 Now, welcome back to Think Tech. This is Community Matters, and we're talking about Katanji Brown Jackson, who was just appointed by President Biden to the United States Supreme Court. This is something, isn't it? This is really something. Camille Nelson is the Dean of the UH Law School, William S. Richardson Law School. I am really delighted that she's here with us today. There are so many wonderful things to talk about with regard to this nomination. Hi, Camille. Thank you for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. I'm glad you're excited. It's an exciting moment in our nation's history, isn't it? I was telling you before the show that as soon as the press rolled out the possibilities that I saw and I sort of had an intuitive reaction to the candidates who President Biden might consider. Katanji Brown Jackson was the one that I favored immediately. And I'll tell you why. I didn't tell you before why, but I'll tell you now why. You know, it's the test of the lawyer. I said to myself, if I were in court and she was sitting on my case, would I trust her to do the right thing? It may not be to agree with me or disagree with me, but would I trust her to do the sincere, just appropriate, you know, moral thing? And I could see in her eyes that she was open-minded and that she would listen and that she would use her analytical powers to do the right thing. I saw that instantly. Don't ask me how, I just felt that. You have heightened spidey senses, right? I mean, I agree with you. I think her judicial temperament is impeccable. I think her bona fides, obviously her experience, obviously her background, her education, her trial and appellate level experience, her having served as a public defender on the sentencing commission, et cetera, et cetera. All of that is unassailable. But in addition, she's a really measured and incredibly thoughtful person. And so I think what you were sensing, Jay, is an even keel, contemplative approach to life, but also to the professional work that is before her. So, you know, I think that this, I hope it bodes well because I think, you know, she is demonstrative of a truly exceptional and highly qualified nominee. So you go back with her, tell us about it. Oh, I serve on a board with her. So I've had the privilege of knowing her for a number of years now, since before we moved back to Hawaii. So what I can say about that is, you know, she has an incredible work ethic that I think she brings to every single endeavor. I think she also really importantly, to your earlier point, what you were sensing, she's a good listener and she does her work. She's not a fly by the state of your pants type of person. I think certainly all of the previous engagements I've had with her indicate what everyone has said, which is she was an extraordinary student. And certainly as a jurist, you have to be committed to a lifetime of being a student of the law. And I think her approach to everything as I've experienced it anyway, but certainly as, you know, more importantly, as she has demonstrated on the bench is that she's committed to lifelong learning as a jurist, excellent listening skills and deeply, deeply analytical and grounded in a deep love of this country and of our jurisprudence. You're going to make me cry in a minute. I don't want to do that. Also, kind. Really? I saw that in her and I firmly believe that there is a kindness there. A kindness and a sense of humor, Jay. I'll say that as well, you know, you know, one of my highest compliments is, you know, that person's so wonderfully normal or that person's so wonderfully normal, meaning, you know, if she was here with us on the screen or without for coffee or tea with someone else or lunch or whatever, she would be a wonderful colleague, friend, compatriot, someone that you just want to talk to. And her energy and her whole way of existing is so deeply reaffirming. And she's lovely to be around. You make me think out a writer a note and ask her to join us here for a talk show. There we go. Why not? Why not? You'd like her a lot. I do. So, okay, so I guess, you know, what I want to know is this. Here you have a court that is really skewed over way over to the right. And you have an African-American woman who joins them. It's historic. It's president breaking. It's important. But she's gonna be in the minority. And she is always, and I shouldn't say always, but for a long time, barring some really strange political things that might happen, she's gonna be voting in the minority. What can she do? I mean, you have to consider the option, for example, that this Supreme Court can be a completely different Supreme Court. This is where, for example, you can write a dissent that smolders that goes to the press and the press says, well, you know, the majority is really wrong on this one. You know, you can actually make trouble as one of the three minority judges on the court. You think this might happen? You think that's in the cards? Well, I think that there are a couple of different ways to look at that. The immediate, the intermediate and the longer term. So in the immediate, certainly she will be basing her decision-making on precedent and her interpretation analytically of the jurisprudence. I mean, that's where we start and that's the basis. That's the foundation for all committed ways of thinking. So how she reasons through cases and what she writes will be first and foremost. So she's speaking to her colleagues on the bench, but she'll also be speaking to those of us outside