 for those of you in Hawaii. Good evening. Those of you on the mainland and good day wherever you may be. Thanks so much for joining us. Think Tech Hawaii. Today we've got just a really exceptional, exceptional group of people. Dean Danielle Conway and also a professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, Dean Jelani Jefferson Exum and also professor at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and seasoned mediator, arbitrator, business coach Tina Patterson in Maryland. And we get to talk about just an amazing, amazing opportunity for this country for the rule of law, for all of us. And I'm going to start with you, Danielle. What most hits home most deeply to you about Judge Katanzi Brown Jackson's Supreme Court appointment? So thank you and Aloha everyone. I am so pleased to be here with Chuck, a woman's rights man, of course, and then my sisters, Tina and Jelani. What makes this a important historical moment for all of us is that for 232 years, there has not been representation of one of the most important demographics in this nation, black women. And that is important in this nation to recognize because of the history of slavery, the enslavement of black peoples, the creation of a enslaved workforce from the wounds of black women, the creation of a unequal society by virtue of black codes, Jim Crow, the Nadir, Jane Crow, up through the civil rights movement into the time when we had war on poverty, when we had the crack wars, when we had war on black communities. In this moment, we have an opportunity to see through all of that the ascension of a black woman who by her very symbolism means representation in a multicultural democracy. That is who Katanzi Brown Jackson is and that's what she means to me. What a great way to put it. Jelani, what hits home most deeply to you? You know, Danielle, Dean Conway, she covered so much of it so well. So I'll just add that. I mean, you think of those 233 years of the Supreme Court's existence and then we add on to that. That's 115 justices that we've had in the United States, on the United States Supreme Court, five women, two black people. And we just think about that and let those numbers sit with you. You just recognize not only how awesome this moment is, but really how, what's a good word, let's say, absurd. It is that it's taken this long to get here. And so I've been watching the confirmation hearings with a sense of joy, of course, very excited that we're here at this moment, this important historic moment, with also just a sense of pride, you know, watching Judge Jackson, how she has carried herself through this situation that I'm going to have to turn to the word absurd again, right? There's been so much absurdity in these hearings and the questioning of her and the questioning of her credentials, of her qualifications, of her record. And so to see her there really with all that she brings, all of whom she's representing, that just to see her sit there so poised, so brilliant, just really exuding everything that we want her to exude in this moment is just a moment of joy and of pride. And at the same time, a frustration that we're here and we're watching things play out in this way where this really should be a point of pride for all of America, right? Why is it taking this long for this group to be represented that's such an impactful, important group in our history to finally have a place in a voice on our courts, on our nation's highest court? And why has it taken this long? So there's this frustration in watching her go through this process. But I've got to tell you, as Senator Booker said last night, you know, we're not going to let anybody steal our joy. She is doing amazing. She is amazing. And this is an amazing moment. She is indeed. Tina, what strikes home most deeply to you? I think the Dean's covered everything. I will say this. I sense of pride. This is a woman who is both credentialed and showing the world that regardless of the stereotypes and means that attempt to degrade us, we can be poised, professional, and credentialed. This is a woman who's a double Ivy. And in layman's terms, that means that she has an undergraduate and a professional or degree from an Ivy League institution, not just any Ivy League institution, but from Harvard, one of the most regarded Ivy Leagues. And I'm saying that as a Brown University graduate. So I'll give them their props on this one. But this is a woman who is showing the world that we can do this. The story regarding persevere. For every little girl of color who's been told you can't, you won't. It's not possible. It is possible. It's happening. It's unfolding right before us. And I think Jalani hit the nail on the head. The moments of frustration, the moments of, oh my goodness, we've all experienced it in some former fashion, but to rise above it and to keep moving forward. That is what struck me. There's a photo today that's been circulating regarding the pride that the judge's daughter has in looking at her. And it's the pride that I think many of us have that you are sustaining. You are standing still and standing upright in the midst of these line of questioning and some of, as Jalani indicated, absurdities. And you still stand proud. I think the other piece I want to remember is two weeks ago, Ben Davis was on this show, and he dedicated Maya Angelou's Still I Rise to judge Jackson Brown, sorry, Brown Jackson. And I think it's appropriate. And that was also a