THREE THINGS TO WATCH IN THE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON HEARINGS
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent
 
Ketanji Brown Jackson is already the first Black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Democrats hope – in three weeks or less – she will be the first confirmed as a justice.
 
Yesterday, as confirmation hearings kicked off in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, we heard opening statements. But today begins the most telling and, often, more consequential part: questions.
 
Here are some of the things we will be watching.
 
1. These 4 Republican senators
 
In the hearing room, we’ll be carefully listening to questions coming from four Republican senators in particular: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Marcia Blackburn of Tennessee.
 
Graham and Cornyn both voted yes when the committee took up Jackson’s appellate court nomination last year. But each has signaled reluctance now. How Graham and Cornyn approach their questions could serve as a compass for where they stand. The rest of the Republicans on the committee are likely to be to the right of Graham and Cornyn’s thinking on Jackson.
 
This is why we are watching Hawley and Blackburn. They showed on Day 1 that they may be the senators approaching this from the most aggressive right end, and those most likely to ask the toughest questions of Jackson. How she handles their lines of questions could have some effect on Jackson’s confirmation vote in the full Senate, but with an audience at home in mind, it could impact the midterm elections more.  
 
2. Jackson’s judicial philosophy
 
In her confirmation hearing last year, Jackson said she does not have a specific judicial philosophy. This has opened a cascade of questions from Republicans and a critical debate over how judges interpret the U.S. Constitution.

For Republicans, the concern is “activist judges,” the phrase they use to describe judges who they believe try to make policy decisions, rather than straight interpretations of law. For Democrats, the question is just as important. Many of them see Republicans’ “strict textualist” ideal as holding the law to whatever time it was written, rather than adjusting for changes in population, technology or understanding of culture.
 
3. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court
 
This is a theme to watch in and out of the hearing room. Senators of both parties spoke yesterday about growing concerns around the reputation and politicization of the Supreme Court.
 
This is not without its irony from a chamber that has seen Supreme Court confirmation votes fall increasingly along partisan lines. 
 
This week, watch for Jackson to be questioned about aspects of this, especially on what she thinks of efforts to expand the Supreme Court.
 
But consider this as well: Jackson’s answers overall may be important for how Americans see the court. Her demeanor and approach throughout could impact if voters regain confidence in the institution she hopes to serve.
 
More on the confirmation hearings from our coverage:

• Watch: The opening statements from Day 1 of the hearings ranged from praise (from Democrats) to promises of hard questions (from Republicans). In her own statement, Jackson said she’s “humbled and honored” by her historic nomination and stressed her duty to be independent. A text version of Jackson’s remarks can be found here.
• One Big Question: Jackson is expected to win confirmation – and do so without Republican support. How much does bipartisan support matter for these proceedings? Tamara Keith of NPR and Laura Barron-Lopez of Politico weigh in.
• Analysis: Few public defenders become federal judges. If confirmed, Jackson would be the Supreme Court’s first.

 
‘BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL AND SO IS OUR HAIR’
 

By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage
Senior Editor, Digital
 
Deema Zein, @deema_zein
Associate Video Producer, Digital
 
Black girls with natural hairstyles “belong everywhere,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., said March 18 from the House floor. 
 
"For too long, Black girls have been discriminated against and criminalized for the hair that grows on our heads and the way we move through and show up in this world," she said in support of a bill prohibiting hair discrimination in the workplace, federal programs, housing programs and public accommodations.
 
“By passing the CROWN Act today, we affirm – say it loud – Black is beautiful and so is our hair,” she added.
 
The House approved the bill March 18 in a 253-189 party-line vote. The CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act,” will now head to the Senate for consideration. A day earlier, the Massachusetts House -- and Pressley's state -- became the latest state legislature to pass a simliar ban on hair discrimination. 
 
People of African descent lose educational and employment opportunities “because they are adorned with natural or protective hairstyles in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros,” the bill states.
 
Pressley joined other House Democrats who support a national policy change over race-based hair discrimination. Versions of the CROWN Act already exist in more than 12 states, including California, which was the first to pass the legislation in 2019, and more than 30 municipalities.
 
More on the CROWN Act from our coverage:

• Watch: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, also spoke from the House floor, describing how wearing “your hair as you desire” reaffirms rights and dignity for Black people.
• Explainer: Supporters for CROWN Act bills told the NewsHour last year on why these bills are necessary. Oregon state Rep. Janelle Bynum, who introduced a CROWN Act bill in her state legislature in 2021, said one of the biggest challenges is getting others to see the realities of hair discrimination, noting how white dominant culture “has been imposed upon people whose hair texture is different.”
• A Close Look: Cultural acceptance of natural hair is changing the conversation around discrimination in the U.S. Last year, the NewsHour visited Connecticut, another state that made race-based hair discimination illegal.

 
#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Erica R. Hendry, @ericarhendry
Managing Editor, Digital
 
Tess Conciatori, @tkconch
White House Producer
 
Every Supreme Court nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. But it’s the Senate Judiciary Committee that is responsible for diving into a nominee’s background, qualifications and judicial philosophy, acting as an important intermediary between a president’s nomination and the full Senate’s vote.
 
Starting in 1955 with the confirmation of John M. Harlan, this process has included testifying publicly before the committee; the hearings were opened to television coverage for the first time in 1981, during the confirmation of Sandra Day O’Connor.
 
Our question: Which two senators have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for every sitting member of the Supreme Court?
 
Send your answers to [email protected] or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.
 
Last week, we asked: Who is the only first lady to have a Barbie doll named after her?
 
The answer: Eleanor Roosevelt. Last year, Mattel announced that Roosevelt, a former first lady who served from 1933 to 1945, would be made into a Barbie doll, as part of its "Inspiring Women" series. Many of our dear HTD readers also guessed Jacqueline Kennedy. And while Jackie O has been a major sartorial inspiration for Barbie, she was not the first lady selected for the series.
 
Congratulations to our winners: Lisa Olson, Carl Kravetz and Mary Ann Lambertsen!
 
Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.