[MUSIC PLAYING]
Was there a moment for either of you where you felt like it might not get done?
Oh, no. I had complete confidence because Pia was keeping me organized. So she might have wondered whether the faculty was going to get it done, because faculty members are much less reliable than librarians.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
You are listening to WREK Atlanta, and this is Lost in the Stacks, the research library rock and roll radio show. I'm Charlie Bennett, in the studio with Fred Rascoe and Marlee Givens. Each week on Lost in the Stacks, we pick a theme and then use it to create a mix of music and library talk. Whichever you're here for, we hope you dig it.
And our show today is called "The SCOTUS Backgrounders." CHARLIE BENNETT: Fred, that sounds a little bit like the title of a BBC documentary about an old European sport that has died. Can you give a little more explanation for your title? Sure, of course. SCOTUS like POTUS AOTUS is a shorthand for an entity in the government of the United States. President Of The United States, POTUS, P-O-T-U-S. Archivist Of The United States, AOTUS. And Supreme Court Of The United States, SCOTUS.
My favorite one of those is FLOTUS.
And backgrounders are the two players who are allowed to catch the square rock. CHARLIE BENNETT: Oh, come on, man.
[LAUGHS]
Nah.
All right. Nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice is an incredibly difficult process. There's the political grievances that are aired and the grandstanding, of course.
So much grandstanding.
And the endless, endless, endless streams of news content, on social media, online, on TV.
But in the background, there are hours and hours of work put in to move the process along behind the curtain, out of the spotlight. For example, finding and reviewing every single publication ever written by a Supreme Court nominee.
During the nomination process of the most recent addition to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, librarians and law faculty members rolled up their sleeves in secret to gather up every word that she ever wrote and made publicly available. Thus, the backgrounders.
Today, we'll get to talk to two of those who confidentially coordinated a complete research report to be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Jackson's nomination process.
And our songs today are about searching high and low, working in secret, and closely examining the law. A Supreme Court judge has a huge impact on all our lives, and they serve for life, so it's important to get all the facts about the nominee so that everyone knows who they are. So let's start with "Who You Is" by Robyn Hitchcock right here on Lost in the Stacks.
That rock is not square.
[ROBYN HITCHCOCK, "WHAT YOU IS"]
That was "Who You Is" by Robyn Hitchcock, and this is Lost in the Stacks. Our show today is about librarians doing background research for a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the Supreme Court nomination process for Ketanji Brown Jackson.
OK, there's a lot of moving parts there, Fred. So I think we need to set the stage behind this curtain before we turn on the spotlight to what's going on.
OK. So the University of Illinois was one of two law schools that were selected to do the confidential background work, checking the record of Judge Jackson when she was still a nominee. Illinois law school faculty and librarians-- University of Illinois Law School faculty and librarians were essential in getting this work done quickly and thoroughly.
And we have two of those guests with us today, Jason Mazzone Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, and Pia Hunter, Research and Instruction Librarian at the University of Illinois Law Library.
Before we even ask them how they did it, we started by asking them if they had ever imagined that their respective careers would lead them to a project with such a high profile, with such high stakes for a facet of our government that affects all of us. Jason Mazzone answers first.
I had not really thought about ever being asked to do it, in part because I've always watched the confirmation hearings. I've always paid a lot of attention to the process. But it always seemed remote from me. But it never quite occurred to me that we might be asked here at the University of Illinois to play a role. So it came out of nowhere. It was a surprise. And as I said, we didn't have much time to do it, so we just-- we hit the ground running.
We didn't have a lot of time to think about it. And I think it's only in retrospect-- and here we are more than a year later, talking to you-- in retrospect that we can appreciate how unusual this was.
So the nomination, Ketanji Brown Jackson, comes through. What happens? Who contacts the University of Illinois? Who's the person that decides, I want folks from the University of Illinois to do some research onto everything that Justice Jackson has written?