sense of pride because we see it personified. She walks in in a regal fashion. She sits down, even when the questions seem to go in places that no one ever thought they would go. She's remained calm. She's remained collected and at all times dignified. She has. And I think that amazing grace and poise that she has demonstrated throughout, no matter how childishly, no matter how unethically, unprofessionally, dishonestly, misleadingly, others may have behaved. And even some from that other side have come up to her off the record and complimented her on representing exactly that potential of the best that we can be. But Chuck, just what you said right there, we need it on the record. Because the record the record must reflect that this nominee is eminently qualified and is a citizen of our United States, our United States. And so to be treated any less is an affront to our patriotism, our collective pride, and our duty as citizens in this America. No, that's exactly right. And Jelani, you're one of the leading experts anywhere on sentencing discrimination, disparities, and inequalities. That subject came up. It was used as a political pretext ploy and tool. Set us straight on that. Well, first, thank you for that endorsement, Chuck. I appreciate that. I have to tell you, I've been watching the nominations, the confirmation hearings as we all have. And that frustration has really been right there front and center as Judge Jackson's record on sentencing has been pulled apart, cherry picked, taken out of context in so many ways. And the really, I don't, frustrating is probably not even the right word here. It's really, as Dean Conway said, this really an affront, right? Because what you're seeing happen is pure political theater. It's not really about her. It's about grandstanding and speaking to a base of voters. And so it's intentional misleading, which, you know, take take what you will from that. But it's telling you about the character of a folks who have been who've been in these hearings. But this is what I'll say. The misconstruing of Judge Jackson's sentencing record is just that. So the discussion about the child pornography sentencing in particular, which has been this flashpoint, this provocative topic to bring up is really misrepresenting her as someone who is somehow extreme. When the reality is that for really over a decade, judges have been talking about the federal sentencing guidelines, particularly the child pornography guidelines, and have been saying, we're not going to follow them because they're not giving us relevant advice. The guidelines are supposed to have points in them that help judges to differentiate amongst offenders. So we have a group of offenders who've committed a horrific crime, right? A disturbing crime. But out of that group, how do we pull apart who is at the lower end of culpability and who's at the higher end of culpability? Guidelines are supposed to help judges to do that. When they cease to do that, judges cease to follow them. And that is what has happened in the child pornography possession, mostly possession situation. Two thirds of the judges across the country sentence these offenders to below guideline sentences that is perfectly fine. It is perfectly normal. And it's because the guidelines are not advising. And I'll just give one point that I think is a point of clarity here that might help to illustrate it for your listeners. Think about the use of computers. This has come up in the hearings, right? And the misconstrued aspect of it is that Judge Jackson was somehow saying she's going soft on pedophiles because she's not worried about computer use. That's completely false. What's happening is that the guidelines, which are supposed to differentiate amongst types of offenders, apply points for using a computer when now all offenders for child pornography possession use computers. So nobody adds that, right? Numbers of images. The guidelines give numbers of points for numbers of images that's supposed to differentiate amongst the less guilty and the more guilty. People now who commit these crimes hit one click of a button and get thousands of images. So numbers of images don't tell you anything. So judges have just said this is not important guidance. It's not giving us information. And so we'll go to other sources like arguments by counsel about risk factors of harming children. And that's what judges follow. That's what judges across the country follow. That's what just Jackson follows. It is not out of the ordinary. It is quite ordinary in mainstream. This is a non-story, and it's really unfortunate that it's been pitched as anything else. Well, and you've just hit on something that's critically and important insight. And that is with all of this misleading mischaracterization, what was missed was that Judge Jackson served a really important valuable role in reform of a badly, badly broken sentencing system, some of whose deficiencies you've just highlighted. And that's not the only area where she has been a leader of reform. Danielle, you're spearheading at Penn State Dickinson Law an anti-racism curriculum. While that's not part of the judicial decision making that has brought Judge Jackson to where she is, it certainly was a central ploy of some of the questioning and mischaracterization that was used against her. Hey, can you straighten us out on that one? I certainly will. And thank you for your expert commentary, Dean Exum. It was