Stephanie Says

It may not be common for a 60-something-year-old woman to break down in tears upon hearing of the passing of one of her elementary school teachers.

But everyone did not have Joe Antonacci, Sr. for sixth grade.

Mr. Antonacci was a wonderful teacher. Because of him, I can do timetables in my head and still name the capitals of scores of countries – and, if asked to do so, could surely point to them on a map with a rubber-tipped wooden stick in less than 30 seconds.

Thanks to Mr. Antonacci, I know when to write “principal” instead of “principle,” and “stationary” instead of “stationery.”

And I think of Mr. Antonacci whenever I write a business letter because he taught me how to always spell “sincerely” right. (Just think “since-rely,” which I repeat in my head every single time I write the word).

But more important, I can remember what it felt like being the only Black student in my sixth-grade class (and one of fewer than a handful in the entire school), having moved to a new town at perhaps the worst time a child could be dropped into an unfamiliar environment, struggling to fit in with a cohort of white kids who had been together since kindergarten, and to have a teacher show extraordinary kindness and patience toward me and such unflagging confidence in my intellect and abilities that I didn’t shrink, but thrived.

Mr. Antonacci made a difference in my life, and I am and will always be grateful to him.

I’m glad that we reconnected later in life and I had several opportunities to tell him how much I appreciate all that he had done for me. And it was always a pleasure to hear him talk about the immense pride he felt, not only in me, but in all of the students whose lives he had touched.

Mr. Antonacci’s death makes me sad, but memories of him warm my heart and remind me of the good we can do.

Thank you, Mr. Antonacci for the great and gentle good you did. I will never forget you.

Since-rely,
Your forever grateful student

A lot of discussion has occurred in the past couple of days in the wake of the rulings by the Colorado Supreme Court, upholding a lower state court’s decision that Trump should be removed from the ballot on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection and is thus disqualified under Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment, and the Maine Secretary of State’s decision to do the same.

Many people cheered the decisions and believe this to be the first step in disqualifying Trump in key states around the country.

But not so fast.

I’m urging y’all not to get your hopes up about this since you’ll probably end up very disappointed.

If these cases get to the Supreme Court – which they surely will – they will almost certainly reverse these decisions – and it will likely be unanimous with even the liberal justices voting to reject the states’ decision.

This is because a Secretary of State does not have the power to unilaterally remove Trump (or anyone else) from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on an administrative hearing. By the same token, it is very likely that the Court will hold that a state court also lacks the authority to take such action based on evidence garnered in the civil case brought in Colorado.

I know this may seem to contradict what some legal commentators have been writing and saying on television. But that is because, for the most part, they are focusing on only one aspect of the issue and not telling the full story.

Constitutional analysis and application is extremely complicated and nuanced and does not lend itself to the kind of shallow commentary we’ve been seeing. Many of the commentators discussing this make it seem pretty simple “Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, the 14th Amendment prohibits people who engaged in insurrection from holding federal office, so BOOM, knock him off the ballot.”

But among the many aspects of Constitutional analysis that must be considered, there are two tracks that must be addressed: the “what” and the “how.” Most of these commentators – including Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Laurence Tribe – are focusing almost exclusively on the “what,” while ignoring the “how.”

The “what” is whether Trump engaged in insurrection as covered by the 14th Amendment. Most sane observers believe he did. But the analysis can’t and doesn’t end there because the 14th Amendment isn’t “self-executing,” i.e., it doesn’t automatically implement itself. There are additional steps that must be taken in order to enforce it – that is the indispensable “how,” also known as Due Process.

The drafters of the 14th Amendment Section 3 gave Congress the power to create a procedural mechanism for enforcement. But, Congress has not done that. That means there needs to be another mechanism for enforcing it, but that mechanism must comport with the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process clause.

(There are also other procedural questions that must be addressed, such as standing, but that’s for another day).

Some observers claim that the Due Process Clause isn’t applicable because it only applies to the deprivation of “life, liberty and property.” However, the courts have generally treated the right to run for and serve in federal office as a property right. No less a jurist than Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase has made clear that not only is Section 3 not self-executing, action taken under it must comply with the Due Process Clause. And, in fact, even the majority in the Colorado case recognized the necessity to comply with the Due Process Clause.

In particular, a person can’t just be declared an insurrectionist because we are sure he is or because we “saw it on TV.” There must be a fair and robust adjudicative process for drawing that conclusion and for applying the 14th Amendment prohibition to that individual. There is no question that a criminal conviction meets that standard of Due Process.