OK. So the American Bar Association has a standing committee on the Federal Judiciary, and that's the entity that we were working with. It has-- I think I think since the early 1950s, it has evaluated and rated for the Senate Judiciary Committee all federal judicial nominees. With respect to Supreme Court nominees, the standing committee's scrutiny is especially painstaking, time-consuming, extensive. You don't want to make a mistake.
And as part of that process in evaluating Supreme Court nominees, the standing committee invites two law schools to read everything that the nominee has ever written. Typically, the nominee's someone who has been a lower court judge, and so this means you're reading a bunch of judicial opinions. And so the standing committee last spring reached out to the University of Illinois. Ann Claire Williams, who is a former federal judge, retired federal circuit judge, chairs that committee.
She contacted the Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, Vik Amar, a former dean now. Asked him if the law school could help with this. And simultaneously contacted Stanford Law School. So you have one private, one public law school. One West Coast, one middle America law school. And of course, we said yes. You don't say no to something like that. And Dean Amar immediately started assembling a team to do this.
We started-- we started working, bringing-- identifying faculty members who could read sets of opinions by then Judge Jackson, write evaluations. And then at the end of the process, Vik Amar and I had to prepare an overall report that was then transmitted to the American Bar Association Standing Committee. And this is all in a very compressed time period. So Judge-- then Judge Jackson was nominated on February 25 of 2022. We were immediately contacted to begin the process.
We started, I think, that afternoon. We had to have our report in the hands of the ABA standing committee by close of business March 14. So a little more than two weeks to work our way through 250 or more opinions by Judge Jackson, set of other writings as well. So there wasn't really a lot of time to do anything except get immediately to work. And simultaneously, Stanford had members of its faculty doing the same thing.
We all worked in secret, and this was another sort of interesting feature of this. So one of the first things that Ann Williams, who chairs this process, told us was that we weren't allowed to tell anybody that we were doing this. And when we invited members of our own faculty to participate in the process, we were to tell them that they weren't allowed to tell anybody they were doing it. Don't tell your spouse, your family members.
You're not even allowed to tell anyone else on the faculty that you're doing it. So we had all of these individual people in the law school building who suddenly are working behind closed doors, late at night. Have to cancel dinner plans, and so on, without anybody actually knowing who else was involved in the process. And that was really to make sure that all of the evaluations you get are completely independent. So it was an intensive, time-compressed, and secretive process.
So that's essentially how things came about. CHARLIE BENNETT: The end of February sounds like the middle of the semester. Was everyone teaching? JASON MAZZONE: Everyone was teaching, and we were about to hit Spring Break, I think, too.
We were about to hit Spring Break. And one interesting fact is that the rest of my colleagues in the law school, including Jason and Dean Amar, did the actual reading of the content. But we were aware before February 25 when the announcement was coming that we were going to be doing this work. We had a week's notice, I believe. So there were some names on the short list.
So prior to researching then Judge Jackson, now Justice Jackson, we researched three or four other candidates as well and started gathering background information on them in the event that it was one of the other nominees. We had a pretty good-- we were right in our suspicions that it would be Justice Jackson, but we had to do some legwork because we did not want to be completely caught off guard in the event that it wasn't.
CHARLIE BENNETT: So you're saying the library knew more than the faculty in this case about the project?
I mean, I cannot emphasize enough how essential to getting this work done, Pia's leadership and her collaboration, both with members of our library and also with the people at Stanford was in terms of being able to get the work done within this two-week time frame. So Pia and her team had to track down, identify all of the cases. But then they had to organize the cases. So we wanted to assign the cases to faculty experts.
And so somebody had to sort through this huge body of work and categorize the cases so that we could then assign them more or less evenly in numbers to members of our own faculty. And that was a lot of work, but it had to be done quickly because nobody could get started until the cases were identified, categorized, and then actually available.
Pia can talk more about just the incredible logistical work that she did on her end before any of us as faculty members could turn to reading and evaluating.
This is Lost in the Stacks, and we'll hear more from Pia Hunter on that subject as well as more from Jason Mazzone after a music set.
