“Don’t Make Me Do This”: Biden Nominee Utterly Speechless After Hawley Goes Nuclear

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) pressed a Biden judicial nominee during a June 2023 Senate Judiciary hearing on the strict scrutiny test outcome in a COVID religious liberty case the nominee had defended as a city attorney. As the nominee retreated to legalese — “the court concluded that there were restrictions that were not neutral of general applicability” — Hawley pushed for plain-English engagement with the facts: “That’s legalese. Why didn’t they on the facts? You know the facts. You were a good lawyer. Why’d you lose?” When the nominee pleaded “Senator oh come on judge don’t make me do this,” Hawley pressed: “Do you want me to go through it for you? You lost because…”

The Strict Scrutiny Question

Hawley framing: “Strict scrutiny apply how did that case go for you?”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned legal standard.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The We Lost That Case

Nominee framing: “We lost that case.”
Editorial reach: The framing acknowledged loss.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Did Not Meet Standard

Nominee framing: “It was found that the restrictions did not meet the standard of strict scrutiny meaning they were unconstitutional.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned constitutional finding.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Did Not Survive

Nominee framing: “Meaning that they did not survive strict scrutiny.”
Editorial reach: The framing reiterated finding.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Did Not Appeal

Nominee framing: “It’s a matter of public record that the District of Columbia did not appeal that decision.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned procedural acceptance.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Why Struck Down

Hawley framing: “Why why why were they struck down?”
Editorial reach: The framing dramatized escalation.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Why Discriminatory

Hawley framing: “Why were the restrictions that you defended struck down as discriminatory? Why were they?”
Editorial reach: The framing pressed for substantive answer.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Not Neutral General Applicability

Nominee framing: “The court concluded that there were restrictions that were not neutral of general applicability.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned legal terminology.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Legalese Critique

Hawley framing: “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s legalese.”
Editorial reach: The framing dramatized witness avoidance.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Why On The Facts

Hawley framing: “Why didn’t they on the facts? You know the facts. You were a good lawyer. Why’d you lose?”
Editorial reach: The framing pressed for plain answer.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Narrowly Tailored Reference

Nominee framing: “We lost because applying the strict scrutiny test the court concluded that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored because of a compelling governmental interest.”
Editorial reach: The framing positioned legal terminology.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Don’t Make Me Do This

Nominee framing: “Senator oh come on judge don’t make me do this.”
Editorial reach: The framing dramatized witness plea.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Go Through It For You

Hawley framing: “Do you want me to go through it for you? You lost because…”
Editorial reach: The framing escalated the questioning.
Hearing record: The framing is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The framing fed broader debates.
Long arc: The framing remained central to coverage.

The Strict Scrutiny Doctrine

Editorial reach: Strict scrutiny is the highest constitutional standard.
Hearing record: The strict scrutiny doctrine context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Strict scrutiny continued through 2024.
Long arc: Strict scrutiny shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: Strict scrutiny fed broader debates.

The Neutral General Applicability

Editorial reach: Neutral and generally applicable laws are central to religious liberty doctrine.
Hearing record: The doctrine context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The doctrine continued through 2024.
Long arc: The doctrine shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: The doctrine fed broader debates.

The Narrow Tailoring Layer

Editorial reach: Narrow tailoring is a strict scrutiny prong.
Hearing record: The narrow tailoring context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Narrow tailoring continued through 2024.
Long arc: Narrow tailoring shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: Narrow tailoring fed broader debates.

The Compelling Interest Layer

Editorial reach: Compelling governmental interest is a strict scrutiny prong.
Hearing record: The compelling interest context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Compelling interest continued through 2024.
Long arc: Compelling interest shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: Compelling interest fed broader debates.

The COVID Litigation Layer

Editorial reach: COVID litigation reached the Supreme Court multiple times.
Hearing record: The COVID litigation context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: COVID litigation continued through 2024.
Long arc: COVID litigation shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: COVID litigation fed broader debates.

The Hawley Public Posture

Senate role: Hawley held Senate Judiciary role.
Editorial reach: Hawley’s posture shaped Republican critique.
Hearing record: Hawley’s posture is now in the formal record.
Long arc: Hawley continued to be central through 2024.
Long arc: Hawley shaped subsequent debates.

The Republican Critique

Editorial reach: Republicans cite Biden nominee on religious liberty.
Hearing record: The Republican critique context is now in the formal record.
Long arc: The critique continued through 2024.
Long arc: The critique shaped subsequent debates.
Long arc: The critique fed broader debates.

The Public Communication Layer

Soundbite design: The exchange was structured for clip distribution.
Documentary value: The hearing record now contains a clean Hawley framing.
Media uptake: The clip moved on conservative media as a Republican response argument.
Audience targeting: Hawley’s style is built for retail political distribution.
Long arc: The framing remained central to Republican messaging through 2024.

The 2024 Implications

Election positioning: Both parties used judicial nominees for 2024 positioning.
Religious liberty: Religious liberty shapes Senate races.
Long arc: The episode will shape religious liberty debates through 2024 and beyond.
Hearing legacy: The hearing record will be cited in future judicial nominee debates.
Long arc: The framing remains in circulation.

Key Takeaways

Hawley pressed Biden nominee on COVID religious liberty case loss.
Nominee acknowledged restrictions failed strict scrutiny.
Hawley pushed back against legalese with “you know the facts” challenge.
Nominee pleaded “judge don’t make me do this.”
Hawley offered to walk through the reasoning himself.
The exchange dramatized witness avoidance under questioning.

Transcript Highlights

The following quotations are drawn from an AI-generated Whisper transcript of the hearing and should be considered unverified pending official transcript release.

“Strict scrutiny apply how did that case go for you?” — Hawley
“We lost that case” — nominee
“It was found that the restrictions did not meet the standard of strict scrutiny meaning they were unconstitutional” — nominee
“Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s legalese. Why didn’t they on the facts? You know the facts. You were a good lawyer. Why’d you lose?” — Hawley
“Senator oh come on judge don’t make me do this” — nominee
“Do you want me to go through it for you? You lost because…” — Hawley

Full transcript: 179 words transcribed via Whisper AI.