phenomenal. And hopefully I'll do the same here. So they're conflating many, many things in this portrayal of anti-racism. So they are conflating the very important instructive pedagogy under critical race theory, which is taught at universities and law schools. They're conflating that actually with anti-racism. Anti-racism, I posit, is the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment. So if they have a problem with anti-racism, then they must have a problem with the 14th Amendment. And then they confuse all of this with history. And so history is subject matter that we all must learn as a liberal art. And history may have overlap with critical race theory, with anti-racism, but history is in and of itself what must be taught as a liberal art from the moment we step foot in society. Because this is how we know how to progress, how to relate with and among one another, how to take lessons from the generations before. And if you don't understand history, you can't be a lawyer in the United States. If you cannot understand the 14th Amendment, then you cannot be a lawyer in the United States and pledge to serve society under the tenet, the value of equal justice under law. And there cannot be any way to overstate the importance of exactly that point. We know that those people that we've just referred to do have a major problem with the 14th Amendment because they're working as hard as they can to support those 19 states and approximately 40 laws restricting voting rights and access. And more than 250, they're still out there proposed and pending. So what is it? And we know that the Supreme Court has been complicit in eroding the protections of the Voting Rights Act, two of the most important, the disparate impact and treatment, and the historical precondition of federal approval for states with a long history of discriminatory voting laws and practices. So Tina, where do you see it going from here? How is future justice Jackson important to reversing that trend, turning that time? Looking at the body of the judge's work and experience, what's most eye-opening to me, and I think will be critical moving forward, is her work as a public defender in her work was working with those who have been part of the criminal justice system. I was especially, I guess the word would be surprised, delighted, amazed at her description of proportionality. And she explained it to the Senate and anyone listening in the public could see how this concept can be applied to state issues with state issues regarding criminal requirements. But it also will bring to the body of justices this experience, this thought process, this perspective that we haven't seen since Thurgood Marshall. So I see that being critical. I also see the fact that she brought to bear the critical thinking and emotional intelligence that we don't always see from the justices. I think Justice Sotomayor definitely brings it. Justice Kagan, when we do hear from her, but she's going to bring that perspective, she's going to bring that larger perspective in terms of application of the law and what's applicable and are we applying it given all of these other elements. But I know the other justices have more experience in corporate and other areas, but I think that that experience, her experience as a private lawyer as well will also come to bear. And Deans, I welcome your weighing in on this, but I do want to say this, and I know you didn't ask this question specifically, but I think there's also a lesson for dispute resolution providers to consider as well. And what struck me, and I'll be very transparent, I had arbitrated the case earlier that day. And so listening to Judge Brown Jackson talk about proportionality and this sense of what's equitable, what's appropriate, what's fair, really hit home for me because I've been struggling with rendering a decision, and I thought, you know what, let me go back, let me go back and look at my notes, let me go back and do some initial and additional analysis and applying this concept. Not that I haven't before, but again, it really struck home for me because it was being conflated in a way that just didn't ring true. And when we kept hearing this line of questioning, and she said, you know, I have guidelines, I'm supposed to follow these guidelines and apply these guidelines, the parties come to me and present their arguments. And for dispute resolution resolvers, especially media, excuse me, especially arbitrators, we're in that same capacity. So I think she's going to bring that emotional intelligence and critical thinking to bear. But again, I'm going to defer to the deans if they want to add more to what I've said. I do have something to add because I think that what Tina is pointing out is something that I wish had been highlighted more about Judge Jackson during these hearings. So Judge Jackson spent time as vice chair of the sentencing commission. And in her role there, in pushing forth really, as Chuck, you mentioned, really important sentencing reform measures that were bipartisan measures that were accepted widely. In doing it, she had to really display skills that I think are so exciting for her. And we think about her as a justice. So she had to really find commonality amongst the sentencing commissioners who are sentencing commissioners who come from various parties, right? So the two parties. So you have Democrats, you have Republicans on the commission. So you have people of different