File this set under Z675.L2L3837 [MUSIC PLAYING] We're going to find it. We're going to find it. There's no doubt about it. We're going to find it. [STANLEY BRINKS AND FRESCHARD, "FIND IT"] Cocoa rain.
That was "Ringing Doorbells in the Rain" by Valerie Carter, and before that we heard "Find It" by Stanley Brinks and Freschard, songs about searching high and low until you find what you need.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
You are listening to Lost in the Stacks, and we're back, talking to Jason Mazzone and Pia Hunter about the role of University of Illinois law librarians and law faculty doing the confidential work of preparing a report on the published work of then Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. This report was later delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee. We started this segment asking Pia to describe her part of the logistics of this massive undertaking.
We partnered with Stanford. Stanford had some experience with this type of project. They did preliminary work for Merrick Garland initially when he was proposed for the Supreme Court. So we collaborated very closely. And the rest of my library colleagues did not know who the other faculty members were. I worked exclusively with Jason and Dean Amar. So I knew who everyone was, and of course, they knew. But none of the rest of my library colleagues knew.
We kept that as close to the vest as possible. I worked with the people at Stanford, and the same model applied. And what was interesting was that we did research and pulled-- both schools simultaneously pulled every writing that Justice Jackson had that was published in print and available. We went as far back as I found mention of a paper that she wrote in high school, believe it or not. And fortunately, it was not publicly available. Otherwise, I would have had to have tracked it down.
But her college thesis from Harvard. There was a review of something that she wrote, an opinion piece, just a simple paragraph in The Boston Globe. But it had gotten some mention somewhere, and we tracked it down. And at the time, she was early in her career and was not yet a judge, so it took a little bit of digging to find that. And I believe that was from the 1990s, '92 or '93 or something along those lines.
But every scrap of everything that she's ever put-- she's ever written, we located it. We found it. We organized it. So there are cases and then there are reported cases, cases that are published. So we together organized all of her published cases, all of her reported cases and sorted them by discipline, by civil procedure, by copyright, by constitutional law, property, whatever, and different sorts of things there. Then there was mention of her various activities and committees.
So everything that she's ever participated in throughout her career, we found mention of that and put that into a packet. We also pulled everything that we could find that was ever written about her throughout her career. So we were collecting everything she opined, everything that was written about her, every bit of information so that nothing would be a surprise. So that was a massive undertaking.
But I will say that I was at the American Association of Law Libraries Conference just a couple of weeks ago. We were in Boston. And I finally had the opportunity to meet Taryn Marks and Beth Williams, who were the leaders of the Stanford team just in person finally because we had so much communication on the phone, over different time zones, different Zoom meetings. And when I say we were-- I'm going to say we were probably up for 12 days straight doing this, getting things off the ground.
But when you work with that level of intensity-- and I think Jason can attest to this-- it bonds you with people in a way you would not expect. And so when we finally met each other at the conference, it was just, oh, great big hug. So wonderful to see you. I can't believe we're finally meeting in person. Can you believe what we did? It was just a phenomenal experience, and I don't see any other way to possibly repeat that.
That was-- it's a once-in-a-lifetime experience, twice if we get to do it again.
So as a librarian, I hear stories about how to find things, and how I found this thing and that thing. And I kind of want to hear all of those stories, but in our limited time here, is there one thing that you just found in a corner that you just didn't expect to find, you just stumbled upon it that really was memorable to you?
So let me answer-- and this is not completely responsive, but it is essentially an answer to your-- to a question about, what is memorable about the findings? I would not point to any individual case or any individual opinion of Judge Jackson that was especially striking. Rather, what was really striking to me was the incredible consistency across all of her decisions. So 250 or so district court opinions. As Pia said, we read all of them.
And in the set that I read and also coming out of the reports from all of the individual faculty members, you saw the same thing over and over again, and it was all positive.
