Sparks Fly When John Kennedy Mercilessly Grills Biden Administration Nominees | 2023 Rewind

familiar Senator, the details of the case are not available at this time, do you remember that case was reversed? Senator, I don't remember offhand right now that case, um, do you remember a case called Brooks V Department of Colorado? of Corrections, yes, Senator, where you were revoked in that case, I'm not going to take it back and if that was one where I had a partial revocation, do you remember a case called ACV Jefferson County School District, yes? Senator, um, was it reversed in that case? It was also partially reversed in that case. Okay, do you remember a case called Blake V United States?

The name sounds familiar to you. Senator. Do you remember it was reversed in that case? I don't remember it specifically. particular case Okay, well, I have others here in cases that you handled where it was revoked. Tell me why it has been revoked so often. Judge well, Senator, as I indicated, I have issued more than 1,500 recommendations and orders during the Over the course of my career,

when

I approach any of these cases, I approach them all the same way, which is to analyze the law, to analyze the Supreme Court and the 10 circuit precedent that relates to those cases, and I apply those cases to the law as or to the facts of that case as a magistrate judge uh many of those are recommendations that are made and reviewed a Novo uh I respect the decisions of those judges district uh who saw those circumstances differently okay thank you judge tell me how you analyze a Brady motion the way I analyze a Brady motion yes senator in my four and a half years on the bench.

I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to address a Brady motion in my career, you know? What is a Brady motion, Senator, in my time on the bench I have not had the opportunity to address that, so it does not occur to me at this time what a Brady motion is, do you remember the United States Supreme Court case? United, Brady V? Maryland, I do remember the name of the case, Senator, yes, and what it contains. I think the Brady case, well, Senator, I think the Brady case involves something related to the Second Amendment. No, I haven't had a chance to address it. that if that issue were to come before me, I would certainly analyze the Chief Justice and apply it as necessary to the facts before me, thank you, Mr.

President, thank you, Senator Kenard, we will give it to Senator Tillis. a moment to settle in I hope you're right thank you Senator Fedman Senator Kennedy Louisiana is recognized thank you Mr. President thank you gentlemen uh for being here uh Mr. Wiio I'm saying your name right Mr. uh it's uio senatorial thank you um you've been nominated for Under Secretary of Fair Housing and Equality of opportunity at HUD, that's right, yes, senator, that's right, tell me the difference between title seven of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, certainly, senator, as I understand it, that title Seven of the Civil Rights Act deals primarily with employment practices, while the Fair Housing Act primarily focuses on discrimination in housing sir, okay, is there a difference between protected classes and the two statutes? ?

Thank you. Senator, I don't have much experience with Title 7. I will say that the protected classes under the Fair Housing Act are well established like race, national origin, religion, familial status, you know, I can name the rest if you want. Senator. Well, tell me about bosck, the Clayton County Supreme Court case, yes, senator, so I understood about boso that specifically interpreted the protected class in the Fair Housing Act that deals with sex and gender to include those lgbtqia people for those. protections and that was excuse me if the interruption was in an employment case or a housing case uh Senator thank you for the question, you know, I don't really know the answer to that Senator, well, it's something fundamental, I mean, what? what was bosck's hold uh my feeling was that uh Bostock uh as Hud interpreted it I'm not asking how HUD interpreted it I mean you've read the opinion what does it say?

Secure employment case, right, uh, my feeling, Senator, I understand. What do you mean by this question? I understand? My feeling is that this was a case? Well I'm not a lawyer, senator and I haven't had much experience with employment law but the position I've been nominated for deals well let me tell you what I mean okay bosck dealt with employment discrimination okay , your participation has nothing to do with housing, do you propose that Bosck's participation be extended to the housing senator, I understand that HUD issued an interpretive rule. I'm not asking about HUD. I know what Hud did.

I'm asking about you, Bosck, you say you've read it and I believe you, if you have, you know it's an employment discrimination case, right, yes Senator, okay, do you think Bosck's possession can be extended from fair way to the field of housing? Senator, my opinion is that the role for which I have been nominated is to faithfully enforce the laws as Congress has written them. They and since they have what the law is, I am asking you what Bosck had and you believe that Bosck can be extended to housing Senator and I apologize. I'm missing the mark on your question, my feeling is that boso had that the basis of prohibited sex or protected class under that set of laws under title 7 included people who identify as lgbtqia or this is what I'm understanding in Bostock It was a case of employment discrimination, all you have to do is read it there. it's the biggest one in Dallas okay and HUD has said we're going to apply bosck to housing not employment discrimination in housing and you're going to have to accept that otherwise you won't last long in your job so H How can you do that legally?

Senator. You know I don't currently work at HUD. Wanna. I am familiar with the interpretive rule you have described. I don't think you will answer me and I'm going to run out of time thank you Mr. President congratulations gentlemen um Mr. Papon Tell me the definition of emotion and emotion Lemony and Lemony exists in some law books Senator but what it is is a motion presented before the trial to obtain a ruling in limony, which means before some issue that may arise at trial, usually an evidentiary issue. I thought maybe he knew. Thank you Judge, please explain to me the various definitions that the US Supreme Court has used to define. a fundamental right in glurg and even recently in DOS, the Supreme Court has really focused on two important questions: one, whether the right in question is deeply rooted in our history and tradition and the court also focuses on whether it is implicit in the concept of ordered law.

