During a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley confronted Judge Julia Kobick, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The exchange, captured in a 2022 video, centered around Kobick’s past legal arguments that appeared to oppose the constitutional right to self-defense. Hawley wasted no time highlighting her involvement in a Supreme Court case where Kobick co-authored a brief against a woman who used a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend.
The Caetano Case Takes Center Stage
Senator Hawley focused his criticism on Caetano v. Massachusetts, a case where a domestic violence survivor, Jamie Caetano, used a stun gun to scare off her ex. Rather than being celebrated for de-escalating the situation, Caetano was charged under Massachusetts law. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where Kobick, then serving in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, co-authored a brief defending the state’s stun gun ban. Hawley called it an attack on a woman’s right to self-defense.
Hawley: “You Think She Shouldn’t Have Had the Right to Self-Defense?”
Hawley didn’t hold back. He painted a vivid picture of the incident: Caetano was smaller, outweighed by her abuser, and had already obtained restraining orders that failed. When the ex confronted her after work, she displayed the stun gun and warned him to back off. It worked. No violence occurred. Yet, Massachusetts law made her the criminal. “You think she shouldn’t have had the right to self-defense?” Hawley asked Kobick directly.
Kobick Dodges Accountability
In response, Kobick distanced herself from the decision to prosecute Caetano, saying it was made by the district attorney, not her office. But Hawley wasn’t interested in technicalities. He reminded her – and the committee – that she did argue in favor of upholding the conviction when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Kobick attempted to clarify that the argument she made was slightly different, focusing on the weapon not being “analogous” to founding-era arms. That, too, was shot down.
A Unanimous Rejection From the Supreme Court
Hawley pointed out that Kobick’s arguments were so weak that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t even bother to hold a full hearing. In a short per curiam opinion, the justices unanimously rejected her legal reasoning. “No dissent. No debate,” Hawley emphasized. “That’s not just a loss. That’s a rebuke.” Even the liberal justices joined in dismissing her view, undercutting any claims that her argument held legitimate legal ground.
Kobick’s Logic Doesn’t Hold Up
During the exchange, Hawley exposed a deeper contradiction in Kobick’s logic. He asked if she believed the First Amendment applied to the internet. Kobick agreed it did. So why then, he pressed, did she argue that modern weapons weren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they didn’t exist in 1791? The inconsistency was glaring – and intentional, Hawley seemed to suggest. It’s not about history. It’s about control.
Self-Defense Shouldn’t Be a Crime
What made the situation especially outrageous, Hawley argued, was that Caetano did everything right. She didn’t fire the stun gun. She didn’t provoke her attacker. She simply showed that she could defend herself. That alone was enough to stop the threat. Hawley noted that if self-defense in that form is criminalized, “what are women supposed to do?” His point was that under Kobick’s worldview, people, especially vulnerable women, are better off disarmed and dependent on a system that had already failed them.
A Legal Strategy Rooted in Activism
Hawley warned that Kobick’s nomination to the federal bench is a symptom of a larger pattern: progressive legal activism cloaked in constitutional language. He accused her of pushing arguments that were “manifestly an injustice” and questioned how someone with ethical duties to the court could advance claims already rejected by the Supreme Court. “Your duty is not to make frivolous arguments,” he said sharply.
Kobick’s Defense Falls Flat
Kobick maintained that she was simply representing the Commonwealth and fulfilling her role as assistant attorney general. She said she was obligated to argue the state’s position, even if the Supreme Court disagreed. But Hawley wasn’t satisfied. “You didn’t get a single vote,” he reminded her. The implication: if a nominee’s most visible legal work ends in a unanimous Supreme Court smackdown, how can she be trusted to interpret the Constitution fairly from the bench?
The Real Danger Is Ideological Justice
What’s troubling here isn’t just the case – it’s the mindset. Kobick’s legal argument boiled down to “if it didn’t exist in 1791, it’s not protected,” unless, of course, it’s something progressives support like internet speech. That double standard reveals something Hawley was quick to call out: this isn’t a debate about history. It’s a battle over control. And when that control comes at the expense of someone like Jamie Caetano, it stops being about law and starts being about ideology.
Disarming Victims Is Not Progressive – It’s Cruel
The most haunting part of this hearing is how little empathy Kobick showed for the actual person harmed by the law she defended. Caetano was nearly killed by her ex. She tried every legal remedy – restraining orders, police reports – and they failed. Her final act of self-defense involved nothing more than a warning and a legal non-lethal device. For that, she was prosecuted. That should chill anyone who believes in basic human rights. Kobick might have been doing her job, but the fact that she chose that argument speaks volumes about her priorities.
A Warning for Future Judicial Nominations
Hawley’s cross-examination of Julia Kobick is more than just a political clash – it’s a wake-up call. Judicial nominees should be held to the highest standards, especially when it comes to protecting constitutional rights. If a person’s legal philosophy repeatedly lands on the side of the government against individual liberty, that’s a red flag. Kobick’s nomination should make Americans think twice about what kind of judges are being placed on the bench – and what kind of rights they’ll be willing to strip away in the name of “public safety.”
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.