he had a badge to the fbi and was able to just get in to meet with a number of attorneys at the fbi. that seems like that was a problem. steve: cozy. eight. katie: what else he was doing inside that building. the durham probe, the first trial we have had. the first charges. and he didn t win on this. obviously there was enormous bias with the jury. also allegations that a number of the jury members were not just clinton donors but friends of the sussmanns and their children play together or play sports together at their school. so that is, i would say, far from blind justice to speak. i think we will have to see what this means for the rest of the durham investigation as we they move forward. will: i agree. this has always been about a story and accountability bigger than michael sussmann. there will be political pressure now, i would imagine there is going to be political pressure to attempt to shut down special counsel john durham and his investigation into whether or not the
but conservatives sneeze and get the book thrown at them. we cannot go on like this with this two-tiered justice system and uneven application of the law. a healthy republic has to have the even application of the law and blind justice and we don t have either right now and we haven t for a very long time. laura: well, we realize where the democrats really are. like the heart and soul of the democrat party is with someone like an elizabeth warren, right? that s really the party now. we thought she was like over and done with but axios is reporting tonight that warren is taking over the democrat party. they say the senator s influence pervades the party extends from her allies across the administration to the white house s leftward shaft student loan debt cancellation as well as her 2022 primary endorsement. last month she had a blunt message from her party democrats will lose in 2022 if we fail to use the months remaining to
that was correct. thank you very much. we now recognize senator lee. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, judge jackson, for being here. i want to talk today about some things you heard about yesterday. there was a lot of talk from members of this committee about judicial philosophy. i want to talk a little bit about what that means and why it s important. we ll start with what it means at least to me. one of the things that you heard from a lot of members of the committee, whether they couched it in terms of judicial philosophy or not, relates to the idea that justice should be blind. that justice properly administered within our system is blind. and that, therefore, individual justices and judges serving in article 3 courts should be blind in the sense that they are able to see and understand and interpret the law.
understand what the law is. while understanding that the idea of what the law should be is left to other branches of government. not to the judiciary. in this respect, we recognize that blind justice and blind justices, those who are blind to the things they are supposed to be blind to, are those willing to recognize that if there s a policy flaw in the law, and if there s a policy change that needs to be made, it s not the role of the court to change it. that belongs to two different branches of government, primarily to congress. this, of course, requires judicial restraint. it requires judicial humility. and it gets back to what i was describing yesterday when i referred to justice barrett drawing on the analogy from the odyssey of odysseus binding himself to the mast of the ship. most of us refer to this judicial philosophy as