Had Congress set up a process for adjudicating guilt outside of the criminal justice system, that likely would have also complied with Due Process.

But here we have no criminal conviction and no Congressionally-authorized procedure. So the Supreme Court must now deal with how the 14^th Amendment can be enforced.

The question the Supreme Court will likely have to deal with is whether, in the absence of a criminal conviction or special procedure, will any other process for disqualifying a federal officer from serving meets Due Process requirements.

Contrary to the slam-dunk some commentators have convinced their audiences this is, it is not clear how the Supreme Court would or should answer that question.

The Court could rule that Section 3 can be implemented only through a procedure Congress was authorized to create, but didn’t.

Or the justices could rule that, in the absence of any other mechanism set up by Congress, the only appropriate basis for determining whether someone engaged in insurrection under the 14th Amendment is a criminal trial and conviction of that crime (or it’s equivalent). And since Trump has not been convicted, the states can’t apply the 14th Amendment to him.

It’s also possible they will find that a criminal conviction isn’t necessary, but other types of adjudication are permissible – IF that adjudicatory process includes the same types of procedural and constitutional safeguards found in a criminal trial (e.g., full discovery and disclosure, strict rules for the admissibility of evidence, sworn testimony and with right to confront and cross examine accusers, etc.).

But, even if the Court finds that an alternative procedure may be acceptable, there is little doubt that it would conclude that a one-day administrative hearing conducted by a Secretary of State or a hearing held in a state civil action by a state court judge, don’t even come close to satisfying the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process requirement.

Applying either standard, the Court is likely to reverse the states’ decisions to keep Trump off of their ballots

And therein lies the problem with many of the public comments that commentators have been making: They have completely left out the process issue and focused only on the substantive issue (“We all know he’s guilty, so what else needs to be decided?). But before the Court can even reach the issue of whether or not Trump actually committed insurrection and is, thus, disqualified from service, it must find that the process used at the state level satisfies the due process clause. And I have no doubt that it will find that the process used in the Colorado and Maine does not pass Constitutional muster.

And the justices would be correct. No state official should have that degree of power over federal elections and who can serve in federal office. While many people are thinking only of Trump, allowing such a process would also allow state officials around the country – including in Florida and Texas – to bar people from serving based solely on their unilateral declaration that they are disqualified under the 14th Amendment. More than chaos would ensue – that would trigger a Constitutional crisis and utter destruction of our democratic process.

I know this is not the take some people want, but if we are to be a nation of laws, we must apply those laws fairly and faithfully, even when it results in outcomes we don’t like. That will probably be the case here, so I’m encouraging everyone to refrain from jumping into the rabbit hole dug by commentators who aren’t telling the whole story. Instead, please approach this thoughtfully and stop demanding the legal process do what should be handled in the political process.
Instead of wasting precious time and energy hoping that Trump will be disqualified, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get the electoral votes they need to win a second term, regardless who the Republican nominee may be.

Please shift away from trying to grapple with the hows and whats of the 14th Amendment and let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

Please don’t get too upset that an insurrectionist, anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ right wing extremist has just been elected Speaker of the House.

The House Republican Caucus and the Republican Party have long been controlled by insurrectionist, anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ right wing extremists.

And Kevin McCarthy, whom some people mistakenly believe is a moderate (there ARE no moderate Republicans in the House), held the Speaker title and position, but in reality, he was completely under their control. Every move he made was dictated by or an attempt to cater to the extremist Republicans who were handed power and now dominate the party.

So, the fact that the new Speaker is an open extremist doesn’t really change anything substantively. The Republican agenda is the same, they still have the same numbers in the House, and they will still continue to do the same things they have been doing all along.

The election of this Speaker will simply make it clearer to the public what and who the Republican Party is now that they can’t hide behind a MINO (“Moderate In Name Only) Speaker.Too many people voting Republican in the belief that “they’re not all bad,” is what got us here.

Maybe now that the figurehead of the party accurately reflects who the Republicans truly are, people will step away from the notion that there is any hope for the Republican Party and understand that the ONLY way to save this country is to VOTE BLUE up and down the ballot.

Thanks to some misleading reporting last night, lots of folks are now fretting that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be removed from office and the Trump prosecution stopped as early as October.

Let me calm your fears. While it is always possible, it is not likely to happen the way some people assume. And it’s definitely not likely to happen on or immediately after October 1.

Here are some facts and the law:

First, the law in Georgia is very different than the Florida process that allowed Ron DeSantis to unilaterally remove state officials.

