guides that process and the Area adoption does require that what's it yeah I'm sorry go ahead I'm sorry the Area adoption does require that I would follow a federal procedural law and state substantive law okay okay uh you're nominated for judge southern district of New York no no Senator I I'm nominated for the central district of California oh okay I apologize um is it judge Cato or Kato Church cartel thank you um you're going to be on Southern District of New York if confirmed is that right Central District of California Central District what I thought I thought there were two of you that were going to be on the southern district no okay all right um if if um [Music] can you tell me what the fourth amendment is and and uh the the the rule of search and seizure and what the exceptions are thank you for that question Senator the Fourth Amendment prohibits search or seizure without a warrant and the exceptions to it the exceptions are quite numerous uh so I certainly wouldn't be able border search exigent circumstances um you know off the top of my head I can't give you the full list but there are quite a few okay suppose California said look we appreciate the guidance of the U.S Supreme Court on the warrant requirement and uh and the exceptions but we're not going to follow the exceptions here in California if you want to arrest somebody you better have a warrant can California do that Senator it would be um contrary to the code of Canon for specifically Canon code of conduct specifically Canon 3 for me to give an opinion on a hypothetical like that come on Judge don't Dodge my question it's really basic constitutional law can California decide it's not going to follow the exceptions to the warrant requirement certainly Senator if if California decided to do that I would imagine it would be an issue that would be litigated I would imagine too but can they who's going to win if they go to get it well Senator the first issue would be that pursuant to the Pullman abstention doctrine that would be the type of issue that a federal court would defer to the state to allow the state to decide in the first instance whether or not it should perhaps be resolved the state did it this is what I'm getting to suppose that California said we appreciated the Supreme Court I'm way over I'm sorry you need to look that up okay it's pretty basic sorry Mr chairman I'm sorry no you're perfectly welcome and I would just say that uh I want to congratulate the panel on facing the Kennedy Barr exam which uh occasionally is administered in this room and we are fortunate that the rules and decorum of the committee do not allow him to ask ask the same questions because we would struggle with them I'm sure as well Senator Feinstein to meet these nominees but I look forward to your responses thanks so much Senator Kennedy from Louisiana is recognized thank you Mr chairman um Dr Jefferson Dr Cook I may not get to ask you many questions today because I want to concentrate on on Ms raskin's proposal to to change the mission of the Federal Reserve but I've read about both of you um it's clear to me we disagree on some things in terms of our politics but in America you can believe what you want it's why it's such a great country um uh Dr Jefferson you're at I believe you're a Davidson you're a professor there yeah there's no better place in America to get a liberal arts education uh Dr Cook um you are a Truman scholar and you were a marshall scholar you were in Saint Hilda's okay you ever met a a marshall scholar that was a dummy no Senator me neither um the the only advice for what it was was worth for what it's worth that I have for each of you is number one please don't change the mission of the Federal Reserve please don't let it be politicized uh and number two don't get caught up in the group think over there okay uh only dead fish go with the flow don't don't get caught up in a group think now Ms Raskin May of 2020 the world economy is melting down because government shut it down we're trying to hold it together with bailing wire duct tape spit and happy thoughts and you say that's great but we ought to let oil and gas companies go broke really mean that well thank you Senator Kennedy you're welcome for that question and the Federal Reserve has particular mandates but I know about all that but did you I mean did you mean it you said it here it is big is Dallas I read the op-ed you said save everybody but the oil and gas industry let them go broke did you really mean that so I have been clear on My Views the whole point of the op-ed was that the FED should not pick winners and losers except for oil and gas you said they ought to be allowed to go broke the FED should not pick or favor any sector at all then why did you say it the FED is not in the business of choosing winners and why did you recommend to them that they they let on gas go broke I did not recommend this one I read the op-ed there it is it's I'm not going to quote it to you but Senator Timmy pointed out why did you mean it Senator Kennedy I want you to understand the role of the the proper role of the Federal Reserve the Federal Reserve should not be choosing winners and losers so you disagree with the editorial the editorial was one that I wrote and I wrote it in the context of the Federal reserve's Emergency lending facilities this was a special program set up by the cares act by the Congress that appropriated taxpayer money this was a an issue quite unlike the issue of supervision and you said don't give the money to oil and gas I don't go broke because in my opinion they're bad for the environment he didn't the I I want you to understand the context for that article this had that article had to do with and didn't have did not have to do with supervision and regulation Dr asking you said it you ought to own it okay you are on it I'm sorry you said it you ought to own what you said I respect you more if you did let me let me move on to this business of allocating Capital look this is America you can believe what you want and I mean that but I don't agree with your mission to politicize the Federal Reserve I don't believe the Federal Reserve should be politicized well then why did you say it why did you say in this June 2020 piece quote Federal regulatory bodies should allocate capital it is not the role of the Federal Reserve in supervisory or regulatory matters in its functioning as then why did you write it it was written in a context Senator that had to do with emergency lending it did not have to do with the context of supervision I mean exactly so I feel strongly about charter schools okay if some president or some chairman of the Federal Reserve said let's all get together and and uh allocate Capital away and lean on all the banks so they don't fund charter schools you support that I mean you support you support driving oil and gas industry into bankruptcy do you think that would be a proper role for the Federal Reserve no it's obviously not the Federal Reserve is not to get involved in allocating credit to any particular sector so you changed your mind I have made my myself completely clear the whole point of the op-ed was that the FED should not pick winners and losers or expose taxpayers to undo well Senator Senator uh Kennedy your times expired well you you went three minutes over I did and so did Senator Toomey but we need this hearing done by 11 o'clock what can I ask anymore I know you've already gone two minutes over Senator Warner uh you're recognized senator from Virginia well thank you Mr chairman I I would say to my my friend from Louisiana uh I think your appropriate admonition about uh only dead fish go with the flow maybe that could be applied to both sides on our partisan bases too well I agree with that I don't even know what parties they're in I I understand I appreciate that because we're asking it we're asking it's good to see you I I do want to note um we all know you've got Progressive views but I've been actually very surprised and pleasantly surprised by the number of Virginia Bankers who uh Ms naranjo did I say your name right I'm sorry yes you did thank you I'm sorry for all your troubles thank you um Mr zumbro tell my tell my old friend Phil Gelston I said hi yes sir I will be very uh he had warm warm regards to send to you wow fine lawyer fine lawyer Professor Steele with respect to a divisional merger and then a bankruptcy does the bankruptcy judge or does the bankruptcy court make a distinction between a divisional merger bankruptcy in good faith and one in bad faith uh yes I think a bankruptcy judge would I think they would they would look at the bad code to use the term that we've adopted from Judge Fitzgerald they'd look at badco and they'd ask the question is that an entity that is in bankruptcy for a proper bankruptcy purpose and if you set up a a bad code that had real Assets in it and it had the liabilities as well you might say yes that's that's a proper purpose for that um uh for for that entity but the the judge looks at what went on in the particular divisional merger and and makes a decision let me explore that a minute I've not ever practiced in bankruptcy court um when a divisional merger is done and then there's a bankruptcy and you have two companies I'll use the terms Rich coal and poor code as opposed to good and bad um does the bankruptcy as I assume that that counsel for the creditors is raising up fresh hell and saying this divisional merger was in bad faith and it was only done to avoid liabilities assuming that's something that's one of the allegations does the bankruptcy judge then hold a hearing and look to Porco and its present and prior management and say tell me why you did this divisional merger and if they say to avoid our liabilities does the bankruptcy judge then have authority to say no get out of my courtroom the answer to that would be yes you know I'll unpack it just a little bit if I can so um you do the divisional merger you know there's nothing strange about a divisional merger and concept I mean you you can have perfectly appropriate divisional murder mergers and nobody thinks about it until we end up in bankruptcy but if you do a divisional merger and then you put bad Co or Porco into into bankruptcy and the creditors the victims challenge the bankruptcy say it was filed in bad faith then the bankruptcy judge assesses the divisional merger the Texas Two Step and determines whether it belongs in bankruptcy or not and the the standards that courts use vary a little bit from court to court but the the standard that will apply in Johnson and Johnson for instance which is the third circuit standard the court of appeals for the third circuit what the court will ask is was the there a valid bankruptcy purpose that was the first question and then the second question is was this bankruptcy