Freedom I also think that in Gburg they describe the need for the right to be clearly defined. How does that relate to the discussion in Griswald about a penumbra? Well, obviously Griswald, as you state, points to this concept of penumbra rights that are not explicitly enumerated, but that the court otherwise finds itself as a sitting magistrate judge and if I were lucky enough to become a district judge, for Of course, I would follow the guidance of the Supreme Court, which has identified only a few relatively small numbers of those rights, um, obviously, the right to privacy um maybe being the best good you can have what is this that the Court said Supreme about the existence of a fundamental right that is not part of our history and tradition, for example,

when

the court delved into the Second Amendment um, it was actually that the opinions were almost written as if they were historians instead of judges, but part of our history and tradition was a fundamental part of your discussion, does it have the right to be part of our history and tradition?

To be fundamental, well, I can say this that in Heler McDonald and Bruin that was the approach, that is what the court examined. Now there are other cases throughout history that have recognized some other rights, the right to Mary, for example, uh, and I can't talk about the specific um methodology that was used, but I will say at least in the context of the Second Amendment that focusing on history was vitally important. Okay, okay, let me turn to Mr. Daniel. C can the c c can be a police officer? Well, let me try this another way if I'm walking down the street and a police officer wants to stop and talk to me.

Can he just stop and talk to me for any reason? Senator, he can request his consent to stop and talk to you. What happens if I do not give my consent? If you do not consent, then the officer must have a reasonable, articulate, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, will be committed, and be able to articulate that to justify stopping. Okay, then how come? Police officers can set up a roadblock and stop 500 people to see if they have liability insurance. As I understand it, the Supreme Court has ruled that these types of stops, when applied generally, promote good order and surveillance, which is why they continue to be stops.

Aren't they senators? In my 8 and a half years as a prosecutor I have not had to litigate suitability. I know I'm just asking you what you think I mean, isn't that intrusive? What if I am in a hurry to pick up my child from school and I don't have time to wait 10 minutes and I don't want to wait anyway. Why else can a police officer stop me on the street? Why can they do it? stop me and check my insurance Senator um as far as I personally believe, I haven't come across that I'm just asking you legally why can they do that um again.

No, I have not encountered that problem, so I do not have the research on that Senator well thank you thank you gentlemen Senator Welch uh thank you Senator Cotton Senator Kennedy thank you uh Mr. President judge dalba judge Ramirez congratulations to both of you um wing judge do you think I want get a little philosophical? I think a person's race should be used to harm that person. No Senator, how about you judge from Mar? No Senator, okay Judge, but do you think a person's race should be used to help that person? No Senator, okay, how's your judge?

No, Senator, it's okay. judge DBA why is it as good as a legal standard Senator um we try to look at people based simply on whether we're in a criminal position we're looking at them for what they've done um in a civil matter generally not It's not taken into account as well which um and also it's something that they don't necessarily control, so it seems unfair. Okay, Judge Mir, the Constitution provides equal protection for all. Well, Judge Dela, this has been in the news a lot. LLY um and you. I'll probably watch it if he's confirmed to the appeals court.

Tell me about Commerce's dormant cause, senator in me. I am somewhat familiar with the Commerce Clause found in Article One of the Constitution. It was a big The Supreme Court case just came out of its state and I apologize, Senator, you know, in my 11 years of practice and my five years on the court I have not dealt with the dormant Commerce Clause, but yes I am so lucky. enough to be confirmed and have to deal with it in the future. You'll certainly look at it, research it, and yeah, be prepared, okay, just tell me about the Commerce Clause in general to understand the Commerce Clause, like I said, Senator. is that it's under Article One of the Constitution and it allows the legislature to create laws that allow movement and things related to commerce in the United States, so anything that crosses state lines, things like that, it allows Congress to regulate trade, yes, between whom, between states, for example, mhm, yes, no one else, it doesn't occur to me at the moment.

Senator, okay, he's a familiar judge. I am confident about the Fourth Amendment and the warrant requirement. What is just for the record? What is the court order requirement required by the court order requirement? So the Fourth Amendment says that we are not subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, so in order for someone to, for example, enter our home, there needs to be a warrant and, to get a warrant, an officer. They have to declare under oath that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or that a crime is underway and that they have to describe with particularity the place to be searched and that is based on the decision of the Supreme Court. interpretation of the U.S.

Constitution correct, yeah, okay, let's say Florida passed a law and said, um, we don't agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, the requirement of the court order, we were really worried about the power of the state, um. and we are going to ignore the warrant requirement that no police officer has the right to enter your home for probable cause or otherwise, unless you agree, that would be legal, well, Senator, you would have to do it , it's a bit of a hypothetical question, but did a very real question arise before? Would it be legal?

I'd have to look at it a little bit more closely, but you know, at first glance, my concern would be that under Article Six, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, yes. so we have to follow what Florida said under the state constitution that we are doing this, is the Supreme Court the US Constitution always or the Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution?Does the US always have a state constitution? I haven't addressed that issue and well there's an important case out of your state that deals with this issue if you're familiar with the Pruneyard case the Pruneyard case that I'm familiar with um tell me the holding that the holding that that had to do with. with um individuals who wanted um yes, but just tell me the tenure I remember the facts tell me the tenure um the tenure was that the collection clause did not apply to individuals uh outside of a shopping center uh who wanted to protest or um be the spring The point What I'm trying to point out is that the US Supreme Court in that case said that the California Constitution takes precedence over the Federal Constitution, right?