Georgia SB 92, passed in May, sets up a Prosecuting Attorneys Qualification Commission which has the power to “discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of appointed or elected district attorneys” in accordance with Article VI, Section VIII, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution.

This Commission must be filled by former elected District Attorneys, former elected judges, and former assistant District Attorneys. Some appointments have already been made, but the Commission has not yet been fully staffed.

The statute sets out very specific grounds for removing a District Attorney, most of which would not and could not be applied to DA Willis. The closest possibility is the consideration of a complaint on the grounds that she made a charging decision based on undue prejudice against the accused.

It would be difficult for anyone to argue that the Trump indictment was a “charging decision” by the District Attorney since Trump was not charged by the DA; his indictment was handed up by a grand jury pursuant to the legal grand jury process. The Trump indictment was a charging decision by the grand jury, not the DA.

But even if someone tried to have Willis removed as DA on the ground of this or other charging decisions she has made, Willis has proven herself to be extraordinarily skilled and extremely savvy; it would be foolish to assume that she has at any point left herself vulnerable to such a charge.

But even if the panel accepted with a spurious complaint against Willis, the process for investigating and removing a DA is long and rather complicated and could not be completed overnight. Moreover, there is an appeal process in the case of removal, and that would also delay any effort to remove her. In addition, there are other avenues of appeal that could be taken outside of the process set forth in the statute.

Also, a group of state district attorneys has already sued to strike down the law, and that will have to work its way through the courts and it’s possible that could further stall any implementation of the law. It is likely that if an attempt to remove Willis were launched, the action would be enjoined by the court.

So, while it is certain that Trump’s minions will try to have Willis removed under this new law, and although it is possible that she could eventually be removed after an extended and complex process, such a possibility is so far down the road it is not worth getting ourselves worked up over it right now.

Donald Trump was indicted in a major RICO case yesterday. That is huge. There’s no point in looking down the road for pitfalls that haven’t occurred, aren’t certain to occur, and over which none of us has any control anyway.

To quote Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell in “Apollo 13”:

“There are a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number 8. You’re talking about number 692.”

Please don’t fall prey to the hysteria the media is paid to generate and has a vested interest in maintaining at each stage of this process.

This is a long game. Keep your eye on the ball.

I am thrilled, relieved and gratified that Ohio voters stepped up with such fierceness to overwhelmingly defeat the Republican effort to strip away our rights.

I am also really pleased that so many Ohio women were instrumental in this victory and happy to see Ohio’s white women lean in so hard.

This is especially satisfying coming less than a year after the midterms in which a majority of Ohio’s white women voted to reelect Gov. Mike DeWine and to make JD Vance Ohio’s junior senator.*

Much of the shift between last year and now was likely because Issue 1 was so obviously intended to lay the groundwork for making it impossible for Ohio voters to protect reproductive rights in November, that everyone got it and got on board.

But this threat to women and others should have been apparent during last year’s midterms, yet a majority of white women in the state voted for an openly anti-choice governor and senator just a few months ago.

But better late than never …

I’m sure that women of all races will again rise to the occasion this November to approve the Ohio constitutional amendment that will protect women’s reproductive rights.

But then what?

Will these victories and the campaigns that led up to them open the eyes of those white women who previously supported anti-choice, anti-civil rights and often openly racist candidates when they thought they wouldn’t be personally harmed by their policies?

Will these women realize that it will be absolutely critical to vote Blue up and down the ticket, because while Trump is often the object of their ire, he is not really the problem. He’s just the most obvious symptom.

The real problem is the Republican Parry has sold itself lock stock and barrel to the most extreme elements in the country, with the complicity of “good Republicans” who have silently gone along with it.

As a Black woman who has been in this fight for longer than I care to say, I am glad that so many white women joined the effort and linked arms with women of color to beat back this threat. I now beg my white sisters not to take a victory lap and then leave the field to return to their places of comfort and privilege, holding their tongues for the sake of politeness and neighborliness, tuning out future battles because they think the outcome won’t harm them.

PLEASE stay in the fight and vote Blue (Go Sherrod!), drive Republicans out of state and local offices, and fight racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, wherever and in whoever it arises.

The Ohio Issue 1 fight showed you what you’re made of and that if you stand with us, we can move mountains and stop the flood.

Source,: NBC News: “Ohio Governor Election Results 2022” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-elections/ohio-senate-results

More than a few folks have been dogging out Attorney General Merrick Garland for supposedly moving too slowly on the January 6th investigation and for not appointing a Special Counsel sooner.