filed simply to gain a tactical advantage in litigation and if it's not a valid bankruptcy purpose or it was solely for a tactical Advantage the court will kick the case out and there is a hearing in Johnson and Johnson in in its divisional merger case next week um to address that question let me ask Mr zumbro foreign it seems to me that the issue is do we have a prophylactic rule passed by Congress that says you can't do a divisional merger and then a bankruptcy or do we rely on the bankruptcy judge to decide when a divisional merger is in good faith and bad faith bad faith meaning to avoid your creditors Senator I think that's right I think the bankruptcy courts are in much better positioned to evaluate those issues than Congress I don't think a a law that flatly prohibits a bankruptcy file filing after a divisional merger is appropriate or necessary I did a divisional merger recently for a Content a media company that needed to sell a Content Library so uh if that company that bought the Content Library the library needs to seek bankruptcy protection in 10 years why should it be precluded from doing so I think the courts can can make these determinations on a case-by-case basis I understand could I ask Mr chairman for 30 more seconds could you weigh in on that Mr my client absolutely first of all what Mr scale said what Professor skill said is not accurate in the fourth circuit in the fourth circuit where these bankruptcies are all originally filed bad faith is not enough to dismiss the bankruptcy a judge could fight it's in complete bad faith it's it's a scheme it's a fraud but yet if if the defendant if the debtor can argue there's a reasonable likelihood of a success reorganization a standard which is almost impossible to meet uh then the bankruptcy has to stay so dismissal is not an adequate remedy even for bad faith under the law of the four circuit where they of course file secondly with respect to this prophylactic rule think about the implications of what I've just said uh the the Court's hands are bound they're Bound by this governing controlling precedent and it doesn't matter if it's bad faith that's not enough judges are of course faced with the cases in front of them and they do their best faced with the cases in front of them but when they were such a a widely used scheme we're the wealthiest corporations go into bankruptcy to disadvantage some of their disfavored predators that is a universal problem that I would submit calls for a universal answer okay thank you all Mr chairman I have been asked by uh Professor Anthony Casey of the University of Chicago Law School law school and Professor Parikh of the Lewis and Clark Law School to offer statements on their behalf into the record I haven't got an objection they'll be made part of the record thank you I'm sorry to go over Mr chair not a problem Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman congratulations to all of you enjoyed hearing about and meeting some of your family members um Miss Morrison which which branch of government passes criminal statutes uh the legislative branch yes ma'am um and legislators of course I think we can agree or elected by the people um you think it would be fair to say that the people in our legislatures legislators Define uh criminality for our communities that's correct Senator okay do you think it's appropriate for a district attorney to decide to ignore criminal statutes and not to prosecute an entire line of cases thank you senator for that question you're welcome um District Attorneys as you know are accountable to the people and the citizens who elect them and I know it has become an issue in elections about the extent to which district attorneys will use the resources of their office to focus on particularly and what do you think about that issue do you think it's a problem let me ask you again do you think it's appropriate for prosecutors to say I disagree with the legislature and the people and I'm not going to prosecute an entire line of cases um Senator I think it is appropriate for prosecutors to evaluate each case that comes before them and almost everything that's not what I'm asking I know you I mean you're smart okay I can tell from your resume let me say it again the people elect their legislators legislators say on behalf of the people this is a crime which Society will not tolerate without punishment do you think that it's okay for prosecutors to say I disagree and I'm not going to prosecute an entire line of cases I don't care who is charged you agree with that um Senator I agree that prosecutors have the legal option to use the flexibility when they exercise that option do you agree with that I think it would depend on the circumstance under which they're exercising it and and what the rationale was for their what are the circumstances where it's okay to do that uh so I think prosecutors in this country uh work very difficult jobs under very demanding I'll stipulate to that but we have prosecutors who are saying to hell with the legislature and the people we're not going to prosecute an entire line of cases and I think my question is pretty straightforward do you agree with that or disagree with it um Senator I have never worked as a prosecutor I have um yes ma'am but you've read about it yes that's going on do you agree with it or disagree with it Senator I I think I don't think I can give a categorical yes or no to that because I think it depends on the answer is my question uh what do you think about the job being done by district attorney krassner I believe you work for the District Attorney's re-elect or our election do you think he's doing a good job or a bad job uh Senator I did not actually work on district attorney krausner's campaign I've been an adversary I apologize do you think he's doing a good job or a bad job um uh Senator I don't think it would be appropriate as a Judicial nominee for me to comment on the performance of a elected why not uh because there was always a chance that a case could come before me in which someone has say a prior conviction from Philadelphia who's then prosecuted in New York in any commentary that I I made on that office um could be grounds isn't that convenient um do you think judges apparently you think that prosecutors should be able to say we're not going to prosecute a line of cases in a a a a a a a group of crimes despite the solemn expression of legislative will do you think judges should be able to do that say I don't agree with this criminal statute I'm not going to prosecute uh I'm not going to hear cases for any of them uh no Senator judges do not prosecute cases and and I I know that but do you think a judge should say I don't want to hear I'm going to dismiss all these cases because I don't want to agree with the criminal statute I think you understand my question Miss Morrison I do Senator and and and I would I'm trying to recall how you phrased the question I would agree with you or at least my position would be that judges cannot refuse to adjudicate or hear a case uh and ignore the will of the district attorneys can uh as Executives they are granted with greater discretion for example District Attorneys day in and day out a whole line of cases complaints complaints from the police that they then evaluate based on the evidence you think a district attorney it's appropriate for just attorneys saying look in the name of the social justice I'm not going to prosecute armed robbers anymore you agree with that um Senator I would stand on my previous answer I think it would depend on the circumstance I'm not aware of any district attorney in the country how can I vote for you if you won't answer a straightforward question like that counselor um Senator I I would hope that you would consider the entirety of my record and my qualifications and the work that I've done problem is I have and and I see all these comments you've made in favor of the district attorneys who in the name of social justice and you've you've spoken glowingly of all of them and now you won't answer my question about it you say it's inappropriate and I just don't I think it's really appropriate thank you Mr chairman thank you Senator Kennedy Senator Cruz thank you Mr chairman Miss Morrison you urge this committee to look that's the whole of your record I will confess the whole of your record is deeply disturbing across this country Americans are horrified at skyrocketing crime rates it's skyrocketing homicide rates and skyrocketing burglary rates is skyrocketing carjacking rates and all of those are the direct result of the policies you've spent your entire lifetime advocating White House Senator Kennedy is next thank you Mr chairman judge councilman congratulations um counselor in about 60 seconds because I only have five minutes uh could could you tell me in your opinion what if anything is wrong with the criminal justice system in America Senator thank you for that very Broad and very important question you're welcome uh I understand that there are numerous issues involving the criminal justice system that are the matter of vigorous debate in the public give me two give me two things that you think are wrong with our criminal justice senator I I truly respect the role of policy makers in considering questions like this uh it involves so much study of of empirical data counselor I understand that but give me two things maybe you don't think anything's wrong with it but if you could give me two things you think in your opinion or wrong with our criminal justice system senator in my in my 12 and a half years of practice in post-conviction law I have observed instances where individuals were denied fundamental rights that that were defined in the Bill of Rights and uh I in many cases have been able to assist those individuals in seeking Vindication let's move on Council um do you think it's appropriate for a prosecutor to decide not to prosecute certain classes or lines of criminal law violations in the name of social justice Senator I have not had the opportunity to review the legality of challenges to an executive's I'm not I'm not asking your opinion about the legality some of our DA's you've read about them I'm sure in Philadelphia Los Angeles for example other places have said we are going to ignore criminal statutes passed by the legislature and not prosecute certain lines of cases in the interest of social justice and I'm asking your opinion about that senator I do not actually have an opinion about that per se I do recognize that constituents counselor you've you're an intelligent person you spend your life in in Criminal involved in criminal law you don't have an opinion have you thought about it Senator I I'm not sure which specific instances of of categories of crime that are not being prosecuted you're referring to sure how about