of that very cloistered space. So in some respects, she could be speaking to the media. She'll certainly be speaking to the legislators who may have their own view of things and how things should go forward. And so that's the immediate and the intermediate, right? But I think just as importantly, to your point about the present split, Jay, sometimes people write opinions knowing full well that it might not get the traction in the moment. And that's not to say that she's not a skilled negotiator and won't get on well with her colleagues and maybe even sway some people, you know, just as Roberts and maybe some others. I mean, there is a conversation to be had and in a collegial space, hopefully people are actually also listening to each other. But there is also the knowledge that you are writing for the future. And we have to think back and understand that some of the seeds that were planted in dissents in some circumstances might not blossom immediately, but generations down, decades later, they might well evolve to be or come turn out to be the majority opinion or picked up elsewhere in another country or be foundational for legislation, et cetera. So the judges, I think the justices have to write beyond themselves and beyond this moment and think really more capaciously about democracy more generally. And you know, I will say this, I don't wanna let this go unsaid, you know, one of the, I clerked years ago at the Canadian Supreme Court. And one of the things that I was not taught in law school and that we don't often talk about is the judges do then break and counsel with each other. I mean, there is conversation amongst the justices about who is gonna write, what are people gonna write, what are people thinking, the clerks are feeding up bench memos. There's a lot of not just research and writing going on, but there's a lot of conversation and compromise at times. So her voice could resonate in ways that we don't quite appreciate, depending on also the personalities and how people engage and how people adjust on one case, knowing another is coming, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's gonna be interesting to watch how this court gels with a new appointee going forward. I'm touched by your thought that maybe she could develop collegial relations with the others, Roberts and others, and actually sway them on a given point to show them that her logic is the logic they should follow. Her analysis of the law, the precedent, the constitution, the country is the approach they should follow. And that ultimately, you know, ultimately they have to respect those things and they can't be small minded and they can't be partial and partisan. And I could, you know, again, going back to the way she looks and presents to me, I can see those conferences. I can see her in those conferences with a kindness and that the tolerance, the ability to listen, I can see her actually swaying some of those guys. Wouldn't that be wonderful? It'll be interesting to see, you know, and don't forget that the late Justice Ginsburg was very close with the late, you know, Justice Scalia. I was thinking about that, yeah. Right, I mean, I don't know if and or whether that impacted either of their jurisprudence, but it was remarkable, right? There is that possibility that humans can bond and people who might have different political persuasions and beliefs can meet as friends and no doubt influence each other if only in the personal space. Arguably better than that. Arguably more than the personal space. I agree that it's unlikely that Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually affected Scalia's decision process. They were friends and they went to the opera, whatever it was. But maybe Katanji Brown Jackson can actually affect some of them in their opinion making. Why not? You know, if you're on the Supreme Court, you can do anything you want. You have no, theoretically, you have no constituency to satisfy. You can do what you think is right. And if she could convince them that, you know, maybe it's another road would be better. My goodness, they have the power. They have the, what do you wanna call it, the freedom to do that. And that would be an extraordinary moment to find. On the other hand, if she takes the road of complaining in public and writing harsh dissents, that may work against it. So she's gotta find a path which is consistent with both possibilities. Well, I think like the other judges, justices rather serving on the court, she's very smart and she's, as I mentioned earlier, and you recognized very, very thoughtful and even keel. So I'm sure she is getting really great coaching if there are areas in need of coaching. But I also would suspect that this road has been one that she might well have contemplated for some time and been thinking about how she navigates it. Well, we've examined, you know, the true fact that she is not necessarily gonna, she's gonna be a minority on the court for one thing. And we've examined the possibility that maybe she can sway others. And we've examined the possibility that maybe she could make statements that go beyond the court and that convinced the public about something and as feedback, you know, the public response to that and maybe the rest of the court, you know, is convinced by the public feedback, you know, a feedback loop, if you will. But is there any other way that she could, I really don't have an answer on this. Is there any other way where she could affect the chemistry of the court? Change the