SCOTUS Watch: The Democrats "Didn't Even Try"

I have a separate general Supreme Court round-up that includes the Ketanji Brown-Jackson hearings. But, I have seen repeated claims that Democrats left her hanging in the wind versus Republican attacks. I watched the hearings. I think that is unfair. So, I guess, I have to check some more.

First, why do I think it unfair? I reason I think it is unfair to say that they did nothing (other than Booker, who is cited as an exception) or didn't really try is that they did various things.   Booker both times basically had long passionate statements of affirmation of how special she is and how fantastic it is she was nominated.  That's nice.  But, for those not impressed by her, hard to see how that really challenges the Republican framing. 

They repeatedly themselves and by questions helping her talk about herself framed her as a success story, a woman of faith, a mainstream jurist, and so on. They repeatedly refuted Republican talking points. They noted repeatedly a police organization supported her (one witness, in uniform, shows this). A retired 60s something Republican federal judge was one of the two (with her long time friend) who introduced her.  The first set of witnesses this morning answered the claim she is not mainstream.  

On a basic level, you are not going to get people that the Cruz types are appealing to to listen to you.  Democrats can basically only appeal to those who are listening.  They can show support for her, to show their own base that they support her.  They can frame things and respond to allow those who are basically on the margins can see it.  And, polls suggest people in general strongly support her.  Since people only know her really from what Democrats taught them, this seems pretty notable too.

Dahlia Lithwick, however, says she was "stranded."  After some introduction comments, we get this charge:

Jackson looked alone fending off the QAnon smear brigade for much of these hearings because she was alone, at least until Sen. Cory Booker took it upon himself in his last colloquy to offer up a powerful corrective to the hatred being leveled at her, and to remind us why love can be an equal and opposite reaction to fear.

That is a lie.  It's is a fucking smear on the Democrats. I watched the hearings.  She was not "alone" regarding the smear that she was soft on porn because of her sentencing.  That was repeatedly refuted. The fact the senators had a different style than Booker doesn't erase this.  Leahy stands out a bit here.  He comes off as a kindly grandpa and supported her. 

The citation of Booker -- who again spent most of his time praising her, not refuting the Republicans on the merits -- to me highlights the core concern here on some basic level.  The Democrats in some fashion were not emotional and/or passionate enough in support of Jackson.  That is the claim apparently.   Booker made us cry.  He's in her corner!

Chairman Dick Durbin’s inability to control some of the most shocking bullying and abuse from Cruz, Graham, Tom Cotton, and Hawley left observers speechless. At some point, you need to just start gaveling.

I'm not sure what you are supposed to here on some level.  They get to ask questions.  Durbin is supposed to "start gaveling" as if he slammed a gavel hard enough that they would stop?  Again, the claims made were refuted. So, the concern is that the Democrats didn't show enough passion in stopping them?  And, then, they get to say to their base that they were silenced.  

Damn if you do and all that.  Elie Mystal of The Nation, who likes to play the angry black man ("the Constitution is trash" etc.) wanted some Democrat to shout or rant some, so that the media would have something else to see.  I question how useful that would be, especially when these same critics basically think the media are moronic Republican enablers.  

They can frame it as bad too.  I guess Booker partially helps here since he really did put on a bit of a show.  It is not like various positive images of Jackson was not put out there too.  Some Democrat "ranting" anti-Republican things would not logically be put on Fox News.

10 Republicans signing a letter demanding confidential pre-sentencing reports so they could better assess whether a respected federal judge was someone who is an enabler of child pornography, it seems that Democrats opted to do little to counter even that lie.

Durbin answered (as did Leahy) that doing so was dangerous because it would release private information that could invade the privacy of victims. They didn't submit to it.  They just filed it away for further investigation.  

What exactly more was they supposed to do?  I'm just ... to quote Strict Scrutiny Podcast regarding the conservatives on SCOTUS, its like a vague "vibe" that the Democrats didn't do enough.  They (yet again) failed. Sure, Whitehouse today repeatedly got a Republican witness to refuse to say that Biden was "duly elected," etc., but what do Democrats ever do?

Chris Geidner also noted that the Republicans had a "broadside" against her and [f]or the most part, the Democrats let it happen."  As if there was some magical way to stop it?  Yes, there were "individual senators responded, carefully, to individual lines of attack," but ...

And yet, there was little from the Democratic side of the aisle that even attempted to paint a full picture of Ketanji Brown Jackson — as a judge, as a lawyer or as a person — to offset the caricature being drawn by Cruz, Hawley, Cotton and Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

Even attempted?  I saw at least an attempt to show how she is an American success story, coming from public schools to a nomination to the highest Court.  Her family was introduced, including her parents and police/military service brother.  She was portrayed and allowed to express herself as a judicial minded person, calm, intelligent, and so on.  A woman of faith.  A mother of two daughters. 