What you said yes, Senator, so you want to go back to your answer about The Florida Hypothesis that I gave you, like I said, Senator, if I had a little more time to look at it and really think about it, it would be nice to come up with something. thank you judge, judge alic con, am I saying that right? Yes, Senator, okay, will you allow your personal or political beliefs to affect your decisions? No, Senator, my personal beliefs have never played a role in the positions I have taken as an advocate nor do they. a role in the positions I take as a judge when I neutrally decide a case, okay I'm glad we got that off the table, let me ask you some questions about how you see the world, do you think minorities need special help to succeed the senator that issue is currently pending before the US Supreme Court um yes ma'am we just established that you will not allow your personal opinions to affect your decisions you will follow the president absolutely.

I will follow any president. comes, let's talk about his personal opinions, which will be irrelevant to his position in court. Do you think minorities need special help to succeed the senator again? I have no personal position and I am sitting here as a current sitting judge and so are you. I thought about that, I'm aware that we've given you preferential treatment, you've been subject to many different court cases, the issue is whether you agree or disagree with that, it's not a question, Senator, whether I agree or disagree. , I apply the law as it comes. Before me, you are being confirmed to the federal court and are presumably a critical thinking person.

I'm just asking you what you think. Let me ask you one more time? Do you think minorities in America need special help to succeed is a very simple question Senator, to the extent that policymakers have enacted laws that provide protection, do you agree with those policymakers? I am not a policy maker and as a sitting judge you do not have an opinion or you are simply not going to respond I do not want to waste any more time if you are not going to respond Senator as a sitting judge it is not appropriate for me to comment on my staff no It's just that we've already established that you're not going to let your personal beliefs interfere with your decisions, so I think you should tell us what your personal beliefs are.

Do you think you believe in systemic racism? Senator again, that is a question for sociologists and academics. I guess she doesn't have an opinion you never thought of her. I take each case as it is presented to me on the individual facts. What is systemic racism? I understand that it is a sociological theory that racism plays a systemic role. But beyond that, I am not an Academic. I am not a sociologist. I am a judge and I apply the facts and the law to the cases presented to me, true, but you do not have an opinion.

No, senator, I don't have an opinion on anything. I would like to share with the U.S. senator as a sitting judge, it's not appropriate for me to comment on any personal views that I may because the first question I asked him was, uh, your worldview does matter if you never thought In the world if I never thought about these issues, you are not qualified to be a federal judge and I think you should come here and respond. I think you all should come here and answer them honestly. If I ask you, let me ask you one last question and I will ask you.

Quickly, Mr. President, do you believe you are a member of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? Is the District of Columbia Court of Appeals systemically racist as a sitting judge? I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I can say all my Colleagues take cases with an open mind. They think it's systemically racist. I don't think I'm a senator, but I don't know if I'm qualified to give that kind of assessment either. Well, you sit in court, right? I believe that all of my colleagues take their cases with an open mind, without any prejudice, and faithfully apply the law.

I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my questions, but I think the president for giving me extra time, thank you Senator Senator Kennedy. Honor, Mr. President, and congratulations to all of you, Mr. Clark, do you believe in Star decisis? Tell me absolutely what that is, it is following the president. Okay, if confirmed, it will follow all Superior Court precedents. Yes, I promise to do it. this committee that, if confirmed, would follow all the precedents of the six circuits of the Supreme Court, okay? Would you have followed the Dread Scott case, boy? There are some fundamental cases where we start with the basics that we could have followed.

Case Scott, as a federal lower court judge, I would have been obligated to pursue that case as you would have done, if you had been a lower federal court judge, you would have been obligated to do so unless that was a yes, uh, there are only two. doors here yes or no, if I had been a judge at the time, I would have been obligated to do it yes, okay, you would have followed py v Ferguson, again, you are a senator as a federal judge of a lower court if I were confirmed as a judge of a district court, would be obligated to follow all Supreme Court precedents, uh, if the Supreme Court determined that there was a precedent that it should overrule, they have that opportunity to do so, but as a lower court judge, uh.

I would be obliged to follow it, that's a yes, right, right, okay, that was good and Tom, thank you Tom, I'm going to send you a basket of fruit, give me that sheet back, Judge Oliver, how flexible an employer must be when a worker requests a for a religious accommodation, what is the federal law on that senator? My 14 years as a state court judge and 11 years as a lawyer. I have not been presented with that topic. I can engage with this committee that brought this issue forward. I will research it well and be prepared to address it before the proceeding, so you are not familiar with the Chief Justice regarding religious accommodation by an employer.

I'm not versed enough in that to be able to answer it. appropriately Senator okay tell me about the political issue doctor yes Senator thank you for the opportunity the political issue The doctrine is the only means by which the Supreme Court of the United States can refuse to act indicates that when it comes to an issue it is before the court, that is inherently political and is in the process of being considered, the Supreme Court can refuse to act and leave it to the appropriate body, okay, give me an example, if you could judge an example of a political issue. uh, let me ask you, um, in preparing for today, you met with the White House counsel, yes, and his team, they have a good team, don't they?

Yes, senator, did they give you a list of questions so that you are prepared for a list of some questions Senator yes H how many questions were there how many questions a few dozen I would suggest I would estimate just a few yes Senator I think that's accurate, where from did they ask these questions? Some were taken from previous public hearings before this body my questions yours were on that list Senator yes, okay, thank you Mr. President The Kennedy Bar Exam continues Senator Lee thank you very much Mr. President thank you all for being here Judge Alon Me I would like to begin with you a healthy relationship, Brother Kennedy and I, and I hope that your wisdom will inform probably some really strong actions, thank you sir and Mr.