way to say right now, it's really not acceptable to make it comport with the United States as it is and as it should be. So we lost touch with that. Is there any other way she could make that happen? So I think that her sheer intellect will be profoundly felt. She is super smart. And I don't think anyone can take her intelligence away from her. And I think it should be fairly honest and obvious that her very representational presence will shift things somewhat. If only because it is so monumental that she will only be the fourth person of color on the court in its history and the sixth woman in its history. That's an over 200 year history. So I can only imagine whoever walks into the space will bring with them so much history, so much presence, so much responsibility. But if it's her, that's an extra dynamic that she is bringing with her as a black woman, as a person of color, as a mother, as a person who is very involved in community, who cares deeply, who really cares about civility. These are who has a good sense of humor. And is kind, and is kind. These are things that I think, Jay, when you're with someone who's got an infectious laugh, when you're with someone who really cares about the answer when they say, how are you? I mean, when you're with someone who takes the time to listen to you, I think there's a possibility that you can be touched by that. I mean, and that is not to take away the jurisprudential brilliance. It's an additional EQ that I think we all know in so many areas is elevating on top of the IQ. So that she brings that, it just I think makes her an extraordinary nominee. And her sense of humanity should not be understated. That's what I was looking for. I couldn't put my finger on it, but that's exactly what I was looking for. It's extraordinary what could happen here. We have a question actually, Camille. The question reads this way, I'll have to put it into more grammatical English, but the Supreme Court nominee must have some shortcomings. What should we know about? I guess that's a question for balance. Are there shortcomings here? Should we consider anything as a shortcoming? I think all of us as human beings have shortcomings. I mean, nobody's perfect. I mean, that's sort of, we're still trying to perfect our union because we're imperfect people. So I think when you add any imperfections to an already imperfect space, hopefully there's ways in which they all complement each other, that the justices round each other out. I mean, I think that's frankly, like any good partnership. And when you think about building your teams, hopefully one's strengths are enhanced by someone else's strengths and one's weaknesses are covered by someone else's strengths. And when you just sort of think about how you build a great team, you try to round it out and think, well, what's missing? What don't I have that can be brought to the table? And how can I plug that whole? And fill that gap or elevate this conversation. So I think the way to think about it is how might judge Brown Jackson as a nominee elevate further the Supreme Court and enhance what is already there, right? And everybody has weaknesses because nobody is at any point reaches any level of perfection, regardless of one's position, power or portfolio. So I think this will be interesting to see how it plays out because we're humans, people are humans sitting in these roles. And I think there's a way in which we elevate some spaces to deities and no one, I mean, that's the impossible. And so to set that expectation on her and her alone, I think would be a problem, right? So how do we think about all nine and how they work together in service of this country? Yeah. Okay, I have one that follows up on that and that is all human beings are capable of being frustrated. And if you had a six to three and the six just blew off her ideas, her analysis, her kindness, her ability to her interests in doing the right thing for the country. And they just kept on being partisan. An ordinary human being would get frustrated and turned off. What about that possibility? If she cannot do the things we hope she will do, in terms of the engagement with the rest of the court, in terms of the tone and the relationships involved, what happens if she just gets frustrated? Well, no doubt there is a level of exhaustion and fatigue that all of the justices experience that may result in sentiments of frustration. But I think one of the things that we expect from them and that maybe set some apart from the rest of us is their ability to work through those frustrations. I mean, when you think about the span of their reach, how impactful they can be across this country, but frankly, around the world. I mean, it is the case that internationally, American jurisprudence is read. So I would hope that the sense of frustrations, if it exists, the sense of frustration is mitigated by the recognition that you're writing for posterity. I mean, you're making decisions that aren't about you, frankly, you know what I mean? And so hopefully they have a more elevated and enhanced sense of their calling. And it's not just the job, right? It's got to be a calling to be in those roles with that heavy a burden and that great a responsibility. And so I really hope that all of the justices are up for the task, I'm sure she is. Well, I take your point about writing beyond the court, writing for the country in general, writing for the world in general. And I can see a situation where I know another person might be frustrated, but in