♪ >> Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

The South Carolina Senate has passed major legislation, this session, including a major tax cut and a government restructuring bill among others.

Majority Leader Shane Massey a Republican from Aiken county joins me to discuss these bills and what's to come as we get closer to the end of session, and the United States Senate held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

We talked with University of South Carolina political science professor, Jessica Schoenherr, about this historic nomination.

But first, more from this week.

All eyes were on the US Senate Judiciary Committee for the historic confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court, committee member Senator Lindsey Graham revisited past grievances Republican nominees endured and vented about how his preferred pick, Judge Michelle Childs of South Carolina was snubbed, he said due to attacks from left wing groups.

>> Could you fairly judge a Catholic?

>> Senator, I have a record of really.. >> I think the answer would be yes.

>> - judging everyone.

>> I believe you can.

I'm just asking this question because how important is your faith to you?

>> Senator, personally?

My faith is very important.

But as you know, there's no religious test in the Constitution under Article Six and, >> there will be none with me.

>> And it's very important to set aside one's personal views, >> Yeah.

>> -About things in the role of a judge.

>> I couldn't agree with you more and I believe you can.

You didn't know that all those people were declaring war on Judge Childs?

>> Senator, I did not.

>> Okay.

Well, no, I'm not saying you did.

You said you didn't know I'll take you at your word.

But I am saying that what is your judicial philosophy?

>> So I have a methodology that I use in my cases in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that Graham>> - so your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially?

>> No, my judicial philosophy is to rule impartially and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge.

And so my methodology actually helps me to do that in every case.

>> So you wouldn't say that you're an activist judge?

>> I would not say that.

>> Okay.

Gavin>> Democrats like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, noted the historic nature of her nomination.

Booker>> And I want to tell you when I look at you this is why I get emotional.

I'm sorry you're... a person that is so much more than your race and gender you are a Christian.

You're a mom.

You're an intellect.

You love books, but for me, I'm sorry, I It's hard for me not to look at you and not see my mom.

Not to see my cousins, one of them, who had to come here and sit behind you.

She had to be.

She had to have your back.

I see my ancestors and yours.

Nobody's going to steal the joy of that woman in the street, or the calls that I'm getting or the texts.

Nobody's gonna steal that joy.

You have earned this spot You are worthy.

You are a great American.

Gavin: Now to recap the historic confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is University of South Carolina political science professor, Dr. Jessica Schoenherr Professor Schoenherr, thanks for joining us.

>> Thanks for having me.

Gavin: So, professor, you got your PhD in political science, but you focused on the Supreme Court and your dissertation.

So you have a lot of knowledge of the court.

And I know you were closely watching this confirmation hearing this week.

First, just tell us about how historic this moment was to watch in real life.

>> This is a huge moment for the Supreme Court.

So of the 117 people that have served on the court, almost all of them have been White.

Judge Jackson would be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

And as I think Senator Booker put very nicely last night.

This is huge.

This is important for a lot of people.

And in fact, it's really important for the institution of the court itself because people trust the court more when they see someone like them on the court.

Gavin: And yeah, she'd be I think the sixth woman confirmed, if confirmed on the court, for which joining four others on the court if she was on there at the same time too.

Jessica>> first time with that many women on the court.

That's outstanding.

Gavin: So obviously a very historic moment in the country.

We heard Joe Biden obviously pledge to put a Black woman on the court.

He made that promise after the Charleston, right after the Charleston debate here, or during the Charleston debate, I should say, so really a big historic moment.

But there were a lot of tense moments as well, during these hearings.

What were some of the big moments that stood out to you during these two days of questions with senators and Judge Jackson.

Jessica>> So there were one of the things that's really important to note about the committee, right now is there are a lot of people who are probably going to run for president that are on it, and we saw this behavior of people kind of showing how they would pick justices and what they're looking for during the Trump administration.

Now we're seeing it with the Biden administration, as well.

There were a lot of talks about Judge Jackson's time as a district court judge about her rulings with the sentencing Commission's.

So, Senators Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, and Graham hit on that yesterday.

There were also some moments to give her time to respond to those comments.

So - especially the conversation when Cruz got very heated.

The chair of the committee got involved at one point because he said Cruz wasn't letting her answer the questions, and what ended up happening is, after these heated moments with the Republicans, the Democrats are coming back in and then giving her a lot more space to answer these questions.

So you had this very heated dynamic, and then people trying to pull it back down.

