You

Welcome back to the Dershow. I spent much of today listening to the Senators and the Judiciary Committee Republicans and Democrats.

Questioning Judge Jackson, my first impression is whether you support Judge Jackson or not, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you have to acknowledge she did a very, very good job.

She came across really is the mirror image in some ways of Justice Barrett, who was the most recent appointee of the Supreme Court nominated by a Republican president.

Both came across as very dedicated parents, very smart, very level-headed, different points of view.

Judge Barrett is much more conservative and we think we have every reason to think that Judge Jackson is going to be far more liberal.

But she didn't really reveal that very much today. She talked about not her judicial philosophy, not which justices she would emulate, but what her methodology is.

And if she follows that methodology, I think she will be a great justice. She didn't basically say what Chief Justice Roberts said.

I call bulls and strikes like an umpire. Anybody who follows baseball, first of all, knows that some umpires that wider strike zones, higher, lower strike zones, some narrower.

So even calling bulls and strikes is discretionary, maybe some day baseball will move toward, as the minor leagues have, toward doing what tennis is doing in it is basically eliminating live umpiring and leaving everything to computers.

I think baseball will always have umpires, but maybe they will have umpires with computers that it's not going to be so easy to do in baseball because, of course, even with computers height is going to be subjective.

But with this, it's the plate. There is clear boundary. It's a little bit like the constitution. Part of the constitution is a dead constitution. You have to be 35 years old to be president, 30 years old to be a senator.

But there are other parts of the constitution to process equal protection that allow for some discretionary application. The same thing is true with calling bulls and strikes.

With is fixed. A good computer will never make a mistake as to whether a ball is outside the strike zone or inside the strike zone, um, curve ball sinkers, you know, you can argue a little bit.

But as far as height is concerned, there's always going to be a little discretion because right now the height and baseball is determined by the size of the player, you know, needs to the armpits and that kind of thing and that's never going to be subject to the same scientific rigor as the width of the plate.

All right, I've diverted baseball, I love baseball. You probably know that.

But let's talk about the confirmation hearings. I think she did a great job. I don't think the senators for the most part did great jobs. In fact, I have two words to describe in general.

The senators approach some exceptions to this, but generally it's part of an hypocrisy.

Remember the same Democrats who today was saying, oh, of course, everybody has the right to counsel. You don't judge a lawyer by her clients. Oh, my God. Yeah, she represented people in Guantanamo, some of them may have been terrorists and murderers, but you don't judge a lawyer by their client.

The same guys who attacked me for representing President Trump and even beyond the Senate, some of the same people who cancel me, literally cancel me because I represented President Trump are now saying, of course, everybody has the right to defend. She don't criticize Judge Jackson for who she defended.

All right, the Democrats were hypocrites, but some of the Republicans, the Republicans who praised me for defending Trump, who went out of their way to say, oh, this is a liberal Democrat, and look how courageous he is, he's defending President Trump. Wow, he's a true American.

He follows the 6th and 7th Amendment to the Constitution, the right to counsel. The same Republicans are now pointing down to say, you defended terrorists in Guantanamo, and you sought the release of the murderers and others.

...