shoplifting how about receiving stolen property how about resisting arrest uh how about making criminal threats do you think those are all statutes criminal violations do you think a prosecut it's a very simple question Council um do you think prosecutors should decide in the name of social justice not to to ignore these criminal violations have you thought about it Senator I can't say I have you're telling me you're not given any thought to this whatsoever thank you yes I don't believe you I'm sorry I just don't believe you you're well read intelligent person and I don't know why you're gonna give me your opinion on this Senator I have focused on specific criminal cases uh as as an advocate uh an appointed counsel I know that but I'm asking your opinion I'm gonna ask it one more time do you think prosecutors should ignore criminal violations as per statutes passed by a legislative body in the name of social justice as a matter of of class of cases all I can say senator is I believe that prosecutors have a very important job and I think I agree your job is enormously important I'm just asking you to answer my question I can't vote for you if you're not going to answer my question because I don't know what position you're going to take if you're on the court thank you Senator would you answer my question I would hope that prosecutors would use all of all of their tools and resources to make important decisions about issues such as the one that you've raised and if confirmed I would review the legality of any accounts I'm very disappointed I'm getting more excited here and I don't even have dressing on it we both know what I'm talking about and I think your your refusal to answer your refusal answer gives refusal to answer gives me the answer with all due respect thank you Mr thank you Senator Kennedy uh I'm going to comment on this your question well I'm going to want to respond I want you to okay attorneys and prosecutors make decisions every single day as to what cases will be prosecuted in which cases will not it is physically legally impossible to prosecute all cases they establish priorities they try to serve the public in establishing those priorities every prosecutor makes that choice they can't prosecute every possible violation of law that's just part of their responsibility I don't see why that is a reflection on whether or not you agree with their choices or not some are going to take a much different view than others that's just the nature of it and in terms of summarizing what's wrong with the criminal justice system in 60 Seconds challenge any one of us to do the same well Mr chairman you know dick the affection that I have for you but this is the third Hearing in which you've made editorial comments about my questions so so I want to respond um number one uh this very bright person has spent her life in criminal just the criminal justice system I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what if anything she thinks is wrong with it and get a candid answer number two of course you're right about prosecutorial discretion but you and I both know that's not what my question was about we have a number of district attorneys that have taken the position that they are going to ignore criminal statutes passed by a legislative body and they are not going to prosecute they meaning the prosecutors an entire line of cases for example shoplifting uh receiving stolen property resisting arrest in the name of social justice now Mr chairman we both know what I'm talking about and so does the witness and I don't know why she won't answer the question and that's the point I was trying to make I mean no disrespect to either of you but I think my questions are perfectly appropriate in this environment thank you Senator anything more to add at this point okay thank you very much I believe that Senator Blumenthal is next thank you Mr chairman um judge MS abudu uh congratulations I want to just talk to you at least initially a little bit about the law um Mr Budu what what is the uh what's the adequate and independent state grounds Doctrine thank you Senator Kennedy you're welcome in my practice I actually haven't had an opportunity to use that principle or doctrine but my general understanding is that it speaks to the fact that if a federal court is able to resolve an issue based on state law grounds then that is what should lead in terms of the Court's ultimate decision okay what is the selective incorporation doctor that also in the Voting Rights or civil rights context is a term that I haven't had to come across but what I do know is that as a legal research and writer and for sure confronting possibly new areas of law I look very forward to doing my due diligence in terms of making sure I'm familiar with doctrines such as that one do you know what it is so no I'm not familiar with it should be here today okay we are going to see a lot of it if you're confirmed on the 11th circuit um Can Congress pass any law that the Constitution doesn't prohibit based on the frame of your question I would say yes that sounds right so you think Congress has plenary power well I would First Look to what the Supreme Court has said in terms of following precedent no but I'm I'm interested if I could uh counselor in your opinion is the United States does the United States Congress have delegated powers or plenary power well the Congress has both I would say from my general understanding again it depends on the context and the issue but it is can you explain the difference to me between strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny Senator strick scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny that's often applied in constitutional cases I'm sorry go ahead excuse me so it requires that a state when enacting a law regulation have a compelling governmental interest for doing so and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest okay and then intermediate yeah okay so intermediate speaks to the issue of having a substantial interest or that is or an important governmental interest that is substantially related okay um do you believe that the meaning of the Constitution is immutable or does it change over time Senator I say that the some cases respond really does depend on the context and the issue but what the court does or has done in its approach of courses look to the plain meaning of the of a statute or of the Constitution because that really is where the inquiry should start and if the language is plain then that is where the inquiry can end okay thank you for that you uh you were involved in a 2021 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center about voting in Louisiana um did you say quote racist white Southerners close quote and quote hostile white voters and governmental officials in Louisiana continue to make local peddling places and early voting locations threatening spaces for black voters did you say that Senator I do not believe that I said that I haven't read that publication and so you helped write it I hope to draft the publication and approved it but I'm not familiar with that language no okay uh in that same report did you say well tell tell me where in Louisiana uh local polling places and early voting locations are threatening African-American voters you said it so which polling places so again Senator obviously I don't have that report in front of me to be able to read and remind myself of uh the examples that might have been shared but what I can say is that Louisiana let me cut you off because I'm going to run out of time counselor let me ask you one more in August 2021 we're not talking 20 years ago we're talking 2021 you were involved in another report by the splc and you said that voter identification photo ID to vote is burdensome and does not serve any legitimate State interest do you really believe that senator identification for voting but first do you really believe that you said it you meant it this supreme court in Crawford V Marion County has already upheld voter ID laws as personal yeah but you said it didn't serve any legitimate State interest do you believe that again Senator without that language in front of me it's hard to understand here it is August 2021 well there are cases asking you to explain to me why having to prove you are who you say you are before you vote doesn't serve you said it doesn't serve any legitimate State interest I'm just asking to explain that statement to me I understand Senator Kennedy and again without being able to see the language that appears before and after it's hard for the context you deny that you said it I can't say that I again I haven't seen that language in front of me but what I do know is that there have been voter ID cases in which courts have found but I know I'm I'm familiar with the case law but I'm asking what you think because you may be on the 11th serpent do you believe that voter ID it is it it is inappropriate my commitment is to uphold the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford I know but here you said it was inappropriate you deny that well again Senator it would be it would be helpful to know if if that section of the report also cites to cases in which federal courts have found that certain voter ID laws do pose in the burden on voters thank you Senator Kennedy Senator Booker I'm going to yield Senator Whitehouse who's more Senator White House more senior than Senator and more hair now that's no reason that's a big group Let's test them in the 40 though to see who wins it's kind of a clean sweep of the committee or something we have a number of prosecutors who have chosen in the name of social justice not to prosecute uh entire an entire class of cases this fact despite the fact that their legislature uh has has passed these criminal statutes do you think that's proper Senator Kennedy I think I can speak to that issue very broadly in the the federal context based on my experience as a prosecutor I'm I'm asking just in in both contexts state and federal I'm asking your opinion on this conduct by some prosecutors well uh to phrase my opinion in constitutional terms on the federal side Article 2 directs at the president shall take care that the laws are Faithfully executed right it's it's long been recognized that there's a principle of prosecutorial let me stop because I'm going to run out of time as I think you're aware do you agree with what these prosecutors are doing or do you disagree Senator I I agree with the principle of prosecutorial discretion exercised in the interests of the United States that's not what I'm asking and we both know that counselor do you agree with what these prosecutors are doing or do you disagree Senator I would have to get a little more detail in order to opine on that are you afraid to give me an answer certainly not and I'm happy