This is a judge who is incredibly informed, extremely careful, extremely balanced, who writes opinions that - it made our work harder - are long and that really address every single issue that the parties raise, that frame issues that might have not been framed properly by the lawyers in a way that are more intelligent in light of the legal standards, that give an explanation to the parties for why their claim doesn't prevail.
And so for me, it wasn't that I saw anything unusual in any particular case. It was that I didn't find anything unusual in any of the opinions. There was nothing that departed from this model. Over and over again, in all the opinions I read, you saw this incredible consistency day after day, year after year. This was obviously somebody who was extremely dedicated to the work, to the cases, whether they were big, whether they were small, regardless of the parties involved.
And everyone on the team reviewing a set of opinions reached essentially the same conclusion. Members of my faculty have very different perspectives about the law. It's a really diverse group of people. They all said exactly the same thing in their reports. And so to see that is really striking about anybody, that level of consistency. But for a judge who's been nominated to the Supreme Court, it really gives you a kind of confidence in what's going on.
Sometimes you watch the confirmation hearing and it looks like a zoo, and you really wonder where we're headed. But this time around, I had all that background, and I knew a lot about the nominee. I knew more about this nominee than I did about any prior nominee. And so the nomination process was less important in terms of my confidence in her ability to be a Supreme Court justice than that level of consistency that we found, admirable consistency in these hundreds of cases in other writings.
So I'm hearing about the reports that you read and the things you pulled from that. And Pia, you talked about actually collecting all of these papers. Is there now a collection? Is any of this confidential? Is any of it publicly-- excuse me-- any of it publicly accessible? Is there now some kind of resultant work that people can come to and research in the future?
No.
[LAUGHTER]
Oh, I put so much effort into that question. Come on.
[LAUGHTER]
It's a great question, and let me tell you why. A lot of the material that we pulled were from proprietary databases, so we can't make the content publicly available. We can't do that.
We were told at the outset that under no circumstances would those reports ever be released to anybody--
[LAUGHS]
--which makes sense, right? I mean--
Of course. Of course.
Maybe say bad things about someone who then gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. Not a good look, right? So they want honesty. And they swore that nothing would ever go beyond the committee.
This is Lost in the Stacks. We'll be back with more from Jason Mazzone and Pia Hunter about their role in providing information for the American Bar Association's report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivering-- deliberating the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson. And that's on the left side of the hour.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Hello. I'm the life form known as Robyn Hitchcock, and you and you and you are listening to Lost in the Stacks on WREK Atlanta. Have a nice day. And on the eighth day when he addressed it, he created darkness.
Yeah, Robyn Hitchcock knows who you is.
Yeah, he sure does.
This is Lost in the Stacks. And today, we're talking about the work that law librarians and law faculty do to create a complete and comprehensive report of any nominee to the US Supreme Court. This report is requested by the American Bar Association-- I'm going to call it "AH-BA" from now on--
[LAUGHTER]
--a nongovernmental professional organization, and delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So an actual question is, why is the ABA asked to do this kind of research? Well, we can dip into the congressional record transcripts to hear what the Senate Judiciary Committee had to say about it in 1989. This is why records are good.
Mm-hmm.
"Since 1952, every president of the United States has consulted the ABA's standing committee on the Federal Judiciary on nearly every nomination to the Federal bench. And since 1948, the Senate Judiciary Committee has sought the opinion of the American Bar Association. It is useful to recall the reasons why the ABA--" I'm sorry, everyone. I just love saying ABA. You should know that they did not say ABA. "The ABA got involved in the judicial selection in the first place.
The collective wisdom some 40 years ago was that the selection of federal judges relied too heavily on political patronage. Cronyism, not competence, was all too often the reason for selecting a political nominee, and depoliticizing the nomination process was thought to be essential. To help ensure that only the highest caliber men and women ascended to the bench, the ABA was asked to come in and make recommendations.
These are still laudable goals, and they are goals that the American Bar Association has helped us reach in the past and continue to help us reach in the future." Well, we can certainly discuss the role that patronage and cronyism still play in the judicial process, and I don't think anyone believes that it's been depoliticized.