Setting aside the fact that Garland had no statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel before he did (hold that thought – I’ll get back to it in a minute), it’s funny to see people treating Jack Smith like a badass action hero and Garland like a hapless failure – when it was Garland himself who selected and hired him.

But that said, it’s becoming apparent that Garland is even slicker and more strategic than people realized.

As I noted, Garland’s been getting heat for not appointing Smith sooner. But that criticism is founded on a lack of understanding of the Special Counsel statute An Attorney General can’t just appoint a Special Counsel whenever they choose or because they want to speed up an investigation and get a prosecution wrapped up before an election. They can only appoint a Special Counsel if a conflict of interest arises that makes it inappropriate for DOJ attorneys to handle an investigation and prosecution. And that conflict first arose last November when Trump declared his candidacy, making himself a political rival of Garland’s boss. And Garland was ready – the minute that happened, Garland pounced and sicced the barracuda on Trump.

In retrospect, it apoears more and more like Garland played Trump like a fiddle, quietly going about his business, overseeing an investigation that, despite the endless complaining of teevee pundits and anonymous sources, was moving along robustly and quickly.

And then Trump messed up and played right into Garland’s hands, announcing his candidacy well before he had to, giving Garland the perfect excuse to bring in Smith, something he couldn’t have done if Trump hadn’t announced his intention to run against the president Garland reports to. The speed with which Garland moved to appoint Smith, who was named just two days after Trump’s announcement, suggests Garland already had that card up his sleeve and was just waiting for Trump to misplay his hand to pull it out and slap it down.

Smith was ready, too. He came in hot, built on the work DOJ had been doing for the previous year and a half, and took it to the next level in a way that would have been difficult, if not impossible, for DOJ prosecutors to do on their own.

We’re now starting to see the results – because it’s now clear that, contrary to what some of Garland’s detractors claim, Garland didn’t bring Smith in to START the investigation. He brought him in to FINISH it

Nicely played, Mr. Attorney General!

Folks all over the broadcast and cable programs and in social media have been discussing various aspects of Trump’s latest indictment, what it means, what will happen if he’s convicted, whether he can be barred from office or have his benefits and Secret Service stripped away, etc.

Unfortunately, much of what is being said and written is inaccurate and sometimes just flat out false.

Because few things are more frustrating to me – a lawyer, Constitutional law expert, and former government official, who respects and cares about the law and justice – than to see people being misled and misinformed, I have written a basic primer to explain a few of the more discussed but misunderstood legal concepts involved in the Trump case.

Here are goes:

SECRET SERVICE: As a former president, Donald Trump is entitled by law to lifetime Secret Service protection. Even if he is convicted of a crime and Congress changes the law to make former presidents who are convicted of a crime ineligible, the new law will not apply to him and he will remain eligible for Secret Service protection for the rest of his life. The law can be changed to strip Secret Service protection from a former president who is convicted of a crime. BUT that can only be applied prospectively. Such a law cannot be applied retroactively to take away Secret Service protection from a president who already became entitled to it.

The reasoning is a little complicated, but it is based on a provision in the Constitution that bans “ex post facto” laws that criminalize behavior that was not a crime at the time the person engaged in it. That has been extended to also apply to actions that punish people by taking away entitlements that have already vested.

Therefore, because Donald Trump became entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection as soon as he became president and it became an immutable fact that he would eventually be a former president when there was no prohibition against a former president receiving Secret Service protection, any revision in the law that changes what a former president is entitled to cannot be applied to him. It can only be applied to former presidents who became eligible for Secret Service protection upon become president AFTER the law’s amendment. If Congress amended the law next week, it would not apply to Biden or any past president. It would only apply to the president who succeeds Biden and their successors.

Thus, no matter what people think or want or wish, Donald Trump is, without equivocation, entitled to continue having a Secret Service detail the rest of his life and that will not change even if he is convicted of a crime.

FELONY CONVICTION AS A BAR TO THE PRESIDENCY: Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting convicted felons from serving as president. That can only be done through a Constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and ratification by 38 of the 50 states.

This is because eligibility for the presidency is set forth in the Constitution and can only be changed by amending the Constitution. Congress cannot add additional qualifications to the criteria delineated in the Constitution.

14th AMENDMENT BAN ON INSURRECTIONISTS: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibiting federal officers who have engaged in insurrection from holding federal office does not apply to Donald Trump – or any other federal official to date – and cannot be used to keep Trump off of the ballot.

