see it, in interpreting what congress, for example, has done in, with respect to a particular case, and what legal provisions that i think are relevant to the dispute. and then to explain my analysis. why am i granting this motion or denying this claim? and my hope is that it will help people to be confident in my reasoning. and even if they disagree with it, they will understand what it is that i think, and i think that s important for public confidence in promoting the rule of law. well, you know, you had talked about your clerking for justice prior, how it opened up doors of opportunity. i remember so well our conversation in my office, in the present pro tem s office,
judge jackson is behold ton the radical left and teaching our children that they can choose their own sex. let me just say for the record. sex crimes against children are not fiction. judge jackson will cuddle criminals and terrorists. that s quite the display. democrats in the committee, well they defended judge jackson and chided the republican colleagues. how, how qualified do you have to be, double harvard, how qualified do you have to be, clerking at all levels of the federal judiciary? even suggested that judge jackson, a mother to two wonderful daughters quote, endangers children. judge jackson is a better person than me. i know it will fall on deaf ears but some members of this committee, members who unfortunately care more about sound bites on social media. despite some of that overheated gop rhetoric we just heard, judge jackson will be
the radical left that is teaching our children that they can choose their own sex. let me just say for the record, sex crimes against children are not fiction. judge jackson will coddle criminals and terrorists. my lord. sweet jesus. i mean come on. sweet jesus, deliver us from this idiocy. it is just okay. democrats on the committee defended judge jackson against republican attacks. how, how qualified do you have to be? double harvard. how qualified do you have to be? clerking at all levels of the federal judiciary. they even suggested that judge jackson, a mother to two wonderful daughters, quote, endangers children. judge jackson is a better person than me. i know that it is going to fall on deaf ears with some members of this committee, members who unfortunately cared more about seeing their sound bites on social media. exactly, and so they can set
more. we ll see. of course, all these mandates should be stopped immediately. the new congress should hold immediate hearings exposing why these mandates are ineffective and overly burdensome to the people in businesses that are already struggling. joining me is harmeet dylan and ben mettleist, co-founder and fox news contributor. harmeet, you are a practicing lawyer and i m a recovering one. i did spend a year clerking at the supreme court. i was shocked by the lack of basic knowledge about this virus on the part of the supreme court justice, sotomayor or breyer and kagen, who is really smart. thanks for having me.
0 please set your dvr so you never miss an episode of hannity. let not your friday night hearts be troubled. the ingraham angle with laura ingraham up next. i hope you have a great weekend! laura: i m laura ingraham. this is the ingraham angle from washington tonight. a shockingly tepid jobs report has the biden white house wreeling and spinning. larry kudlow is here. how the democrats are looking to use january 6th to drive a stake right through the heart of our democracy. senator tom cotton explains that. raymond arroyo cleans up the january 6th hysterics. it is all ahead. the supreme court heard oral argument it s for vaccine mandates for large employers and for health care workers and providers. the osha rule states that businesses with more than 100 or more workers must either require employees to be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and masking in the work place. opposing this mandate are 27 states and the national federation of independent business. the fact is, lon