President, thank you for the thanks, Senator Booker, Senator Kennedy, I didn't know I was going to receive . such a quick rebuttal is that Senator Booker has a silver tongue, doesn't he? He is good. I know Mr. Long and I know Mr. Edwards. I don't know Mr. or Judge Maddox. Congratulations to all four, though I think Judge Maddox. I'll start with you. I just want to talk a little bit about the law. I stipulate that you will follow the law and apply it to the facts of the case as you are guided, including, but not limited to, precedent.

I thought the Supreme Court just handed down some really interesting decisions. Not much has been said about one of them. But I found it fascinating. Tell me about U morvi Harper, which was the independent state legislature. Theory of what it is about. Good morning Senator, good morning. Yes, in the morning, more. B Harper was concerned whether the election clause of Article One of the Constitution gave the state legislature the exclusive authority to regulate elections for federal offices in their states without any judicial judicial oversight and the Supreme Court held that the election clause. it did not prevent judicial oversight of the legislature's regulation of federal elections. um.

I can tell you that he analyzed the case here. Here's one way to look at it. Every state has a state constitution and I want you to tell me if you think I'm wrong here, every state has a state constitution and in fact many state constitutions preceded the Federal Constitution and some of the provisions of our Federal Constitution were copied directly of state constitutions and as I read more, V Harper, what the Supreme Court is saying to a The state legislature is, look, yes, Congress gave you the power to draw congressional districts, but you have to do it according to your state constitution and therefore the state courts can weigh in and if the state courts do not issue opinions that are consistent with the Federal Constitution then the federal courts can weigh in on what you think is a fair reading or perhaps a reading between the lines of that opinion. um, that particular question is not one that I have considered before, although I have looked at it. that opinion, yeah, I just found the whole case very interesting because the plaintiffs' theory was that state legislators can do whatever they want regarding congressional reapportionment because Congress gave them power but ignored the role of the Federal Congress.

The judiciary and the state constitutions which anyway, sir, tell me about what I need to have a life, I guess, sir, tell me about this Waters of the United States controversy, what is it really about Senator? I'm not, uh, I've been a lawyer. for 12 years with the Navy and I have practiced government contracts law for a long time and have worked on those types of issues for the last almost 12 years. I haven't run into that particular problem you're referring to. Well, tell me, this would be my last question, um, tell me, doesn't strict liability seem inherently unfair to you?

So my understanding of strict liability, Senator, is that there are limited circumstances for when it applies, um and uh, my job, what excuse? Give me some examples like in the case of product liability, for example, um, and I think the idea of ​​strict liability is under those limited circumstances, is um uh, encouraging the right kind of behavior for, say, a product manufacturer to Don't believe a product is going to kill a baby, for example, that serious consequences must occur, well I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but tell me how it relates to due process.

I mean, this is basically, some would say this is basically a legislature saying, hey, if you do it you're automatically liable you don't have due process you can't defend yourself there are no defenses what do you think about that? Well, my understanding is that strict liability corresponds with due process because you have the right to be heard in court, uh, and I think it's a good example of the balance of the branches of government from that perspective because, as you said, it also takes into account the perspective of Congress, thank you, gentlemen, thank you, Mr. President, thank you to Senator Kennedy, to Senator Kennedy. you mr president congratulations to all the

nominees

judge mahalek remember a case called yenser v potter county.

I remember presiding over that case. I don't know if I remember the details. Okay, and you were. inverted is that right. I think it was a case that I issued. I was a magistrate judge in that role and in the referral role and it was reviewed by the District Court. Yes, and you were reverted. I do not remember. If it were, whether the report and recommendation were adopted in its entirety or not in its entirety, the Superior Court said it incorrectly analyzed qualified immunity and incorrectly cited the 11th Amendment. Do you remember a case called Myers County Correctional Facility V Clinton?

I remember that case too and you were reversed in that case too, I don't think you were, you were adopted in part yes, um, do you remember a case called Dennis V Sheridan? Yes, I think I remember that case too and you were reversed in that case. case toookay okay I'm looking at an article and from U the Oregon State Bar Newsletter for May 2021 and I want to want to uh read one of your quotes quote we have to let go of conventional ideas of evidence let me put aside let me tell you that again we have to put aside the conventional ideas of proof that you said when we are dealing with the personal and interpersonal work of equity Division and inclusion As a judge, I can appreciate the challenge of employing a different way to understand the truth which most lawyers are accustomed to in our work.

End of quote. Did you write that? That's a quote from that article. Equity, diversity and inclusion, we should put aside conventional ideas of proof is that just in the broader context of interpersonal and personal relationships, the idea of ​​being able to have a conversation with someone, yes, but she didn't talk about conversation, you said, test, it is in the context of having a conversation with someone about the topic of their background and experience, when the topic is equity, diversity or inclusion, we should have a different set of tests, is that correct when it comes to the space in the one that people have interpersonal relationships?