Her time as a public defender and defending people in GITMO was brought out.  She was repeatedly given a chance to talk about the importance of being a criminal defender. How that is so important for a judge to see both sides.  Her time in law school was also covered. What was left out?

To spell out her sentencing approach (and again others showed it too was reasonable).  She was portrayed as a practical judge, not tied to any special ideological approach (Coons and Hirono particularly noted this).  

How is this refuted? Again, it sounds like there is a feeling the Democrats were too cerebral or something.  Booker is singled out, but again, again, it is not like others did not refute the specifics.  What did he do?  

“I just want America to know that when it comes to my family’s safety, when it comes to Newark, New Jersey or my state — God, I trust you.” He then took Jackson, the committee and America on a journey through Jackson’s family, talking with her about her parents, her grandparents and her children.

But, we already knew about her family.  What was special about Booker was his passionate, emotional "joy," something that is part of his nature as a senator.  I listened to him. I don't know what special "full picture" he offered that was not provided before.  We multiple paragraphs on Booker. Geidner, like Lithwick, is speaking about some vibe.

That’s it. Jackson treats all people like people, including criminal defendants, and that is enough to cause Tillis concern.

And, Democrats let Jackson express the importance of defending people, how both sides are important in a courtroom.  They ATTEMPTED to do this.  It is a fucking lie -- yes, I'm tired of this -- that they did not do so. Now, maybe, they didn't do it enough.  I'm open to this.  I think more could have been provided to flesh out the liberal constitutional vision (including on such things as religious liberty). But, that is a matter of degree.

[ETA: For instance, a few times the idea of Roe/Casey being precedent was reaffirmed, which is curious, since we all know the likely future.  It would have been best to provide a wider reaffirmation of the basic principles of privacy.  Yes, we know she is for it -- she helped defended clinics versus protestors -- but this is part of a wider effort.]  

The commentary spends more time fleshing out the basic Republican lack of empathy to many groups.  Democrats put forth a different vision.

Thursday’s presentation from a panel of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary reinforced that, as the panelists detailed their findings of how she is seen by her peers.

So, to belabor the point, witnesses set up by Democrats helped to provide a full picture of the nominee. The thing that is claimed they did not "even attempt."  Then, we read that one of the Democrats on the committee noted that  “She listens so intently and carefully to everybody who comes into her courtroom.”  Again, getting a full sense of who she is as a judge.

Geidner, who I generally respect,  noted at one point that her story is out there, but someone has to be "listening" to see it.  Sure.  And, maybe the Democrats could have done better to help.  I don't know really how much in this divided partisan environment that is possible.  They surely attempted to do so.  And, they will continue to do so the next few weeks.  

===

I will add this bit.  A large part of this nominee is the history being made with the first black woman justice.  Democrats "attempted" to highlight this.  I noted before that Booker's joy is deserved.  We also have this:

Today I spoke with @nytimes about what this photo means to me. Full story here: https://t.co/p2vE8dAYmb

— Sarahbeth Maney (@sbmaneyphoto) March 24, 2022

The Republicans are seen as basically committing a sacrilege here. Prof. Leah Litman, for example, treated how disgusting she felt the whole thing is.  So, I will try to respect the feeling Democrats are not doing enough to pushback.  They have some time.  If there is a feeling that they aren't trying, the reality is they have to correct it somehow.

OTOH, I think everyone needs to be "listening."  Mueller did do things and was restrained by Barr and the limited nature of his power.  But, people continue to sneer at his efforts, like he didn't even try.  He did.  Serious efforts were made.  Not enough, but it was the Republican Justice Department!

You have to address the feelings of your supporters and put on enough of an effort to meet the demands of minds and hearts.  This is one reason why I am appalled -- even if it would fail -- that the Attorney General of Manhattan has decided to not carry out the prosecution of Trump.  It is why impeachment mattered, even if we knew he would not be convicted.  

Both sides have a responsibility here all the same.  Some vibe aside, the Democrats did try.  They didn't just ignore her needs.  If they should have done more, we all should be willing to listen.  But, an emotional, unjust reaction is still that.  

ETA: I didn't continue with a third example (see Balls and Strikes).  Still, even the author of that piece retweeted something by Ian Millhiser, a progressive critic of SCOTUS and the Senate itself, who said in his view that there was really no way to prep for Republican lies, which will be believed by those who want to believe them.  

On the "NYT never criticizes the Republicans" front, I saw this morning a piece about how Ted "Critical Race Theory! So Horrible!" Cruz sends his own daughter to a private institution with such views.  It is also sometimes hard to remember that Cruz is himself biracial (note that last name).  But, then again, we have the idea that certain Hispanics are really "white."

BTW, The End of the Police, held up as the sort of thing in the library or whatever of the school KBJ is on the board of or whatever, is a pretty good book. I talked about it on this blog, saying it made some good points though was a bit too one-sided.