to give you an answer okay could you give me an answer do you agree with these prosecutors or as I described their conduct you disagree thank you for that question Senator one would have to look at the position that the prosecutor is taking and why I just explained it well some prosecutors have taken the position despite the fact that their legislature has passed a criminal statute that they're not going to prosecute uh cases in violation of that statute do you agree with that or disagree with that Senate Senator I can tell you that if a criminal matter appears before me I would apply I know you would but I'm asking you your opinion on that prosecutorial uh decision but that that's an area that really Falls within the executive part of government answer no but I think it's a complicated incident no it's not do you agree or disagree Senator once again I'm going to say that it's within discretion of a prosecutor whether the prosecutor or not the voters will you give me an answer Senator I am aware that prosecutors must act consistent with the 14th amendment that comes up in connection with Selective projects but do you agree with the prosecutors or disagree I I Senator I do not sitting here today have an opinion on that it's outside the my practice and have you thought about it I I it's not anything that I have studied have you are you aware of the issue I am aware of the issue and do you agree with the prosecutors or disagree uh Senator I can tell you that I am aware this is hotly debated in the mainstream and and and I I'm asking your opinion legislators I I know there are positions on both sides I have not refined an opinion are you afraid to give me your answer no Senator I would give you an answer if I I had it and I'm trying to I'm doing my best to answer your question but I I do not let a fool me counselor we both know what we're talking about here I don't I'm just at a loss why none of the three of you will give me an answer it's very simple you agree with the prosecutors you're disagree are you going to give me an answer I think I got my answer thank you Mr Kennedy thank you Mr chairman um Miss Murrell I'm looking at a article you wrote in the breach in 2017. you said I'm going to quote it's inconsistent to denounce white supremacy but not repudiate voter ID laws did you say that thank you for the questions Senator welcome I believe that was an interview I gave in the days after Charlottesville and I and I believe those statements were in turn I was it was in my role as an advocate regarding my work uh representing voters in Alabama challenge so you didn't mean them as a person I made them in my role as an advocate you mean them as a person I'm not asking you in your roles in Africa do you believe that if you're against white supremacy you have to be against voter ID laws senator in my role as an advocate am I not asking you about this it wasn't the case I'm asking you what you believe and I don't appreciate you dodging my question now this is this is a serious position you've been nominated for do you believe that someone who is against white supremacy also has to be against voter ID laws Senator no the Supreme Court has held that photo the I believe that the Supreme Court has held what do you believe personally I believe that photo ID laws have been held to be constitutional do you think voter ID laws are appropriate or inappropriate I believe those are questions that uh election officials do you believe that voter ID laws are appropriate or inappropriate I believe that photo ID laws have been held to be constitutional I believe there are cases in which they are unbelief I believe there are cases in which they are what do you believe I also believe there are cases what do you wish they can what do you believe Senator let her answer please I'm trying to I'm trying to we both know what's going on Mr chairman better complete this one well let me do my own question Mr chairman I appreciate your help professor um do you believe that voter ID's loss are appropriate or not I believe there are circumstances where photo ID laws can be constitutionally implemented and I believe that the Supreme Court has also held that there are circumstances when they would not be constitutionally permitted okay all right there's uh the sugary I'm saying your name right it is chodri thank you for correcting me thank you uh in 2015 you were on a panel at Princeton University um you said that uh the killing of unarmed black men by police happens every day in America did you say that Senator I don't recall the statement but it is something I may have said in that context you think it happens every single day Senator I believe in that in that statement I was making a comment in my role as an advocate and I was engaging in rhetorical advocacy which do you believe that police officers kill unarmed black men every day in America Senator I believe the killing of unarmed citizens by law enforcement is tragic and I believe in that I think it's tragic too but do you believe that this is a really simple question councilman do you believe that cops kill unarmed black men in America every single day you said it at Princeton Senator I said it in my role as an advocate oh okay you didn't mean it Senator I said it in my role as an advocate to make a rhetorical point so so when you say something that's incorrect it's okay to excuse it by saying oh I was being an advocate what do you believe do you personally believe that cops kill unarmed black men every single day in America Senator I believe law enforcement have an important and challenging job in this country when you said though Council Senator I see before you hear today that I do believe law enforcement have a difficult and challenging job and I also understand the difference I just think that's an extraordinary statement to make with no data to back up no none whatsoever there's no basis for you saying that and you knew it then and you know it now how can one possibly believe that you're going to be unbiased on the federal bench Senator I believe my record shows that I have worked collaboratively with law enforcement in Boston Chicago Mississippi and Milwaukee to solve complex problems to promote constitutional effective and your record shows that you believe cops are guilty until proven innocent your record shows that if a cop if if if a cop shoots a criminal it's a cop's fault and if a criminal shoots a cop it's the gun's fault I've read your record I've read your record Miss Murrell and I don't appreciate you not answering the question straight up I would respect you a lot more if you just tell us what you believe and not try to hide it thank you Mr chairman Senator Booker thank you experts with US senator Kennedy Mr Rowe um what do you propose is it Rowan or I can't say that I'm sorry yes it's Rowan uh what do you what do you your employees have trouble finding affordable child care that's correct what do you think we ought to do about the problem well as I said uh in my uh introductory opening there have been Solutions over the years my mother was involved in a organization that uh created a non-profit Child Care operation it uh it was uh worked on pay by uh uh by need um it did have a uh it used um funds from the United Way which were um you know charitable funds but I also believe that um it needs more Government funding to keep the the economic model for as um you think the American taxpayer needs to subsidized child care I believe if correctly explained the American taxpayer would understand that an investment by the government in good child care would dramatically improve the economic condition of all of our small businesses and corporate businesses to the point where we would have a bigger larger Workforce which would be more productive more stable and everybody would benefit so the value of the investment as a business owner I understand investment the value of that investment would be far greater than the cost of it today and if explained properly to the American public they would understand how many employees do you have I run between 50 and 75 to 85. okay what is the starting employee make in your company two years ago nine dollars an hour how today about twelve dollars an hour minimum wage in Pennsylvania is seven dollars and twenty five cents so the starting pay for for a person in your company today when they walk twelve dollars an hour that's what I have to be paying to get somebody of course I can't afford health care I mean uh child care um are you insinuating how much money did you take out of your company last year what was your salary um my personal salary was a hundred thousand dollars okay did you take out any money and are you an LLC I'm a sub chapter S Corp okay you're a sub-ass so you took out so in addition to your salary you you you had to pay taxes so presumably you you took out profits how much did you take out there my company lost over three hundred thousand dollars last year and okay so your total take from your company was a hundred thousand dollars actually my total take because as a sub chapter as my business income is my income right was negative two hundred thousand dollars okay so you had a is that a is that aborational or just that I hope so yeah well yes it is pandemic how much did you take out my um my average over say a 25-year period of time for my company has been somewhere between the profit for the company that is then we pay taxes on right it's been somewhere between 45 000 and maybe 150 to 200 000. okay well look I'm not trying to pick on you and and congratulations on having a family business let me let me just uh give you this point of view of course Child Care is too expensive um everybody up here wants less expensive child care everybody up here is supports children in prosperity too now here's a rational way to go about it it's probably not the way Congress will go about it but it's a rational way um there's some things you can't quantify you you can't quantify the self the the uh the self well-being of having a job okay how much money government gives you you can't quantify the feeling of self-worth that a person receives from being gainfully employed and supporting his or her family and being a meaningful part of his community follow me here Senator I would like to add one thing sure I've been in my business for over 45 years I'm in a small business Community I know every one of my employees and I can quantify with them when I look them in the eye what a good job means right and I watch them cry when they can't come to work because they don't have child care I understand um so there's a part of this you can't quantify in my opinion the the I meant what I said earlier a person without a job is not healthy that person's not happy and that person is not free and yeah government can give you a cell phone but you're