This is because of another section of the 14th Amendment – the Due Process Clause – which states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. A job or office is considered to be a property rights for the purposes of Constitutional analysis, and thus, before someone can be denied the right to hold a federal office that they are otherwise eligible for under the Constitution, they must be accorded full due process.

This means that a person cannot be barred from office simply because they are accused of engaging in or some people are certain they engaged in an insurrection. Due process requires a specific finding of such wrongdoing by an impartial process in which the accused has a full opportunity to confront their accusers and defend themselves. Without a specific judicial or administrative process put in place for this special circumstance, a court ruling – likely in the form of a criminal conviction – would have to be issued before the 14th Amendment bar could be invoked.

Donald Trump not only has not been convicted of engaging in an insurrection, he has not been charged with that crime. So the 14th Amendment prohibition cannot be applied to him and likely never will be.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT: Holding Trump in solitary confinement, if he is convicted, would very likely be ruled unconstitutional and, thus, is not a logical alternative for incarceration should he be convicted.

Solitary confinement is an extraordinary measure used only in extraordinary circumstances. This is because such confinement has tremendous negative psychological impacts on prisoners and, thus, is used sparingly and only when there is solid, compelling evidence that the prisoner is a danger to himself or others, or has engaged in behavior that merits severe punishment. Putting a prisoner in solitary confinement because he requires special security by virtue of being a former president comes nowhere close to meeting that high bar. If Trump were ordered held in solitary confinement for that reason, the confinement would very likely violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
TREASON: Donald Trump did not commit treason and has not been charged with doing so.

Treason is a very specific crime defined by the Constitution and statute: it occurs ONLY when a citizen “levies war against [the United States] or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.”

Regardless what Donald Trump has done, he has not engaged in treason under the legal definition and has not been charged, and will not be charged with treason.

When Pam and I were kids, we each had a Barbie. Mommy insisted our Barbies have different color hair because if they looked too much alike, we’d fight over them. Pam always got the blonde one because in Pamaland, Pam always got first dibs and blondes have more fun and we planned to eventually both become blondes ourselves when we grew up.

We also had Midge, Barbie’s best friend, and Skipper, her little sister or cousin or something.

And then there was Ken. We were never sure what to make of him and couldn’t quite work out what his relationship was with Barbie. It was complicated.

We had a Barbie car. It was SHARP – a blue Mustang that had room for Midge and Skipper. Sometimes Ken got to come along, too, but, as I said, we don’t really need to talk much about him.

And we made a state-of-the-art Barbie beauty salon with bathroom-sized Dixie cups and Popcicle sticks. I’m talking shampoo bowls (with neck cutouts), dryers, reception desk – the whole works. I think some salons are still basing their setup on our design …

One Easter, we added to the gang when I got a Honey West
doll, which I had begged for because Honey West was so pretty on her television show, with her blond bouffant and sassy beauty mark, and the doll I saw in the commercial
looked just as beautiful. But when the doll arrived in my Easter Basket, she didn’t look anything like the really Honey West or the doll I saw on TV. Sbe looked like a hawk. A mean one.

I cried and hid her in the toy box. But Pam, who was always very clever, dug Honey out of her toy grave, chopped off most of her hair into what she called the “Cockadoodledoo” style, a precursor of a punk cut (Pam was always ahead of her time) and we seamlessly transitioned her into a man doll since sometimes the girls needed a man around and Ken was, well, just not cutting it.

We dressed Honey in Ken’s clothes and, of course, he looked much better in them than Ken could ever hope to.

And that, my friends, is how Pam invented what may have been the very first trans doll.

And the Barbies and Midge and Skipper were totally cool with it because they weren’t jerks.

Not sure what Ken thought about it but I’m pretty sure we didn’t care.

Some folks have been calling for the Trump trials to be televised live, but not only don’t I think that will happen, I believe it’s for good reason.

The argument used to advocate for cameras in the courtroom is that people have a right to know what happens during the trial. And we do. But that doesn’t mean we have a right to watch the trial live on television. As with most federal trials, there will be full transparency: members of the public will be permitted in the courtroom, there will be comprehensive media coverage, and verbatim transcripts will be prepared and released.

This makes sense and is appropriate.

Because the bottom line is that the primary purpose of a criminal trial is to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence through due process. Broadcasting the trial to an international audience does nothing to advance that purpose. And it can often thwart it, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the defendant to receive a fair trial.