Interpersonal relationships with each other, the idea of ​​respecting and dignifying each other with their experiences, is an important part, so all issues have a set of tests that have been ruled by the Supreme Courts of our states, our Supreme Court of the USA, unless you think we should. have a different set of evidence one Equity, diversity and inclusion for an issue is like that in all my years on the stand uh Senator I have applied the law The rules of evidence the case let me move forward um I'm looking at the notes that you gave us of your speech you gave on February 7, 2020 isspeech titled Reflections on Equity and Privilege for Black Oregonians in Government you wrote quote straight white men allow privilege to remain in place close quote you said that you wrote that uh without look at the specific uh The speech turned it right if that's, if that's on the piece of paper, Senator, then, I have no reason for you to have also written: quoting privilege is incredibly similar to narcissistic personality disorder , close quote, you wrote that without looking at everything in the context of that statement, does that seem correct?

Okay, you wrote a quote: The identity of Muslims also needs to be normalized in a country that has such a deep phobia of Islam. Did you write that? Senator. I did and what I would also like to clarify is that in the context of my work at the court. I have treated everyone equally without considering their backs. Sorry, I just want to get over this. I'm going to run out of time. You also wrote a quote. I am disappointed in the way the founding fathers of this country perpetuated it. inequality close quote Did you write that in the context of the issue of slavery which was something I had been considering in your notes you gave us from a speech on May 17, 2012?

Does race matter? you said quote quote does race matter? Hell yeah, close quote, you know that t-shirt at the Saturday markets, the one that says something like love, sees no color and has all the colors of the rainbow all over it and is like a tie-dyed t-shirt, well, the first time I saw her. I said oh how sweet then I got angry if love has no color then I have no allies close quote you said yes and that was to explain that the work of equity is to help understand where people come from so we don't ignore who they are and so do you , yes, no, sorry, can I stay 30 more seconds?

Judge, you seem to be obsessed with race and sexuality, I mean, you even go so far as to say that when race, sexuality, diversity and inclusion is an issue that we need we need a separate standard of proof in the federal judiciary from the United States, how can the Lianos trust you, Senator, that's not what I said, there's no difference, it's bigger than Dallas, I read it to you and gave it to you? I didn't go looking for these documents when I'm proud of it like anyone who reviews my file on the bench I have thousands of cases I'm going to let you finish answering where your time is up but keep going the rule of law is absolute for me the work I have done in court over the last while that is not what you say the work I have done in court that is not what you say said judge finish your sentence the work I have done on the stand at govern all the cases of people who have appeared before me, of all backgrounds and of all religions, you will find that I have defended the rule of law and upheld the precedent of our Constitution and our Supreme Court and the Ninth Well, if this president me Given time, I could review the cases and show that that is not the case.

Senator. I just don't see how he can be an impartial judge. Senator Booker. Thank you so much. Senator Padilla. Mr. Frame, how? Are you a good senator? How are you doing? I'm fine, what is rent control? My understanding of rent control is that some cities may have laws that limit landlords' ability to raise rent, but it's not something I'm unfamiliar with. Good because? Isn't that a take that warrants government compensation? I don't know if that has been litigated or how it has been resolved. I have never dealt well with rent control. I say it, I want to understand what you think about it.

How do you think? Because? It's not a take, I mean your government is taking money from a private apartment owner. Why isn't it a shot like they took your property to build a highway? So I'm not versed enough in taking to give. You have a definitive answer, but I'll give you what I know about the collections and no, tell me what you think, tell me how you would analyze that. I would be looking at the precedents that say to what extent government regulation can be. Let's assume there is no precedent I know you would stipulate that you would look at precedence I want to know how you would analyze that C well the question is what can the government do in terms of regulation where there is still value in the property, um, but maybe not the maximum and it does. that constitutes a take that's what I would have to study I don't know the answer to that you think about it how you would analyze it well so I know what the competing interests are well the competing interests are the government's interest in housing I would think that, for on the one hand, the property owner's interest in making the maximum amount of money, on the other, why couldn't he?

Why couldn't the government? He has a legitimate interest in helping the poor. Why couldn't the government achieve it? just allocating some tax money to housing subsidies and then not having to take someone's private property, that would be a political decision. Another way to try to achieve that end. You're asking me if it's a take. Yes, it is, and I believe. That's not sure there's a limit on how much you can take Con, but I'm not sure about that. I would have to think about that and study it well, apart from if you were in private. practice, how would you analyze?

That, how would you make a decision again? Please don't tell me, you're going to search, look at the present because you're not going to find much. I know there are cases about regulation that limits the value of property and I. I think those cases say that unless the property is basically worthless or of very little value, it's not a taking, that's my memory and that would be relevant. You could be wrong that you can pass a road and take part of your property. which decreases the value, um, but you still have to compensate the landowner and you have to compensate the landowner for consequential damages as well, that's clearly a take, why is rent control any different counselor?

The purpose of Senator Aeve's government is in a less discriminatory way, why doesn't it open and close well? Senator without working more on it. I mean, I try to tell him what I would think about it, but I also tell him that I don't necessarily know. how it would come out and I would need to read it and think about it more, but I would think about the government's interest in understanding that there is a loss to the house for the property owner and figuring out how they interact, okay? the new rule on how flexible an employer must be if an employee requests an accommodation because of a religious belief, there has to be an employer who suffers a substantial hardship, which is a change in the law, the law was rather given to employers More flexibility in that area and there was, I think the point is the joy of the last mandate, it made it more difficult for employers, they increase the burden on them, okay, you will do it, you will do it.