going to feel much better about yourself if you earn the money to buy a cell phone okay there is a part of this you can quantify a rational approach therefore would be to say okay if Government subsidize the cost of child care in America what would that mean in terms of GDP how many additional people would go to work how many fewer lost my child is sick days would we have in America what would be the impact on productivity all that can be Quantified and you take that number the cost or the benefit rather and you compare it to the cost and if the benefits substantially outweighs the cost you would go forward the question would then become how do you pay for it well if we say this is a priority a meaningful place to start if you respect taxpayer dollars and we all do is to say okay we're going to comb through our budget we're going to basically scrub our budget before we just go borrow more money and try to find out what in our current budget is a lower priority than than uh than affordable child care we never do that we never do that I I mean we just don't do that neither side does that when we put together a budget Mr we don't do it like you do it your your business our fight over a budget is how much money extra money we're going to give to the bureaucracy every year we don't have any metrics in the real world um if you're doing a lousy job you get fired in government if you're doing a lousy job it must mean that you don't have enough money so we give you more money that's the way it works let me let me just finish my thought so that would be a rational play and then once we really try to scrub the budget and find the money then if it's not enough given our other competing priorities we could talk about well is this something that we ought to add on an operating as an operating expense and borrow money that would be a a rational way but that's not what is before us what is before us let me just take the president's Bill back better plan you know what the child get provisions and that would cost 75 billion dollars a year what do you think that's going to do to inflation and that's not 75 billion dollars that we should could find by scrubbing the budget that is that's not touching the budget nobody wants to touch the budget we just want to add to it we don't have to have five percent of 75 billion dollars we gotta go borrow that do you see the problem I don't think anybody has at least I don't have a problem with the end result with the objective here but the answer is not just say oh okay we'll just add 75 billion dollars a year extra to our operating account based on the assumption that all the money we're spending right now is well spent and yeah we'll just borrow more that's not the answer and it wasn't the answer before inflation but let me tell you what will happen right now if we've if we go past bill back better and there's some good things in buildback better you know the impact of that on inflation you think eight and a half percent inflation is high get ready for 15 inflation and that's the problem anyway that's the end of my speech you mentioned that in a small or in business we don't do things like government and that's very true um I might have lost money last year but then make a decision this year to spend fifty thousand dollars on a piece of equipment that I can't afford so I have to borrow for it but I know that that fifty thousand dollars worth of equipment will make three hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment or products that I will make fifty thousand dollars in profit so I will pay for that piece of equipment in one year and then on that equipment for ten years and make fifty thousand dollars every year after that so I make a hundred five hundred thousand dollars because I make an investment that is the correct one at the right time it's not I bet you want the first thing you do though is you don't just assume that you need to go borrow the money to to buy that equipment the first thing you do is sit down with your operating budget and see if you can't find a a a a place to cut that's the first thing you do we do that all the time absolutely well I agree with you we don't we don't and that's the problem [Music] thank you Senator Reed well thanks very much uh Madam chairman uh Miss uh cologrosso uh we're looking at a situation where uh Child Care is extraordinarily expensive uh for everybody and the irony is that the childcare workers were only making minimum wage or sometimes uh let me ask each of you this because I consider all of you students of the U.S Supreme Court um what do you think will will be the impact on the United States Supreme Court and people's respect for it as a result of this leak about the draft opinion in the Mississippi abortion case we'll start on this end and then I'll let Professor Payne rest a minute it was already on you know it's an empirical question I really couldn't say I think that the um the the leak the substance of the leak which shows that the cord is going against the majority of the country is much more damaging to the legitimacy than the leak itself thank you professor well the week last night's obviously outrageous and should be taken very seriously but I have a lot of confidence in the court and the American public and I think that the Supreme Court is going to rise above the circumstance and as it's done for decades apply the rule of law and issue a decision that a police reflects the uh constitutional principles in the Dobbs case and and all others and trust that the Chief Justice and the court will be able to resolve an issue an honest opinion uh quickly okay Professor Frost I think the leak was uh unethical but I do not think it will damage the court and I think far more damaging to the court was the failure to fill a seat for nearly a year um when a nominee by then President Obama was pending and not acted upon okay Professor you're a professor too thank you I think the leak was seismic devastating and heartbreaking it should go without saying that the Supreme Court can fulfill its article 3 responsibility if drafts of opinions are leaked and circulated for what appear to be political purposes that said I do think the Supreme Court is fully capable of keeping its eye on the ball and deciding this case ultimately through a final official published opinion in the way that the law and the Constitution command Professor Payne I think the leak was highly inappropriate and it also raises the question of what are the specific rules that apply to the officials and the employees in the Supreme Court because it's not clear about their duty of confidentiality as opposed to the duty of confidentiality following the other clerks across the lower courts okay thanks to you all so we have a uh as people arrive and step out we have a new list a new order of proceeding which is Senator Blumenthal Senator Graham Senator took me a little bit over it so I apologize to my colleagues Senator Kennedy that's okay Mr chairman thank you uh I'm I I've enjoyed your testimony um Professor Frost I take it that you think the uh the recusal provisions that the United States Supreme Court uses are inadequate I'm I'm interested in in learning more about that um do you think they undermine they meaning the recusal provisions that the United States Supreme Court undermine the Integrity of the Court I do and I think that what is unfortunate is there's some easy ways to fix and change this which of course is is in congress's hands um by adding procedures to the recusal statute let me ask you what do you think undermines the Integrity of the United States Supreme Court more in your judgment um it's recusal provisions or a member of the United States Senate going to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatening justices by name if they don't rule the way he wants on Roe v Wade so I take it that this hearing is to consider a bill and to consider possible legislative reform to improving the way the court operates and protecting actually all the article three courts so that's going to be the focus of my testimony and here's what this institution could mean but first could you answer my question so your question is whether people speaking out against the court is more damaging to the court one more question my question is what do you think undermines the Integrity of the United States Supreme Court the inadequacy in your opinion of its recusal professions or having a member of the United States Senate go on the steps of the United States Supreme Court in front of God and Country and threatened justices by name if they do not vote the way he wants them to vote on Roe v Wade so Senator unfortunately over the last decade particularly the last five years or so I have seen the court come under attack from so many different sources man but what about that that I think that's a problem I would certainly not support a senator criticizing the court it's also a problem when the Senate of the United States will not confirm a nominee for over a year leaving the court at eight justices and it's also a problem when Congress will not amend existing legislation to improve the process of recusal so that all of the justices can weigh out on a recusal decision right and protect the Integrity of that court all of those are a problem let me ask each of you this year all students well first I'm gonna call you Professor anyway I think you're qualified to be a professor professor Payne you mentioned uh ethical misconduct I'm sorry ethical misconduct by the United States Supreme Court Justices can you give me examples in the last 20 years of specific acts of ethical misconduct by the United States Supreme Court Justices I can definitely send you the allegations of misconduct and in the Supreme Court the perception of misconduct has the same impact as actual misconduct but I'm asking for actual acts of misconduct because there's nobody to make the legal decision whether something is actual misconduct I can't point to a decision that's been made I can only give you the allegations of the potential misconduct which includes uh failure to recuse and improper travel I'm not going to ask you your opinion on precedent and I'm not going to really ask you about past cases I just want to talk to you a little bit um judgmentally tell me what your understanding is currently of the Chevron doctor thank you Senator Kenny for that question my understanding currently of the Chevron Doctrine is that the doctrine as a general matter that courts should give deference to agency factual determinations to the extent that the agency has been empowered by Congress to regulate certain areas how much difference have have the have the pallet Corps said you should give explain what you mean by giving them I know what deference is but do you give them a lot of deference what if they