[LAUGHTER]
But at least efforts like the ABA committee report are still taken on and reported in a public setting to our elected officials so we citizens can determine when our Senate succeeds in getting the right justice seated and when it fails. That was a very hard mid-show break to get through because there's quite a lot of irony deep inside, behind the curtain. File this next set under PZ8.3.L35436.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[JIMMIE RODGERS, "SECRETLY"]
(SINGING) Secretly. That was "Secretly" by Jimmie Rodgers. And there's a note here, everyone, that I don't understand. Jimmie Rodgers, the one from the '50s, not from the '30s. I guess there were multiple Jimmie Rodgers?
Jimmie Rodgers from the '30s, the Singing Brakeman, one of the founders of modern country music.
I'm learning about both of them at this moment, Fred. Well, we started the set with "Blanket of Secrecy" by the Solomonics. Those are songs about trying to keep a secret under wraps.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
This is Lost in the Stacks. We'll have to play some Singing Brakeman, Jimmie Rodgers on the show sometime.
They have any songs about square rocks?
Maybe. This is Lost in the Stacks, and we're back with Jason Mazzone, faculty at the University of Illinois Law School, and Pia Hunter, Research and Instruction Librarian at the Illinois School of Law. We're talking about how they led an effort to research all the published works of Ketanji Brown Jackson when she was a nominee for a seat on the US Supreme Court.
And we've heard a lot about the hard work and long hours our guests put into this critical task, but now that they've had a chance to reflect on a job well done, we wanted to start this segment by asking-- So how is it going to get onto your CV? JASON MAZZONE: [LAUGHS] So the fact that we did it is public information. I mean, we're not completely anonymous.
So I said our reports are not released publicly, but the ABA Standing Committee does provide a detailed report of its own to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the first day of a nominee's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ABA chair, who was Ann Claire Williams, actually testified, the first witness who testifies, and she presents her report in that context. So both her testimony and the underlying report are publicly available, and they mention our role.
And one of the coolest things-- I mean, going back to the beginning of our conversation, one of the coolest things, I was watching this and she mentioned the University of Illinois. Vik Amar and Jason Mazzone chaired the process. And Senate Judiciary Committee, it just sent a kind of tingle up my spine. So the fact that our involvement is publicly known-- and yes, it's on my CV. I don't know about Pia.
I haven't put it on mine. I should do that. [LAUGHS] He's so right. I mean, just the very fact-- I was teaching an advanced legal research course while I was doing this work, which meant that I was shuttling a lot of things around and moving classes and doing a couple of things. And the students were all 3Ls, mostly 3Ls at that point. And they were in their last semester, and they were happy to accommodate me. But it's unusual for me to move things.
And some of them have had me previously, and they know that. So I got a couple of discreet notes from students. Professor Hunter, are you OK? Is everything all right? Because you don't move class. You don't do this. Are you OK? No, I'm fine. I'm fine. I will reveal all. And at the end, they were so impressed with what we had done. There was a write-up in the local paper, and they were just astounded at the level of work that was produced by our faculty. So it was a moment of pride for them.
Fred, you asked that question earlier about what stood out or what the process was. And Jason gave that excellent answer because Justice Jackson's opinions are very consistent, and you see that thread of fairness throughout her-- there's a balance in her writing that's impossible to ignore. And it made pulling things together and assessing how to organize certain things very easy in terms of her legal writing ability and her ability to analyze situations.
For me as a librarian personally, the most interesting thing was the collection of news materials that we collected about her because we were looking-- as we were gathering this content, we're not only looking at what she's written in terms of her judicial opinions. We also went back to-- then I had to do an interlibrary loan request from Harvard for her senior thesis that she wrote. And this is her opinion. This is her perspective.
