Judge (unspecified)

Yes, and as a sitting judge, I will tell you that it is not appropriate for a judicial nominee to engage in discussion regarding a matter of political controversy with that.

The qualified immunity doctrine is one that protects officers who are in executing their duties or have a reasonable basis for the actions that they're taking.

And it typically is something that courts decide at the outset to protect those officers from liability.

Senator, I'd like to engage on this hypothetical, but because it's a fact pattern that may come before me if I'm confirmed.

What I can tell you is the legal test, Senator, for qualified immunity, which is whether there was an objective basis.

No, Senator, these are typically in 1983 actions.

Again, I don't want to comment on a specific fact pattern.

I principally have practiced in civil law and haven't encountered that specific fact pattern.

But I would look at the developed body of precedent on qualified immunity and ask the question that I understand the Supreme Court has settled about whether there is an objective basis for the officer's actions.

Senator, I was asked to sign the letter.

It was indicated over a period of time.

And the reason why is because it wasn't simply a student protest that was occurring.

It was a protest that was resulting in violent conduct.

Senator, I've been told a lot that federal judges have a lot of power.

And you've said it, I think, in other hearings and contexts.

Yeah, they do.

But our power is limited.

It's significantly limited to the case or controversy before us.

We don't have the power of an executive.

We don't even have the power to change laws like you do as a legislator.