Faithfully Pro, follow the president, that's how it is, yes. Sir, I will do my best to do so. Yes, would you have followed the Dread Scott case? As a lower level judge, yes, I mean, it's a yes or no, I think Senator, I mean, there is a Fidelity, there is a. Fidelity of the lower court judges and hopefully our Supreme Court would make the right decision. He has followed the dreaded Scottish marriage as a lower court judge. I think he has no choice, but he can write that the Supreme Court should do something about it and I would do it. would you have followed uh plusy v Ferguson is the same answer you have for agustini versus Felton said that the judges of the Lower Court must follow the president of the Supreme Court you resigned first well, I guess I hadn't thought about that option Senator, but um , but I would certainly make my voice heard, but having to follow the Scottish President was an immoral decision, is that correct?

Senator, okay, why didn't you resign? maybe I would. I had not thought of it. I did not think about it like that. Senator. I do not do it. I don't know that I haven't thought about that, okay, but I would make my voice heard, but I do want to say that in a vertical court of the judicial system it is essential that mid-level judges do everything they can to follow precedent. you, mr. president, thank you, senator

kennedy

, senator padal

kennedy

, thank you, mr. president, um, i feel like i need to ask this question, mr. fonzone, you when you informed the companies that were referred to as huwei and others, you were in sidley, yes, that's right, sir, and when a client gets to be sneaky, you have to fill out a form that says you know here's my client's name here's my mailing address for business purposes and here's my political beliefs that the The way it works there is definitely a customer intake process.

I don't. I don't remember all the details, I mean big law, it's like who can pay the freight, that's one aspect of the admissions process. I'm sure I understand it. Professor, I am looking at a letter dated March 16. 2020 is a letter to Governor Lamont's government in Connecticut, the title is Urgent Action Necessary to Protect People in Connecticut Prisons and Jails from the Corona 19 Virus Pandemic. Did you sign that letter, so I don't remember being sitting here today? Senator, here is your signature. He's back here, why didn't he give us this? uh when they asked you to produce documents, so senator, I did my best to look up everything that you had signed.

That's not a letter. I remember, but I'll certainly take a look. In that and we discovered that it was with an Internet search. I apologize, Senator, that is, I apologize in your letter to the governor. This is what it says, as they are prisons and jails are detrimental to public health and human rights and harm disproportionately. marginalized communities, including black and brown indigenous communities and other communities of color, immigrants, people with mental illness, people with disabilities, people in the lgbtq plus community, people who use drugs, people who engage in sex work, and economies of the street and people who are homeless and in poverty, so if you believe that about our prisons, how are you going to send someone to prison?

Senator, um, I'm going to have to take a look at that letter and I apologize because that's not something I found to give to this committee, you're not denying that, you said that. um, I need to see the letter to see the context because, again, it's not something I remember adding my name to. I can assure you Senator and it also says to first call Governor uh Lamont to release everyone who is in jail. Is this because of the Corona virus? So again, Senator, I would need to see that letter in front of me. It certainly wasn't.

You can find her by simply entering her name into Google. You will find it in approximately three Nan seconds. Senator, I can assure you that, as you said in your letter, Professor, we call on the government, the Governor of the State of Connecticut, Lamont, and all jurisdictions in Connecticut, to immediately release the backs, to the greatest extent possible , to people incarcerated before and after trial, and then you go on to say, speaking once again of our prisons, the global covid-19 pandemic is highlighting the unsustainable state of our penal system and the need for sustained action to reduce it, reduce its scale, reduce its size and reduce its scope.

Here, as the district attorney of San Francisco, if you think that how are you going to send anyone to jail? Professor, can Iassure you, senator, that I understand the role of the judge and that I can assure you that the prison sentence is an appropriate sentence in that is not what you say here to the governor, you wrote to the governor, this is not a Door Dash delivery driver, you you wrote to the governor of your state three years ago, so again senator in law school, so again, senator, I would need to look at the letter.

It seems like it was written at the height of the pandemic, where governors were looking for it. You also wrote to the governor that you said people over the age of 55 are at the highest risk of contracting Covid-19, but they also pose the least risk to the public safety of our communities. People in this age group can and should be released immediately to mitigate the spread of co9. Do you think the governor, if you're over 55, should have let everyone go? No, senator, that's not a position, that's what you said, okay. It's the biggest D again Senator I.

I'll look at that card. I can assure you that you will find it on Google Professor. He also says Governor Lamont should issue an executive order to direct the state's attorneys' offices and law enforcement entities, including city and town police departments. and any federal law enforcement entity operating within the state to immediately and mediately stop increasing the incarcerated prison population given the high risk of infection posed by the increased population. You, as governor, should tell all law enforcement officials in the state to stop arresting people and putting them in jail, right? Senator, I have to look at that letter.

I think there were modifications that governors were making across the country to respond to the opinion in your letter about can I have another 30 seconds. Sir, you had an opinion in your letter about immigration, you said that immigration detention poses the same health risk as jails and prisons and that Connecticut authorities must stop feeding people into the unsafe and inhumane system. of immigration detention, then says Governor Lamont should release all individuals. currently in state custody who are waiting to be transferred to IM to Ice C and the governor should declare a moratorium on all such future transfers.

How if someone is in our country illegally and commits a crime, they are going to be imprisoned if I believe this about immigration Senator. I can assure you that if I were lucky enough to be confirmed, I would treat crimes seriously. That's not what this letter says. professor and it was three years ago it wasn't when you were in law school and you didn't give it to us, we had to find it on our own Senator the chair has been generous with the time I think you have had Mr. President Senator Kennedy Mr. President, I am not going to repeat what my colleague Senator Cruz said about Judge Cabi, but he is not qualified to be on the federal bench and everyone present at this hearing today knows that you He heard the same thing in testimony.