come up with a with with an interpretation that is patently absurd do you have to defer to that thank you Senator Kennedy um you know Senator Katie I know that the issue of um the Chevron Doctrine and the deference that courts should afford to agencies is an issue that is currently hotly uh contested in various litigation and as a sitting district judge and as a nominee for the seventh circuit I feel that it would be imprudent to provide my advisory views look I agree with you judge I'm not asking your advisory view I'm asking you to tell me what the law is what's the current state of the law I agree with you um under Chevron the courts have said Congress has delegated this this expertise to the regular grades he's you're supposed to defer to them what is the current state about how much difference and when if ever you don't defer to them that's all I'm asking again Senator Kennedy given how hotly contested that issue is uh I feel that at this point in time as a sitting district judge and as a nominee to the southern circuit that um judge let me interrupt you you're telling me you can't tell me what the stable you won't tell me what the state of the law is on the Chevron doctor I'm not asking your opinion on it I'm just telling me what's the latest Scott let me rephrase it what is the latest guidance that the United States Supreme Court has given us on the Chevron doctor I mean it's pretty important stuff yes Senator the uh Chevron Doctrine as I stated was that uh the court should give deference to um agency determinations in matters that specifically deal with their uh particular uh realm that Congress has developed one over that how much difference when do you not defer to the agencies the uh as I recall Senator the um it the degree of deference that a court should afford agencies really deals with the uh process that the agency went through in making its determination as well as to the exact and precise nature of that determination yeah I don't judge but that's okay um I'm surprised you haven't seen the issue of Chevron before you're going to see it on the court of appeals it's pretty important stuff judge Mendoza one question I've only got a little bit of time left look you wrote an r a a larva article back in law school and I don't hold that against you you know when I was in law school uh we all did things when we were young but you know it seemed like a good idea at the time okay but but you may if I got this wrong tell me but you made one statement I was looking at your your uh your piece I think this came from your article here's I'm gonna read you the quote and I just didn't understand it one here's your quote one must understand race as a socially constructed phenomenon that has has historically served to subordinate racial minority groups while maintaining white supremacy I've never thought of race as a socially constructed phenomenon tell me what you meant by that state uh thank you senator for that question and I think you're referring to that article that I wrote 26 years ago when I was a when I was a law student and of course since that time uh Senator I've uh became an attorney uh I swore an oath uh uh at that point I became a judge no I'm not trying to trip you up I'm just trying to understand what you meant by when I first read it I said well you know that's a that's an interesting construct I just don't understand and and and Senator as I sit here now I I can't recall that specific quote but what I can tell you is when I deal with the issue of race and my court it's usually an Acclaim and and what I do in those claims is I apply the uh the precedent on the matter I look at the facts and I make those determinations and base my decision only on those issues and nothing else okay thank you gentlemen congratulations thanks Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman Ms Maldonado did I say that right yes thank you Senator okay you're you're a a key tan lawyer I have um litigated Q10 cases cool you're also a yoga instructor I am Senator double cool and You're Gonna Keep teaching if you're on the bench or you teach don't you I I teach I actually was um one judge is currently sitting suggested that I do a class for judges oh the judge's gym oh great um Mr Williams tell me about the Privileges or immunities cause I thank you for the uh question uh Senator uh the uh Privileges and community and uh immunities clause privileges are immunities right uh uh that's uh part of the uh uh uh uh Bill of Rights and part of the uh uh I believe the First Amendment uh it's it's been a while Senator my practice is primarily intellectual property so it's been a while since I've faced an issue uh with the privilege um Mr Williams tell me about the Privileges or immunities cause uh thank you for the uh question uh Senator uh the uh privileges in community and uh immunities clause privileges are immunities right uh uh that's uh part of the uh uh uh Bill of Rights and part of the uh uh I believe the First Amendment uh it's it's been a while Senator my practice is primarily intellectual property uh so um uh it's been a while since uh I've faced an issue uh with the privilege and Immunity Clause doesn't come up every day in my practice privileges are immunity privileges or Immunity Clause doesn't come up every day in my practice what I can tell you that if I was faced with an issue that involved the privilege or immunities clause I would review The Binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue and apply that binding precedent to the specific facts of the case in front of me okay tell me what rights are guaranteed by the sixth amendment uh sixth amendment uh guarantees uh uh right to uh write uh to a speedy trial right uh right uh uh to counsel right uh and uh also uh uh all right Speedy all right Council and also uh uh that's right uh against uh self-incrimination which is in the Fifth Amendment tell me what the holding was and oh burgerfel D I'm sorry I didn't hear the questions the uh the the holding in Oh burgerfeld The Hodges uh Senator uh thank you for the question uh I haven't uh had the occasion to uh deal with that issue uh I don't recall that specific case as I sit here uh uh in front of you but what I can tell you is that if the issue decided in that case uh came before me I would uh review uh binding Supreme Court precedent and apply it to the specific facts of the case in front of me okay um in 2015 Mr Williams you gave a speech and you said that the modern judicial system today is more racist than it was a hundred years ago did you say that I thank you for the question Senator uh uh I don't believe that's the specific quote that I said uh I believe you're referring to let me read you the quote so there won't be any misunderstanding becoming a feminine is more devastating today than when existed during Jim Pro Jim Crow and you were you were talking about the judicial system in Delaware thank you for the question Senator you're welcome I made those comments as uh co-chair of the access to Justice Commission which was a commission that was created by the Delaware Supreme Court yes sir that I was asking tell me what you meant the chair I know I read the uh the interview tell me what you meant I was referring to a description uh that uh others have made to describe the condition of felons in terms of the term Jim Crow meaning let me stop you do you believe that the judicial system in Delaware in America is more racist today than it was a hundred years ago uh thank you for the questions uh uh no I do not believe that the system today is more racist than it was a hundred years ago uh what I was describing what was the well but but why did you say becoming a felon is more devastating today than when existed during Jim Crow I was referring to the conditions of of of the inordinate amount of people of color who when they become felons are are faced with loss of Economic Opportunity uh loss of voting rights uh loss of driving license losses I was doing Hispanic as well right uh it happens to you're convicted it happens to everyone who becomes a felon but the the the the the task of the committee was to examine uh the reasons why they're such glaring racial disparities in the population of people of color in Delaware as compared to the population do you think that's because you think that's because of racism I I did not uh say uh I'm asking you do you think that's because of racism I believe that uh race plays a factor in Delaware uh uh uh across in in in in across uh the in Delaware and Beyond uh and that uh uh Studies have shown that uh uh there is a uh disparity uh in the prison population that just can't be explained by uh just nature and it be coincidence and that race plays some factor it's not the only Factor right uh economic uh condition money ability to pay bail Etc plays a factor and some other things play a factor so at that time I was serving as well because my chairman here has been very very uh indulgent I'm going to ask you one last question um do you think uh photo IDs requiring a photo ID to vote is an inappropriate uh thank you for the question Senator uh the Supreme Court has held that uh voter IDs right uh requirements what do you think is permissible what do you think uh I Senator uh follow binding Supreme Court precedent yeah but what do you think uh you've written article saying that that that's racist haven't you I have not okay not well you've written articles opposing voter ID have you not I have not okay so you think it's okay I do okay that's all I got thanks Mr chairman thanks for your Indulgence of course you know um thank you thank you Mr chairman uh professor uh what'd you think about the leak of the draft opinion of the Supreme Court Senator I thought it was horrible I thought it was a huge breach of confidence and the inner workings of the Supreme Court and of an institution that having had the the honor of being able to clerk at that I that I really admire I was I was really dismayed to hear about the leak yeah it was pretty incredible um what limitations on Free Speech can the owner of a Public Shopping Center place on its patrons Senator um this is not something that I've had experience in my career arguing cases throughout the country on I know I just want your thoughts your Supreme Court Clerk and you've got extraordinary credentials give me your thoughts help me analyze well one of my first thoughts Senator is these cases about First Amendment and whether there is seen to be a public forum somewhere are entirely context dependent you really need to dig into the record in the case and see which precedence It lines up to most and then figure it out that way without having kind of a general idea of of whether it would always be okay what are the interests that you have to balance um Senator our constitution of course protects a right to speech