And Senator Ben Sasse, from Nebraska actually called out some of his colleagues when he was talking with Judge Jackson and said, basically, they're doing this for the TV.

And we understand that, and I'm sorry that you have to go through this right now.

Gavin: Yeah, so a lot of grandstanding, we would say.

And also, it's interesting to see who gets the airtime and we're obviously talking a lot about these comments in these moments.

How do you think Judge Jackson handled these interruptions, the rude questioning even the lecturing at moments?

Jessica>> I wish I was that poised when I was getting lectured.

She was phenomenal.

She answered the questions so calmly.

I think she also did a very good job of defending her own record, repeatedly pointing out that they're talking about nine cases out of 500.

Some of them she decided.

She also was incredibly knowledgeable, right, and we saw this with Amy Coney Barrett as well.

These just very smart people up there ...giving you a master class in constitutional law.

So, if you really kind of listen to the content.

I know, I'm making some of my students listen today to some of the stuff about unenumerated rights.

Gavin: And so when we, when we see how they I guess handled stress under fire, do you think that's really where we learn most about these candidates?

Is how they handle these barrage of questions, or do you think maybe we also learn a little bit about how to answer them?

Or do you think it's already kind of "the cake's already "baked" in a sense?

Jessica: I think it's interesting, because the Supreme Court doesn't do anything quickly.

So these confirmation hearings, which serve a very real purpose in terms of letting the public know who these people are, also don't show us a lot about judging, because judging is slow and involves research and a lot of help, and you're having these people answer on the fly without their books and without their notes.

But it does kind of give us a read for who they are and kind of how they would do in a in a conversation or a fight, I guess, which the Court has occasionally so insight maybe into how she'd work with her colleagues.

Gavin: So, Professor, you know, one question that caught a lot of people a lot of Republicans were kind of heated about was when she was asked about if she could provide a definition about, you know, what a woman is?

Are these just kind of traps?

I mean obviously anyone can give any number of definitions, but I feel like, you'd never have the correct definition of what a woman is in for anyone at some point.

So is that something judges typically, you know, they'd make judge decisions.

They don't make the - they don't come up with these things on their own essentially.

Jessica: Yeah, so they work within the terms of the law.

I think part of what they're getting with some of these questions, is just broad concern about quote unquote, activist judges, but at the same time, you can think about how Neil Gorsuch didn't get these types of questions, and he wrote an opinion that upheld trans protections in the workplace.

So these questions aren't completely out of left field or unsurprising, but they are traps.

I think you're right.

Gavin: And going to Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on that committee.

He was chairman of that committee during a Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings.

He's been through a lot he's seen a lot, especially during the Trump years with Brett Kavanaugh going through the confirmation hearing process on that committee.

He really kind of brought up a lot of those past grievances he felt that Democrats rendered against those nominees.

And at times, even, you know, interrupting Judge Jackson when she's trying to talk about a multitude of issues, whether it's Guantanamo Bay or if it's sentencing - sentences that she's handed down.

What did you hear from Senator Graham?

What stood out the most?

Do you think it was just grandstanding?

Jessica> Some of it was I think also, Senator Graham is genuinely upset that his friend wasn't nominated to the court.

So J. Michelle Childs was one of the potential nominees, obviously had his backing.

He said that she would have passed with 60 votes, which seems very unlikely in this situation.

So you know, just kind of reminding people that there are other things out there.

And Lindsey Graham is just a bit of a renegade on that committee.

He...voted for both of President Obama's nominees.

He obviously voted for all three of Trumps.

And he voted for Judge Jackson to join the DC Circuit.

So, he was one of the three or Republicans who moved over.

He's just a very interesting person on that committee.

And his questions yesterday, I think, or at least partially, I was reading an article earlier that just kind of said, him laying out a lot of grievances over the way that the procedures have worked over the last couple of years.

Gavin: So that being said, Professor, do you think that he might still support Judge Jackson here?

Like you said, he's supported her in the past for other federal appointments?

Do you think it's going to come down to him saying, you know, the radical leftists dark money have supported Judge Jackson over Judge Childs and that might be a reason why he's not going to vote for her.

How do you kind of read how he's been acting this weekend?

How he might potentially vote?

Jessica>> I mean, so you just said exactly kind of what he's been saying, which is like she was selected by the radical left, it seems like he's probably not going to vote for her again, would be the inclination.

Again, we never know sometimes with Senator Graham, but there are other Republicans who have indicated they might be willing to vote for her.