ideologies when it comes to sentencing law and sentencing practice. And she had to find points of commonality. She had to think about how she was going to approach these commissioners who may see the world completely differently than she did that would have completely different backgrounds. She has her public defense background. And so she's coming to it with a certain understanding of the consequences of criminal justice. And so she had to talk her commissioners through all of these sort of disparate identities and ideologies. And what she was able to do during her time as the vice chair of the sentencing commission was to help guide forward unanimous sentencing reform measures. This was everybody on board saying, yes, these are things that we need to do to make our criminal justice system fair, to make punishment appropriate and proportional, to correct for systemic wrongs. That was Judge Jackson. That was her voice. And so I'm very excited to see what Justice Jackson will do on a court. We talk about the 6-3 split. I'm not concerned that she may not always write majority opinions. What I think is so exciting is that she will be the one who is shaping those opinions on the margins. She will be pushing justices to think about things a little bit differently. And when she's writing dissents, I mean, let's watch out because these are going to be impactful. They're going to be legacy building. And this is just, this is something that's good for all of us. It's good for justice. It's good for America. And that's to me what's so very exciting. And I wish that could have come out more in these hearings. And to extend what you're saying, Jelani, and to try to connect it to you to the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment has been laying dormant since reconstruction. It has been laying dormant. And the Voting Rights Act and the evisceration of it with Shelby County the holder has just boomeranged us back to that dormancy. And so at the very least with a justice Katanji Brown Jackson on the court, we will know that there are conversations in those chambers about the reality on the ground in terms of the fundamental manifestation of citizenship, who is and is not getting access to the ballot when we all should have access to the ballot as citizens. Tina, I see the wheels turning. Now, if you see the wheels turning, it's me clapping broadly for both of the deans. They took it home. Thank you. They took it home. That's exactly what I think it's fantastic as we go into our last few minutes is you've connected these two ends of their own spectrum, voting rights and processes at the front end, sentencing and criminal justice at the back end. And she has a level, a depth, a breadth, a scope of first hand understanding of the broken parts of those systems, because both are clearly systemically discriminatory, unequal, and have been in need of repair. And what Jelani, I love that you brought out is her ability to be able to bring that home to disparate groups of people, probably more prosecutors than defenders, maybe as many Republicans as Democrats, and to get all of them to see this is broken, this is a good direction for reform. We can hope because she's got 25, 30 years, maybe more to help bring those changes. And hopefully there will be some, maybe not in existing seats on the mail side, but in future appointments who may bring functioning ears to the table so we can have hope. Okay, our last couple minutes, last thoughts on Judge Katanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation appointments in future. I'll take a page out of Jelani's book. She is going to add her voice to the record, and that record is going to extend for at least two to three decades. She will be bringing law clerks in to the enterprise. She will be communicating to everyone in the United States. You too can do this, everyone. So her existence there is representation universally. That is what is so fearsome about Judge Katanji Brown Jackson. Jelani? I echo that, and I'll just add a perspective of someone who has had the privilege of teaching constitutional law as a black woman in realizing when I stand in front of students and I teach about the constitution that I'm teaching about a document written by people who, in their wildest dreams, would never imagine me as the person who's teaching that doctrine. And to think that in years and decades to come that when people like me, black women, stand in front of classes and teach about the constitution, they're going to teach about justice Katanji Brown Jackson, whether it's majority opinions or dissents, they're going to be teaching about her, whether they're saying her name because she's written the opinion or not, they're going to be teaching about her because she was on the court, because she was in the room, because she was in the place. And that is just something that is so amazing that I don't even know how to express really the impact that that will have, but it is phenomenal. It's profound and it will be long lasting. Tina, last thoughts? Judge, we see you and we know history will too. So thank you all. This has been an amazing deep dive into the things that Judge Katanji Brown Jackson brings to the table that show us that exactly as you've indicated, she will leave a mark that is entirely her own. That will have immeasurable value for every single one of us. Thank you all. Take care, come back, rejoin us in a couple of weeks. We will be back. Thank you.