fact, she's sending messages about the right thing to everyone in the country and everyone in the world, certainly everyone in the world looks to the United States Supreme Court as the court on the Hill, so to speak. Yeah, it's a beacon, it's a beacon. I mean, I think that she knows, as anyone else who was under consideration would know what she's in for, right? I mean, they know that this is an around the clock, heavily scrutinized, highly charged, really difficult job. And so that's why it has to move beyond a job to a calling, to be able to, I think, have the coping skills, commitment, determination, and frankly, willingness to sacrifice that these types of positions demand, right? This is not just a decision on her part, this is also a family decision. Just the amount of scrutiny that one is opening oneself up to in one's family. So that is demonstrative of deep, deep commitment and I think really heightened capacity to reason through and to exist in challenge. So there are many questions that flow from this. I mean, you describe a Supreme Court judge, an African-American Supreme Court judge that would do a lot more than Clarence Thomas has done in his years on the bench. I don't think he's a hero and he's taken positions that I would not agree with. I wonder how that will work. It'll be an interesting opportunity to have dialogue, right? I mean, there have been moments when Justice Clarence has written in ways that you might think are more progressive, you know, when he has spoken about cross-burning, for example, and the pain of segregation. And there are these moments where he speaks in ways that one would anticipate, would align with perhaps, you know, a Justice Brown Jackson. But I think the important dynamic here is that for years now we've had one iteration of sort of Black jurisprudence if there is a quote to put around that, right? And that's a question mark. But the point being there is a diversity of Black thought. Again, in quotes, right? So I think the other thing for the country and the world to recognize is like, you know, we don't all think the same type thing. So this is also really an important moment that speaks to the diversity of people of color and jurists of color and lawyers of color and judges of color. So it'll be interesting to see where they are aligned jurisprudentially and where they differ and how those dynamics break down. It'll be interesting to see the dynamic if it comes to fruition with, you know, Justice Sotomayor and, you know, Justice Kagan and the other justices on the court as well. And there's age, there's all sorts of diversity as gender, there's age, there's a religion, right? So I know there'll be a lot of court watchers who are eager to see how things pan out. Indeed, you know, ever since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and all the cliff hanging on Stephen Breyer, there are more court watchers now and then this appointment, more court watchers now. And so we'll all be, a lot of the people I know will be watching the Supreme Court as never before. And my sister-in-law, Linda Greenhouse who spoke today on a streaming Zoom show from the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia talked about it. And she's gonna be busier than ever talking about the Supreme Court. And so are you guys, by the way. Well, it's, yes. There's a lot of excitement, a lot of curiosity, you know, in a way as an educator, Jay, you know, I think this is a great moment where people are paying attention to the role of judges and justices in our country, right? I mean, this is a real teachable moment as I'd like to say, right? So when we think about the three branches of government there's an opportunity here as a nation to also learn, right? To learn about the impact of each of the three branches and in this case with a focus on the judiciary. Okay, I wanna talk about the Senate now. You know, there've been a little suggestions that the Senate is gonna give Judge Brown, Jackson, a hard time. I don't know how they could do that or why they could do that, but that's been a repeated suggestion in the press. You think they will, and how could they and why would they, and how will that all work out? You know, I have the same questions. I will say this, I think going into the midterms I also wonder whether it's politically astute sort of beat up on a hyper qualified woman of color with impeccable credentials and who is really likable, I mean, it could backfire if that is the way that people choose to proceed. That being said, I did say that I worry that it could bring out the worst in us because we're still coming off of some really, some situations completely devoid of civility, right? So I do think we've had tempered responses from Mitt Romney. We've certainly, she's related by marriage to Paul Ryan. I know former speaker, but there are recently, for example, two former federal judges, conservative federal judges who have spoken highly of her just today and I think late last week. So I think there are some signals being sent to folks on the Senate who might otherwise want to proceed more with more hostility to maybe temper it. Additionally, she did receive support with her last appointment to the US Court of Appeals for DC from three senators including Lindsey Graham. So it'll be interesting if they walk back their support. I know it's a different position, lots of commentary around that, but if ever there was a candidate who should be able to walk through those fires, I think Judge Brown Jackson is that