I heard that he has a right to his beliefs. About 90% of my personal philosophy is: don't hurt anyone unless you have to defend yourself, don't steal other people's things, and leave me alone if you want to use different pronouns. that's your business, you may not agree, you may not, but it's your business, this is America and you're free to do it, but this judge used his authority to demand that the litigant in his courtroom do what he believes is politically correct and he did it as a magistrate judge and he will do it as a federal district judge and you know it once again.

I don't care what his political beliefs are, but as a sitting judge he has no right to direct a litigant in his courtroom in writing. stand up and introduce yourself saying my name is John Kennedy my preferred pronouns are now the judge said in his testimony that it was voluntary that is not true I read the order what and he said but it is voluntary it is voluntary correct I am a litigant in your courtroom pays a lawyer $400 an hour to try to solve my case and the man in court who is going to decide my case tells me to stand up and announce my pronoun which is not voluntary which is oppressive and that alone forget his writings with Senator Cruz was very eloquent, that only tells me that he cannot exercise power with maturity.

If I could vote no twice, I would and at this final point, when President Trump nominated people who were not qualified to be on the federal bench, we killed those nominations and several people on his side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues and On our side of the aisle they did it according to my count, we killed five of them like fried chicken and we didn't do it behind closed doors, we did it here in the committee, we demonstrated. They were not qualified now this is your opportunity this man is not qualified to exercise power as a federal judge it is bad enough that he is a magistrate thank you sir president judge cabi has responded to the questions that have been raised on this topic and I would like to read your answer.

Let me remain unequivocally as I did during my hearing. I am not and have never been a Marxist. I have never embraced or subscribed to Marxist series. Rather, I have been an active participant and beneficiary of the American capitalist system as such. It is clear from my own private property holdings and securities as detailed in the net worth statement provided to this committee and there is more, if you would like to read it, let me also note that he notes that he has worked for 16 years in state and federal court and is a four-year neutral appellant decision maker on the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board.

He has an extensive record of service as a judge and the entire philosophy of it, as he demonstrates in any ruling he has rendered in defense of Judge Casaba. I think some of the accusations that are being made are totally baseless, Mr. President, could I be heard for just 30 more seconds? I have been very generous with I know, would you be generous one more time? I will move on thank you thank you I I I I I I appreciate the judge's response, but we all harm his testimony and, beyond all that, I have read his file and, sometimes, people do not tell the truth in his responses.

I'm not calling the man a liar, I'm just saying who are you going to believe. his written responses were probably crafted by White House lawyers or his committee testimony and I think what we're going to see in the future is more of these types of exchanges that happen here today, when someone is qualified to be in the federal court. For God's sake, I'll stand up. I don't care what party they are from. I was the only Democrat-Republican to vote to confirm a Tennessee nominee. I'm almost done, Mr. President, with the Republican vote, but from now on we are going to play.

This way, we're going to have a debate about all of these

nominees

and talk about his testimony and committee and who was forthcoming and who wasn't. Thank you, Mr. President, you have been very kind and I appreciate the extra time. You're welcome, unfortunately one of our members has had to come to the room and we don't know when he will be back and I can't ask the committee to sit and wait. We will reconsider these two nominations next week. the session is adjourned Kennedy, thank you Mr. President um, I feel like I need to ask this question, Mr.

Fonzone, when you informed the companies that Huawei and others referred to, you were in sidley, yes, that's true, sir, and when a client gets to be sneaky, he has to fill out I pulled out a form that says "You know," here's my client's name, here's my mailing address for business purposes and here, my political beliefs are that the way it works, definitely There is a client admission process. No, I don't remember all the details. I mean a big law, it's like who can pay the freight fee, that's one aspect of the admissions process. I'm sure I understand, Mr.

President, Senator Kennedy, um, Mr. President, I'm not sure I can do better than Senator Cotton and I'll try not to repeat what he just said. Even a cursory examination of Mr. Cabi's record and his testimony before this committee I believe demonstrates to most impartial Americans that he now belongs to the globe wing of the American bar. that's your right as an American um you're not free if you can't express yourself you're not free if you can't speak your mind but I'm clear based once again on an examination of his record and his testimony that Mr. Cabbi is not qualified to be a federal judge because of his bias and I believe his decisions will be filtered through his own political, social and economic beliefs.

Senator Cotton was very eloquent in giving you some specific examples. I give it one more time. Mr. Casabi is a magistrate. He issued an order, not an oral directive, but an order to all of his court employees, to all of his court's witnesses, and to all of his court's attorneys to address the court in a specific manner. and which include his preference for the pronoun which, as we all know, um is a reflection of one's thoughts on gender. This is a copy of the order. I think everyone has a copy. This is what his written order directs, for example, to his criminal records clerk.

I'm quoting the order, no, no, no, the suggestion, the order, before calling the first case, provide the general instruction, quote within the quote. I would like the lawyer to introduce himself, giving me his full name and his honorific, such as Miz mix or Mister not MS not. Miss and if your client is going to make an appearance I ask you to please present him to the court giving me his full name and his honorific as Miz mix or sir Mr. Cabas says this is voluntary that is not true and he knows it he intentionally deceived this committee uh he uses directives like please make sure you give the honorific um Could you you can read the document yourself I would feel the same if Mr.