and that's very important to our country and you also have the rights of a property owner in that case and again you would need to look at the particular context and the applicable precedence that match up most closely with that context in order to make any determination okay let me ask you about uh you're in private practice you represent a group called every town for gun safety and they have been co-counsel in some of my cases Senator okay well look I I I don't think it's fair to blame uh to to impute to attorneys all the the values of their clients I mean I think everybody has a right to counsel as I've said before in this committee I've had I've had clients that uh I didn't agree with I've had clients I didn't even like uh but but I'm human you're human we have personal opinions do you agree with the the positions of uh every town for gun safety Senator um I'm not familiar with all of the positions of every town for gun safety I'm happy to talk about this one of them is uh uh every town for gun safety your client says a ban ban assault weapons you personally do you agree with that um Senator um as a mom and someone who cares about gun violence I think these issues are very important to discuss I know that's why I'm asking you you agree with them you agree we should abandon assault weapons I think these are questions that policy makers whether it's this body who I know I'm just asking what you believe I mean I I I I please don't Dodge my question you're you're a bright person I know you've thought about it just tell me what you out tell me what you believe do you believe we should have banned we should ban assault weapons I believe Senator that as a nominee to the federal bench it would be inappropriate for me to explain I don't understand that you certainly you have personal beliefs and values I don't want you not to have personal beliefs and values if you haven't thought about this stuff you're not qualified um so let me ask you again do you do you it's for some question do you think we ought to ban assault weapons Senator if any case about gun regulation were to come before me if I'm fortunate why are you afraid to say you do Senator I'm Bound by the code of judicial ethics I wouldn't want any of you're not a judge you're a professor uh Senator I do very much enjoy teaching my law students and and being a professor but as a nominee agree with Banning assault weapons Senator I don't think it's appropriate to comment on policy issues particularly policy issues that could come before a court if I am fortunate to be confirmed it's gonna be hard to vote for you counselor if you won't tell me what you what your values are okay I I play poker with a lot of friends every now and then not trust them but I always cut the cards I'm not saying I don't trust you but if you won't tell me what your values are it's gonna be hard to vote for you and and I don't I don't think it furthers this process for you to Dodge I just don't thank you Senator Senator Booker thank you both for being before us today uh Miss blooming threats my questions are going to really be for you uh so you live in Guatemala or you were teaching Guatemalans I couldn't get it right um thank you Mr chairman um Mr Garcia uh how old are you Senator I am 36. okay and um you're now at the Department of Justice she wore it on Melbourne and Myers that's correct you were a partner there yes sir how many partners um are there at on Melbourne now it's great Law Firm um my guess would be between uh 100 around 150 yeah yeah okay um get given given your age and and your experience um are there any Partners at Old Melbourne and Myers that have more experience do you think would would make a better addition to our courts of appeal are you the very best that Melanie has to offer Senator o Melvin and Myers has many incredible incredible attorneys great and I I would certainly hope to just be judged on my own record I'm just complete well let's let's move on I want to understand uh I want to understand your record you've done a lot of pro bono case cases the June Medical Services case was that a pro bono case uh yes Senator I believe so okay so so that means you weren't paid the firm wasn't paid that's correct you just chose to do it the the firm was not paid as an attorney I would have been compensated uh for my time yeah but the firm wouldn't pay that's correct so you didn't have to do it to eat no okay and in June medical services that was Louisiana case you argued that a doctor should not have to have admitting privileges that at a hospital in order to perform an abortion you said that was unconstitutional because I don't understand my understanding correct Senator that case was unique because just four years earlier the Supreme Court understanding of that case right counselor yes that's correct our clients argued that that uh law was asked you this the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus city of New York you represented the city of New York was that a pro bono case uh yes Senator it was okay so you didn't have to do it to eat you chose to do it at a large Law Firm Senator if you're asked to work on a Case um in my experience unless I was too busy I believe I always said yes yes but you're a star Melody I mean you were a supreme court clerk you can pick and choose your cases um all right and in that case you argued that um a gun owner in New York City could own a gun in his home but he couldn't take it or she couldn't take it outside their home including to a shooting range is that right Senator it's actually a little bit different individuals could take their firearms to training ranges in the city but that case actually focus on a doctrine of mutinous yeah but you you supported the New York's position to restrict the ownership of Guns is that correct uh Senator that case uh certainly New York City was our client there was a regulation on premises licenses and where folks could train with them right I think most people know what the case is Council uh now you Our Lady of Guadalupe School the Morrissey was another case you handled against Catholic elementary schools was that a pro bono case yes Senator I believe so so you didn't have to that you weren't paid you didn't have to do it to eat you chose to do it similar to before uh I enjoyed litigating complex cases especially in the Supreme Court so I would have agreed right when I was asked and so you were arguing against [Music] um the the uh strike that you you were arguing against the Catholic elementary schools and against at least from their point of view their religious freedom is that correct uh I think that's fair Senator we've our firm represented the plaintiffs in those cases all right I got 45 seconds left counselor and I wanted to ask judge Douglas a question but I don't know if I'm going to have time uh she says it's okay um we we've had a circumstance in America where we have uh prosecutors who have chosen not to prosecute an entire line of cases not to exercise prosecutorial discretion but just to say even though the legislature passed the statute saying let's say shoplifting of any amount but under 950 dollars is a crime the of certain prosecutors said I just don't believe that's right I'm not going to prosecute those cases and they have taken it on themselves what is your opinion of that thank you Senator I think those types of decisions are are very important for prosecutors to make carefully and as you suggested what's your opinion are they right or wrong well Senator as a Judicial nominee what I could commit is that if a case involving questions like that opinion are they right or wrong well senator in the abstract I think every Executive Branch the president has a constitutional duty to take care of the opinion counselor as a senator it is absolutely an important issue in fact the Supreme Court about it the Supreme Court just came out of time have you thought about it uh I have actually not worked on a case about what's going on all across America in terms of prosecutors not Prosecuting criminals you're telling me that a supreme court clerk for Justice Kagan Senator Melvin and Myers you're telling me you haven't thought about that oh that's not what I'm saying at all Senator what I'm saying show me your opinion I I hope you'll appreciate that the code of judicial conduct your opinion are you Senator my my opinion is that those are important questions so several Senators have come and gone on the Republican side I believe the first Senator thank you Mr chairman congratulations to all of our nominees I want to start with the judge judge in terms of the powers given to the various branches of government uh it is the U.S Constitution a doctrine of plenary powers or enumerated powers thank you senator for your question you're welcome Congress has afforded enumerated powers in the Constitution not plenary Powers okay um Council we know that the 14th amendment requires States to afford equal protection of the law to its citizens but it only applies to the states what provision of the Federal Constitution or what requires the federal government to afford equal protection well the the the the 14th Amendment as well as the the Fifth Amendment also guaranteed due process to all citizens the federal process and or state and uh and as well under the I think the 14th Amendment also uh the the the federal government is bound by the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution so it also would bind the federal entities okay counselor what is the difference between the privileges and immunities clause and the Privileges or immunities calls of the Constitutions thank you senator the privileges and immunities clause in the Constitution prevents States from discriminating against citizens of other states and then the Privileges or immunities clause in the 14th Amendment uh prevents States from disparaging or discriminating against citizens in their Federal rights okay um Mr desino did I say that your name right yes sir please don't be offended but I'm not about to mess with one of Senator grassley's nominees okay so let me start and go back that way uh counselor I've got to ask you this question you you just became a partner at Bowie shutter Senator I became a partner in 2020. right and you're going to give up all that big money to join the federal bench you worked for all that time Sandra I've been in private practice for 20 years now um and uh you were you were educated or I started my career at scadnerps and it's been a lifetime there in one week didn't you in terms of billable hours I sure did Senator and I also got a lot of great training yeah I've enjoyed my time in private practice but uh I I believe in public service and I'm honored to have the opportunity if confirmed to serve my country okay counselor um what we we know that the United States Supreme