candidate for nomination. I can see her impressing all of them and bringing them aboard. I can see that, I can visualize that just the same way I could visualize that she was the winner at the outset. One possibility though, I appreciate your thought about this is that as the GOP is often want to do, they would delay this. They would delay a hearing on it, they would stretch the hearing out, they would come up with stuff that is just delay points and then we get closer and then we get into the question of how does that intersect with the election, the campaigns around the country and the GOP's action in suppressing votes around the country, how does that intersect? My guess is if they're called on it, they will lose points because it is tantamount to a disrespect. It is tantamount to a negative hearing and I suggest the press will be watching for that. The press will be watching for inordinate delay or any delay in this and they would be better advised to get on with it and confirm her without any delay at all so that it doesn't become an issue just as people are going out to vote. Yeah, and frankly, I think you make a lot of sense, Jay, because especially when we contrast the last appointment with Justice Amy Cohen Barrett and how rapidly that took place on the eve of an election. So it would be interesting indeed if this was drawn out, especially in light of how quickly people could get it together last time, I suppose. Well, here we are, Camille, at a start point. We're at a start point in terms of her nomination or going before the Senate, the very likely possibility that she will serve for a lifetime on this most important court in the world. What does this mean to the country that we are at this point? How does it change things? How does it reflect changes in the country? Should we be feeling really good about it? Or should we be wondering whether it will ever be repeated? Well, maybe a bit of both, but I think at least we should be watching this to see what we can learn from it. I think that how we engage with these conversations over the next several weeks and this confirmation process will speak volumes about our hearts and as much as about our minds. I think in terms of what it could mean anyway, is that we hold true to our promises that if you work hard, you study hard, you show up, you do good things, you be kind, and you set your sights high. You can achieve some great things and have some real impact in this country and in this world. I think that's the promise and we'll see if that's a possibility for her. I think for young people and non-traditional students of any sort, especially those in the law, I hope this is a moment where they say, perhaps I can too and perhaps I should dream bigger as well because these possibilities exist for me as well. And I do hope for another reason that this confirmation process is one that demonstrates integrity, civility, courtesy, because you also don't wanna chill and ice out people who think, I have the qualifications and I'd really like to do this, but I don't wanna go through that hellacious process. So I also hope that we can have a rigorous process as it should be, but not a process that is punishing unnecessarily to people who are really just trying to fulfill their calling and the promise of their hard work and determination. As this country says, we should be able to. Well, we suffered racism for a long time. We still have a lot of people who are racists in this country and I can give you all kinds of support for that proposition, but at the end of the day, this is a real statement. It's a real statement if we can do it and we have become much more egalitarian in over my lifetime, even though there were ups and downs, fact is that's why I feel good about this because it's a statement that the country is, I don't know if healing is the right word, but at least it's becoming more egalitarian and people do have an honest chance. I wouldn't have said that 20 years ago, I say it now. Say you're an optimist. Yes, I am, absolutely. And I can see other African-American judges coming through the system, doing really well in school, the law review right at the top. I can see them working for the best firms in the country. This is a kind of encouragement for that. Absolutely. Well, you know, the reality is we are extraordinary on paper. So to the extent that this puts our words to action, I agree with you. This is absolutely a moment to be celebrated and it is a beacon, right? It is a signal. There are many people that are euphoric, but also really cautious because hearts have been broken previously. So we certainly want to temper some of the euphoria with an understanding, as you allude to, of our history as well. So I'm hoping that this is a moment where we shine as a country and it really should be a moment that's celebrated for the type of outcome that we encourage people to strive for. Again, as I said, study hard, put your nose down, work hard, strive to make a difference and to give back and to serve. And I think this is where she shines. This is where we shine. Yes, I exact. Well said. Thank you, Camille. Camille Nelson, the Dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law and a friend, wonderful, of Katanji Brown Jackson. Thank you so much for coming around. Thank you for discussing this. We look forward to her confirmation, to her participation in the court and to a new and better world by virtue of all of that. Thank you so much, Camille. Thank you, Jay. I appreciate it. Aloha. Aloha.