Casabi directed everyone in this court and frankly I could see him doing it to stand up . Get up and give me your name and tell me about your race. I would feel the same if Mr. Cabbi U issued a directive to tell everyone in his courtroom that you have to give your name and your religion and you have to tell me your feelings about Israel. and he has to give me his details about his ethnicity and he has to give me details about his sexuality, all things that bring the issue of bias to the forefront, Mr.

President. I am dismayed that President Biden has nominated this gentleman now. Again, when I asked Mr. Casaban Committee, he said: Oh, this is voluntary. Well, the document is not here. You can read it yourself, and if you confirm it, there will likely be further directives on how litigants, their attorneys, and court staff should approach the issue. court, but imagine, suppose it is voluntary, imagine that you are a litigant whose property or freedom is at stake and the man in front of you who is going to decide your fate tells you that he wants you to give him your personal strollers and you don't want to do that You would rather not participate in it You don't care if others do it but you personally don't want to do it You have to make a decision Do I stick with my beliefs or not? trying to gain the favor of this judge who is going to decide my freedom or make a decision about my freedom of property, that is the classic definition of partiality and that Mr.

President will prefer to be one while I will vote no to Mr. Cabat. I want to emphasize again that I am not criticizing his beliefs, he has a right to those beliefs, if you want to be a member of the long wing of the bar, that is your right as an American, but it does not give you the right to bring the biased to the federal court Thank you for the time, Mr. President, thank you Senator Kennedy for reporting favorably on Mustafa Cabi's nomination. Senator Lee is recognized, thank you, Mr. President, congratulations to each of you, Miss Hill, what is collateral?

I think it's a guarantee, well, Senator, I will say that my practice, my 20 years of practice, has focused primarily on issues related to criminal law or other areas of law, and if you don't know, tell me. I certainly know it. you know collateral stop I'm finding that the bright lights of the moment are making it difficult for me to remember it well, so you don't remember it well, what is the amount in controversy required? the amount in controversy required is $75,000, it generally governs many cases, almost any case in diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts, it is fine and in some others, what does the 13th Amendment to the Constitution do to prohibit slavery ?

What does the Seventh Amendment do? It guarantees that all civil jury trials that all civil cases in the United States are conducted by jury trial that you have the right to a jury trial in a civil case. What is the difference between a suspension order and a court order? a stay order would prohibit um soor a court order would prevent the parties from taking action a state order I'm not sure I can really give it the go ahead tell me you'll see a lot of this in federal court tell me about the litigation statute multidistrict so I'm not very familiar with multidistrict litigation.

I do know that multidistrict litigation is often consolidated in a particular court, so allcases that involve a particular type of issue, if there is multidistrict litigation, those will all be referred to a court and a judge who will then oversee the mdl, but I must confess that I am not very familiar with all the ins and outs of that. Okay, what kinds of constitutional claims are subject to intermediate judicial scrutiny U cases involving Certain types of classes, such as gender or illegitimacy, are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Some types of speech, such as commercial speech, would be subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Okay, tell me what a motion 12 B6 is. It's a motion to dismiss a claim or I mean a motion to dismiss. The issue for failure to file a claim is fine and what the standard is for granting a judgment in federal court is that there are no issues of material fact and therefore the issue can be decided as a question of law. Well, what is the standard for deciding? If a particular punishment is cruel and unusual under the eth amendment, then the particular standard has been said by the court and I can't remember the case, but it says that you have to consider not only whether it would be shocking to an individual for individuals. at the time it was written, so it's not a purely historical review, as some of them are purely historical, but you also have to look at how they've changed, how those values ​​have changed over time, it's one of those cases.

Circumstances in which the court says it is appropriate to look at how values ​​have changed over time. Well, our right against cruel and unusual punishment is a fundamental right. It is not like this? Okay, how do you square what you just told me about the eth amendment with case after case After US Supreme Court case that says the definition of a fundamental right is one that is explicitly stated in the Constitution or deeply rooted in our history and tradition yes, I think so, I think it is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, yes, but certain forms of punishment or not, if a form of punishment existed at the time of our founding and is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, you tell me that automatically makes it constitutional today, I thought. you just said no, I'm certainly not saying that the Supreme Court, I'm not saying it's really quite irrelevant, but the Supreme Court has said let's look at it with a view to changing values ​​on these issues.

I thought that both fundamental rights are the reason for the difference. Yeah, I think that's a question the Supreme Court is going to have to answer, whether they have it or not. I think so. I'm just asking if you know. I think I answered the question to the best of my ability Senator, okay, thank you all, Senator Holly, you're coming back, no, uh, I think all the senators who are going to be questioned today have shown up, uh, Miss Hill, I congratulate you on surviving the six-minute exam from John Kennedy, my contracts teacher. He's going to be shocked and I'm going to have to live with that senator, but thank you, President, thank you if he promises to forgive Miss Hill.

Did the White House give any of you any written materials to use?prepare what they gave are digital materials that they gave us um you know questions previous questions that they had asked and answers um I think we had to go find the answers ourselves I think We had to go see the different communities. Can I have a copy? of that um, I don't have one, but I'm sure it's literally just a list of questions. I don't have a copy. Don't have. I don't have any police. Could you send me a copy? I'm easy to find.

Could you send me a copy? Melle. I will do that. Could you send me a copy? We can compare and make sure they are all the same. Well, thank you Senator. Can we have a copy of your list of questions? share with other members sure I will even give you the answer it's like a bar it's like a bar review course yes senator thank you Mr. President thank you all for being