Court has a has delimited delineated certain classifications to be suspect classifications right what are they well some examples of suspect uh get the system for me because I don't have much time okay race is a suspect uh classification what else uh national origin is a suspect classification um I think uh well I'd have to look to see the rest that's examples of two of them okay what are the criteria forgetting to be a suspect classification I mean we know that race and religion as you said and alienage and national origin are suspect classifications but what are the criteria that that that classification has has to uh meet in order to be a suspect classification is that clear or am I being unclear the the question is clear we'll see how clear my answer is okay I've been a private practitioner for for 35 years and I'd had cause to have to examine that but as I understand at least one of the aspects of what makes a Class A suspect classification is is the fact that it is a a vulnerable uh population um vulnerable house politically so for example uh the the uh the classification of minorities as a suspect class uh was an example of one that was a you know politically uh vulnerable I know that it was one of those what else um Senator I'd have to to research it to know but that's what comes to mind okay judge I'm going to land this plane in time uh what's the door at Commerce Clause Senator I appreciate your question and as I sit here today after studying for the last two weeks I just can't recall I know it's in my note cards if you if you want me to go grab them okay and I apologize that's okay I'm gone hi uh uh Mr desino please tell Grassley I I didn't ask you any questions okay thank you Senator you bet and judge beam none of us on this side of the table would do very well with Kennedy's bar exam either so I shall quotas uh Senator if I were faced with a question regarding racial quotas I would carefully consider The Binding Supreme Court precedent and third circuit precedent I believe interrupt him but that's not what I'm asking let me stipulate that you will follow I'll stipulate this for all my questions too each of you that you will follow Preston what I'm asking is about your beliefs do you believe in racial quotas uh sir if if I were faced with that question I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that in the context for instance I know what the courts ruled we we both do I'm just asking you personal beliefs um do you believe in racial quotas sir uh I want to be very careful since I am a Judicial nominee I certainly want wouldn't want to say something that uh would forecast for any future litigant I don't know how they thought I don't see the problem in you telling us your beliefs I'm going to ask you one more time do you believe in racial quotas I'm sorry Senator I again because I am a Judicial nominee you're not going to answer me would not be prudent from YouTube all right do you believe once again I'll stipulate that you're going to file a Preston do you believe that a abortion is an issue that should be decided by the states uh in the recent ruling in Dobbs the Supreme Court did say that the question of abortion has been returned to the people in their election Representatives but I know and I'll stipulate that you'll follow Dodge but um do you believe that abortion is an issue that should be decided by the states I'm trying to understand what you believe well certainly uh under Dobbs returning that issue to the people and their elected representatives does put it within the realm of the states okay do you believe that that's the right decision uh Senator I would not hesitate to apply uh Dobbs if I were once again maybe I'm not being clear I'm sorry do you I'm asking what you believe do you believe that abortion should be decided by the states as opposed to the federal government again as I am a Judicial nominee you're not you're not going to answer I don't believe it would be prudent to offer an opinion that would allow future litigants too all right um I think they could forecast do you believe that prosecutors should take it upon themselves to decide not to prosecute an entire class of crimes even though that the legislative body in that particular instance has designated the behaviors of crime uh well in my approximately or almost two decades as a prosecutor and now as United States Attorney I have not found occasion to completely rule out I'm asking what you believe counselor I I I'm asking what you believe well as a prosecutor and as a United States Attorney I believe that each investigation and matter should be you believe a prosecutor should decide not we both know what we're talking about do you believe that a prosecutor should take it upon themselves or himself or herself to say I don't care what the legislature says I'm not going to prosecute any shoplifting of stealing of any Goods if it's less than 950 dollars do you agree with that or not well I would hope that my record as a prosecutor and United States Attorney speaks to that question I have not I'm asked I'm giving you a chance right now to speak to it tell them what you believe do you believe I just gave you the example do you do you believe that's a good thing or a bad thing I have not found occasion to rule out an entire rule a line of prosecution okay but but if someone did do you agree with it or disagree with it uh I don't think I'm being obtuse here just answer my question if you wouldn't if you're not just tell me so I can move to to the judge a senator I have not found a reason to do that in my own practice I have only considered is that because you disagree with it well I have found that uh whether or not something reaches a federal interest for prosecution is something that has to be determined on an individual stance you're not going to answer me and I I really regret thank you Mr chairman and congratulations to each of you uh Miss Hodge I'll start on the end um I believe you have written and I want to quote the root cause of the killing of black people in America is systemic racism did you say that thank you for the question Senator yes that was that was a statement that was um in an article that I believe I wrote um shortly after the killing of George Floyd right um and the end and you believe that that the root cause of black on black crime in America is systemic racism uh thank you for that question Senator I will say I'm going to clarify um in that writing and in that quote the quote is accurate I would revise it to say that it's one of the root causes um and to your point about black on black crime or crime in the country generally um any crime um there are many causes um as to why people engage in criminal activity okay okay um you also have advocated quote reallocating police funding what do you mean by that uh your in that I believe in in a different um or maybe the same article or something else that that same article I believe I listed a number of things that have been proposed and I believe were being considered by Congress in following George what do you think how do you think we should reallocate police funding well I will clarify that I wasn't advocating for the reallocation that was one of the things that was listed but I believe I think you were actually you your quote as you advocated for quote reallocating police funding and I'm just asking what you have in mind well Senator it has been some time so I I will say that I may not be recalling the entirety of the statement correctly I thought I had listed it as one of the things that was proposed but to your question um I believe that when a body such as Congress has the ability to make that consideration no I'm asking what you think how you think we should reallocate police funding Senator I believe that that is something that is left to the body of Congress I don't have um an opinion to offer on you don't have any opinion whatsoever I believe that that's something that is left to those who are determining policy you also advocated in the same article that we should eliminate qualified immunity for police officers is that correct I would state that that is listed again as one of the holistic proposed ideas that was being discussed actually I expected to be advocated for it Center I extracted that from what was being discussed by Congress at the time following George Floyd we advocated for it I I'm looking at the speech was entitled a quote mandate for change will require collaboration and you advocated eliminating qualified immunity for police officers and I'm just asking you did you did you advocate for it and if so do you do you still have that position Senator um thank you for the question I did not advocate for the elimination of qualified immunity and qualified immunity as a Doctrine within which has been recognized by the court and if I were so fortunate to be confirmed I would abide by the Supreme Court precedent and apply the law as it is stated okay so you you deny advocating for it I would to to your question Senator I did not advocate for the elimination of qualified immunity I listed it as one of the things that was being discussed and presented as something that was being dialogued um by this body amongst others across the country as to be considerations okay I don't think that's accurate um let me ask you about Kelly Honeywell you remember that name um Senator I had I did not have any involvement in that actual case but I am familiar with what you're referring to okay uh do you remember Troy Stevenson yes all right Troy Stevenson was arrested allegedly for shooting Kelly Honeywood Honeywell killing her murdering her at a bakery Mr Honeywell was arrested and Mr Honeywell allegedly was a member of a gang he owned owned guns and he did drugs okay you granted Mr Stevenson Bale is that right I didn't on that in that case I did not said Bell bond in that case when he was charged with murder you didn't let him go not only I did not set the bond on the murder charge who did I don't believe I don't know who's I want to get out of jail on the are you asking about the murder charge what I'm asking and I think you know what I'm asking Mr Mr Stevenson allegedly he was arrested for shooting this Bakery worker in the head and he was granted bail he was let out you didn't Grant the Bail no sir who did I as he my understanding is his bond was denied in that case on the on the murder case Mr Stevenson I believe after trial was found not guilty of those charges but I did not set the bond on the murder case I did not try the case on the murder case I did not set the bond on the murder case okay I think I'm out of time thanks thank you

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 2,561,725

Keywords: Sen. John Kennedy, President Biden, Senate

Id: oqZ-v5LOujk

Length: 136min 56sec (8216 seconds)

Published: Tue Dec 20 2022