They met with her.

Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Shelley Moore Capito have also suggested that they are at least evaluating voting for her.

Gavin: Gotcha.

So with about two minutes left, I mean, just looking at this week in a hole, and just looking at previous confirmation hearings for some candidates, some nominees there to the court.

Is there a better way to do this?

I mean, I get that the Constitution affords the Senate this right, but do we...learn anything?

This is just getting worse?

In your opinion, how do you read this?

Can we improve this somehow?

>> So one thing that we do get out of this is you get to see the nominee, because you're not really going to get to know these justices particularly well, once they're on the bench.

The court is a notoriously private institution, aside from them doing some interviews, you don't really get an idea of who they are.

So it's really important, I think, for understanding and trusting that these people are there.

So they do serve a purpose.

There's a lot going on with the TV.

With the TV being in those hearings since the 1980s.

It's fundamentally changed the way that these hearings operate.

They're very different from Byron White in the 60s, when it was 20 minutes about his football career, and congratulations, you're a Supreme Court Justice.

Right?

There.

I'm sure that they're talking about ways to maybe change the process, but also the senators on the Judiciary Committee benefit from this TV time and from the attention that they're getting, so I don't know if it'll ever change.

Gavin>> ...Professor, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on April 4 then we expect the full Senate to vote on the 11th.

Anything we should be watching for, with 30 seconds left?

Jessica>> Give or take, watch to see if it is a purely partisan vote.

So,Amy Coney Barrett was the first nominee confirmed that way.

We might see another one and then we'd get a historic tiebreaker with the vice president coming in to break the 5050 split.

Gavin: Gotcha.

A lot to watch there.

We thank you USC political science professor Jessica Schoenherr for joining us.

Jessica>> Thank you for having me.

Gavin>> Joining me now to discuss the legislative session in the Senate is Senate Majority Leader, Shane Massey.

Senator Massey, thanks for joining us.

Thanks, Gavin.

So Senator Massey, it's been a very busy year for y'all in the Senate.

A lot of big things have been moving, especially this big tax cut bill, this $2 billion tax cut and rebate bill, I want to ask you about just how we can afford such a big bill, and how do you mesh it with what the House has passed, which is a $600 billion version of this without the rebate?

How do you guys see those two colliding?

I guess?

Sen. Massey>> Well, first as to how we can afford it.

Look, South Carolina has been doing really well.

Our economy has been on fire.

South Carolinians have been working hard.

They've been making money and they've been spending money, and the result of that is there's a lot of tax revenue coming into the state.

And if the economy is performing that, well, if we have that much additional money than what you would expect to have, then it's more than reasonable that we returned some of that money to the people who've worked hard to give it to us, to give it to the state as a whole.

So there is a little bit of a difference right now between what the House has proposed and what the Senate has proposed, but I think we'll get there.

I think we'll end up with a...good agreement, but look, we're talking about a significant tax cut here and of course with the Senate side, there's also a pretty good rebate, as well.

So this is going to be a good year in South Carolina.

Gavin: Do you have any idea sir at this point, when we might see a conference committee when we see the two sides kind of deal with those both of those bills.

I know they're still working through the respective chambers, but any idea, especially as we get closer towards the end of session?

Sen. Massey>> Yeah, the House has been on break this week.

So there'll be back next week.

And they can take, take their action on the bill that we just sent to them that the tax cut bill that the Senate passed, and then I would expect that you're going to see a conference committee working on that probably in the next couple of weeks.

Gavin: But the long and the short of it is at least at a minimum, there will be a $600 million tax cut, or upwards of $2 billion.

So, at the end, South Carolinians will see some sort of tax relief this year.

Sen. Massey>> Absolutely.

We can't go without tax relief, considering the amount of money that we have.

Gavin>>And speaking of that money, sir, we just saw a $14 billion budget be passed by the House in a day, which is a record.

I know you guys are over in the Senate, but in the House, that's big news.

I don't know if you've seen the budget, what they've passed in it, but do you have any idea about how that might work with what's going on the Senate right now?

I know you guys are crafting your bill.

You have that bill in the Senate?

Any idea if that's going to be drastically different than what the House has passed?

>>Well, I think it's going to take longer than a day.

We typically have a little more debate, and a few more questions.

So, it's going to be a little bit of a longer process.

The finance committee is working on it now.

They're, getting close to finishing up the subcommittee work.