The public does have an interest in transparency and knowing what is happening in a trial, but the public’s interest does not outweigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The courts address the public’s right to know by making the proceedings open – as I noted, members of the public can attend, space allowing, the media reports to the broader public, and full verbatim transcripts are available. But the public doesn’t need to see the expressions on everyone’s face (which they wouldn’t see anyway with a camera in the courtroom and they likely would never even see Trump since the camera would likely be stationery and trained only on the witness box) or follow every objection and bench conference in order to know what’s happening in the trial.

Some, of course, will argue that this isn’t like any other trial and Trump.isn’t like any other defendant. This is true. But the fact that this case may be different doesn’t mean that due process should be thrown out the window because the case is bigger than normal or the public has a greater interest in this trial than it does for other court proceedings.

It’s interesting that whenever they think Trump isn’t being treated exactly as every other defendant is treated, people complain about how wrong it is for the rules not to apply to him and insist that he be treated just the same as everyone else. And yet, when it suits them, they want the federal courts to make a huge exception, turn the rules and law on their heads, and treat Trump very differently than everyone else.

Can’t have it both ways.

I think it’s highly unlikely that the federal courts will make an exception and allow any of Trump’s federal trials to be televised. And I don’t think it’s a good use of time to fret over it or to expend energy trying to get the courts to change their policy, since the courts aren’t going to revise federal rules in response to a letter writing campaign.

And frankly, even in they did, as a former trial lawyer, I can say with confidence, that most of the people who are pushing the hardest to get cameras in the courtroom would be the most disappointed by what they end up seeing, since federal criminal trials don’t look or sound anything like Law and Order.

I continue to urge everyone here to focus their energies on turning out the vote to ensure Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get the 270+ electoral votes they need to win a second term and keep Trump from ever getting near the levers of presidential power again.

Brian Baez shared an important observation today on Twitter:

“No doubt Ketanji Brown Jackson is a brilliant legal scholar. There is an art to carefully crafting language and creating persuasive lines of argumentation. She has been cited on all 3 majority opinions today. No other justice was. IMPACT.”

This is an outstanding example of the brilliance and power of this extraordinary jurist, whom President Biden elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

When Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated, I noted that the fact that she would be in the minority did not mean she would be without.a voice: one of the most important aspects of being an appellate court judge is the ability to educate and influence the other judges on your court. She is proving me correct.

Appellate court judges don’t decide cases in a vacuum. They listen to and are influenced by each other in many ways. Strong, passionate voices and principled, intelligent arguments can sometimes convince other judges to change their minds and change their votes.

My father, the late Nathaniel R. Jones, sat on the federal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for 23 years. His colleagues – liberals, conservatives, and moderates, alike – often spoke of the influence he had on them. Whether it was the questions he asked from the bench, points and arguments he made when discussing cases in conference, the opinions he drafted, the recommended edits he made to other judges’ draft opinions when they were circulated for review and comment, or conversations he had with them at lunch, in chambers, or just walking down the hall, he was always teaching them, helping them to see things through a different lens.

This wasn’t unique to my father. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor described how she was influenced by her own colleague, Justice Thurgood Marshall:

“Although all of us come to the Court with our own personal histories and experiences, Justice Marshall brought a special perspective. His was the eye of a lawyer who had seen the deepest wounds in the social fabric and used law to help heal them. His was the ear of a counselor who understood the vulnerabilities of the accused and established safeguards for their protection. His was the mouth of a man who knew the anguish of the silenced and gave them a voice. At oral argument and conference meetings, in opinions and dissents, Justice Marshall imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experi­ences, constantly pushing and prodding us to respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.”

I have no doubt that Justice Jackson is having the kind of impact on some of her fellow Supreme Court justices today that my late father and Justice Marshall had on their colleagues in their day.

I don’t think it’s mere happenstance that three of the Court’s staunchly conservative members – Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett – joined the majority today in rejecting the Independent State Legislature theory. And it wasn’t just a happy coincidence that, a few weeks ago, Roberts and Kavanaugh helped the liberals on the Court throw out Alabama’s racially discriminatory voting map.

Justice Jackson is a brilliant thinker and a superlative judge, whose legal analyses are always spot on and who expresses herself in writing and in speech with clarity and eloquence. She has no doubt earned the respect of her fellow justices and she has surely gotten the ear of at least a few of them.

Today’s triple play – being cited in three different cases – and the outcome in two recent critical cases suggests that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not only speaking truth in the quiet cloistered rooms of judicial power, but that she is being heard and heeded.