I expect that the full Senate finance committee is going to take up the budget probably the week after next, which will really set the Senate in stage where the Senate is headed on the budget.

I think it'll be very similar, but there's also going to be some differences.

They're always are, but we'll get that debate done.

Hopefully, we'll have a budget passed on the Senate side before the end of April.

Gavin>> that's just one aspect of just a multitude of money going through the Statehouse this year.

We're seeing the budget right there with it huge surpluses of billions of dollars.

But then we also have the American Rescue Plan Act money that's been approved by both chambers, too.

We need to see where that's going to go, and also Savannah River Site settlement money, half a billion dollars there.

Those bills are also still pending.

When are we going to see those get to the governor's desk.

Sen. Massey>> Yeah, the Senate passed the Savannah River site settlement money and the American Rescue Act funds separately from the budget.

We did that earlier in the year, and then...the House, put the Savannah River settlement funds money in their version of the budget.

So there's probably going to be some negotiations that go along with that, I'm hoping we can get the final agreement on the Rescue Act money, so we can get that to the governor's desk soon.

But I'm expecting that when the House comes back into session next week, that there's going to be a lot more activity to try to move forward on some of those things.

So hopefully, we'll see some of those things go into Governor McMaster within the next few weeks.

Gavin:...Senator Massey, when we talk about all that money coming through the state.

What's your reaction to that?

I mean, something we've never really seen before, we're talking about, you know, billions of dollars.

How do you describe that money, what it can do for the state?

Sen. Massey>> It's crazy money man, with the money that has come from the settlement down from the federal government, and then also we just because of how well our economy has been performing, this really is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we have.

So I think you're going to see a lot of investments in some areas that have been neglected for a long time, but you're also going to see, because there's so much money there that we're going to be able to cut taxes and return a lot of that money to the taxpayer, because the forecasts, the economic outlook for South Carolina is very strong going forward.

So we feel comfortable based on those outlooks and reducing our tax rates, which will also help make us more competitive going forward with some of our neighboring states.

South Carolina, as you know, I'm not sure if all your viewers know, but South Carolina has the highest marginal tax rates in the southeast.

So those kinds of things that sticker price on the tax rates are something that does have an effect on our competitiveness.

Hopefully, we can fix that and move forward, but we also have enough money there that we're going to be able to make investments in critical areas, roads and bridges, other infrastructure, things that have been neglected for a long time.

I think we're going to be able to make some changes this year with that money that's going to affect South Carolina for a really long time.

Gavin: Yeah, roads and bridges, infrastructure, broadband, and the like.

A lot to see there, but let's switch gears to what you guys are debating right now in the Senate.

There's a bill dealing with education scholarship accounts.

What is this bill about?

What's it do, and is it similar to some other bills in the past that Republicans have been pushing to maybe, you know, privatize public education in some regard?

Sen. Massey>> Well, what this does is it gives a limited number of scholarships to, poor children and children with disabilities.

This bill really is focused on additional educational opportunities for poor kids and kids with disabilities.

It is not something that wealthy parents are going to be able to take advantage of.

This is not something to try to reward people who have left the public school system and are already in the private school system.

It doesn't do that at all.

It's talking about additional opportunities for poor kids and kids with disabilities, and it provides a cap of up to 15,000 students per year to take advantage of it after it's fully phased in.

We have 750,000 children in our public school system, 15,000 would be able to take advantage of this for now.

We'll see how that works out.

But they could use it to go to you mentioned a private school, that would be an option.

They could also use it for tutoring.

They can use it for transportation services.

They could use it to go to a public school in a different school district for which there is a cost associated they could use it for computer equipment.

Things that are education related.

So there are lots of opportunities here, that especially children with disabilities and children who live in families that don't have the financial means will be able to take advantage of to increase educational opportunities.

That's our goal.

Gavin>> and Senator Massey, another controversial, but we saw move this week was the Save Women's Sports Act.

That went through the Senate Education Committee this week.

You sit on that committee, you were there for that debate.

This is the furthest this bill has gone in either chamber.

The house has been debating a similar measure for this year, and last year, as well, had still stuck in committee this year.

What's the need for this bill?

Kind of explain this bill, in terms of you know, why the caucus is supporting this?

You know, obviously, it's about a very controversial topic, when we're talking about trans athletes, students, you know, ...participating on teams, that they're different from the sex they were assigned at their birth, and that being kind of controversial.

What's the need for this bill, and what's behind this?

Sen. Massey>> So, the bills had a good bit of work so far, it probably still needs a little bit more work before we take it up for debate on the Senate, but I am hopeful that we're going to take it up.

This is something that a number of members of our caucus are very interested in.

And they're interested in it, Gavin, because we've been hearing about this issue a lot from constituents of South Carolina.

There's been some national attention related to biological men participating in women's sports, and there's a real concern out there about this is just not fair, and so there's a concern about what kind of an impact this will have in the long run on women and girls being able to participate in athletic competition.

So, there's a lot of interest out there, and that interest is coming from the constituency.

This isn't something that legislators are deciding we need to do, because this is a great idea, we have.

This is really in response to public input, but I do think there's some more work that needs to be done.

We need to make sure that we get it right, but I'm hopeful we'll be able to get there.

>>...sir, we already have seen like the South Carolina High School League implemented application process dealing with this same issue back in 2016, and since then, only four students have gone through that application process to play on an opposing sports team than their gender assigned at birth.

So, is that still - do you not see that being sufficient enough at this point?

Sen. Massey>>...you're right, the high school league does have a process.

Fortunately, they only had to use that process just a few times, but what we're seeing across the country is it does seem to be getting more and more of an issue.

You see that in more states.

It's becoming more of a national issue.

What you anticipate is, it's going to become a larger issue in South Carolina.

So whereas the high school league may have had just four applicants so far, we expect that number is going to increase, we expect there will be people who try to take advantage of the process.

So that's why you're getting a lot of public input on this issue, and that's what's leading to legislative action.

Gavin: And Senator, we have also seen a lot of input, too on the Hate Crimes Bill, a bill that we saw pass through the House as well.

We're only one of two states that doesn't have one, talking about states that are pushing bills and the like.

How do you see that meshing with that?

I know it's on the Senate counter.

It's gone through Senate Judiciary.

It went through last year, late last year?

Do you see that coming up at all?

I know Republican senators have objected to it.

What's going on there, and do you see that moving at any point?

Sen. Massey>> I think it's unlikely.

Anything's possible, but I think it's unlikely.

I mean, there's significant opposition, and I don't know that there's as much support for that as some of the advocates and proponents would lead others to believe.

So I think that one's going to have a very, very steep uphill climb in the Senate.

Gavin:...we have about a minute left, sir, I want to ask you just about some leadership changes that have happened in the Senate.

We saw the longest serving Senator Hugh Leatherman who died last November, he was over the Senate Finance Committee serving in the chamber for some 40 years.

You two had butted heads at some times everyone does in politics, but I'm wondering how things have changed in this chamber.

You know, starting the...second year of the two year session this year in January?

Up until now, how do you think things have changed with the leadership changes that we've seen?

Sen. Massey>> It's definitely been different.

Senator Leatherman was a presence.

He was almost an institution in itself and he had...a lot of experience when it relates to budgetary issues because he'd been doing that for so long.

So having that, hole to fill and it was a big hole to fill, that has had an impact.

Things have run differently, but I got to give it to Harvey Peeler.

I mean, he has really stepped up.

He stepped up on short notice.

He stepped up in a very tough year with all this extra money.

Sometimes in budgeting it's easier to budget when you don't have as much money.

You got to say no, a lot when you do have a lot of money, but Senator Peeler has done a great job with that.

Senator Alexander from Oconee County has taken over as president.

He's done a tremendous job in leading the body.

We've been fortunate that we had a strong bench that people stepped up and took on these positions that opened up, but we do miss Senator Leatherman.

Gavin>>...Senator really quick, any idea any bills that you can probably tell us what we see move through.

Obviously the Senate is going to be debating the budget, later in April.

That takes a lot of time, and then before you know it sine die here, the second week of May, anything we should be watching for.

Sen. Massey>> Yeah, well, hopefully we'll finish up the education scholarship accounts in the next few days.

I think you'll see before the end of the session, the Senate's going to take up some election law issues.

The House has tackled a couple things.

We're working on that.

We're probably going to have some subcommittee and committee meetings, soon, but I expect you'll see that coming up in the next several weeks, as well.

Gavin: Talking about that election integrity bill that passed unanimously from the House.

So that should be interesting to see some debate right there.

Thank you, as always, Senator Shane Massey.

He's the Senate Majority Leader over in the South Carolina Senate.

Thank you, sir.

Sen. Massey>> Thanks Gavin.

Gavin>> For South Carolina ETV.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina.

♪ closing music ♪ ♪