So we're looking at things that she's written, things that have been written about her. And when you look at news items and you have the other content on hand, it gives you an opportunity to see the whole of a person. So I feel in many ways that I know her [LAUGHS] because I've spent so much time reading about her life, about her background, about this material because we have to uncover everything to make sure that there is nothing-- no stone left unturned, as they say.
We want to make sure that we've not missed anything because the questions come fast and furious, and we want to make sure that we have provided context for those questions. Even throughout the process after we had gathered the news items, we were still getting emails at different time zones. I'm in the Midwest. Stanford's on the West Coast. We might get something from the East Coast or the West Coast saying, I heard XYZ. Can you verify this? Can you track this down?
So even though we had gathered all the opinions, we were still looking at different news items from outlets across the country, sometimes small newspapers that might not be available online but we had to check, do different sorts of searches to see if there was any credibility.
Because once the name of the nominee is released, their name-- and this is part of why we did a preliminary search initially because once the name of the nominee is released, everything about them explodes, and it sort of muddies your search because there'll be so much commentary about the nominee that you sort of lose the narrow field that you would have had prior to the announcement.
So that's also part of why we did some preliminary research on three or four candidates before we knew that it was going to be Justice Jackson.
That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about that, but yeah, the news coverage generated would just swamp your results.
In terms of the research, we did a search for newsworthy items. And in that search, we included cases because we wanted to be aware of high-profile cases where her name had been mentioned or her opinion had been discussed in different news-- in various media outlets, and we wanted to be sure that we covered those. So I did not do near the amount of reading that my colleagues did, but I actually read the cases that were mentioned quite frequently in the news. So those cases, I read.
You can't help yourself. I mean, that's sort of the rabbit hole of research. You see something that's interesting when you're putting together all these pieces. So I read about three or four of the cases in different subject areas, and those are actually some of the cases that were mentioned at the hearing where she faced questions about those particular opinions.
It was a point of pride that I was able to pick those things out as I was going along, that this is going to be important and we need to make sure that we cover this. And after the questions-- and I watched the hearing as well-- you can't help but watch the hearing. You've done all this work. You've got to watch the hearings, right? So for me and I think for our team, it was just a point of pride that we found everything that came up and everything had been addressed.
I mean, we found all the content. We organized the content. I sent it to the faculty. They did their part, and then their part went to the ABA. So it was just the greatest type of collaboration because I really felt like we did our part in making sure that we covered everything, we found everything. And even after everything was found, we went back and looked again to see if there was anything that we had missed, and we did that-- both teams did that.
We did that, Stanford did that, and it was an amazing experience.
You mentioned that after all this research, you felt like you knew Justice Jackson. Do you think you'll get the opportunity to meet her?
[LAUGHS] I would love the opportunity to meet her. I mean, anything's possible at some point. But I don't expect to meet her, but I hope to meet her. It would be-- it would be a nice bonus.
She should stop by the law school and at least say thanks, right?
She should stop by the law school and say hello. Why not?
Pia Hunter and Jason Mazzone, both of the University of Illinois Law School, thank you so much for being on our show.
Thank you.
Thank you for having us.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
File this set under KF8742.Z9B75.
[JOHNNY CASH, "THIS SIDE OF THE LAW"]
[THE MAKE UP, "HERE COMES THE JUDGE"]
[APPLAUSE AND CHEERING]
That was "Here Comes the Judge" by The Make-Up. Before that, "This Side of the Law" by Johnny Cash. Those are songs about examining the law and its impact on the public.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
CHARLIE BENNETT: Today's show was called "The SCOTUS Backgrounders." At the top of the show, the very top-- the cold open, in fact-- we heard Jason Mazzone talk about never having any doubts about the ultimate success of the arduous, confidential, fast-paced process of gathering background information on Ketanji Brown Jackson. As we approach the end of this episode, we also wanted to share the answer given by our other guest, Pia Hunter.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Was there a moment for either of you where you felt like it might not get done? Were there any dark nights in the midst of this project?
There were late nights, never dark nights. It's almost training that once you set your mind to something-- because you go through law school. This is the goal. This is the objective. You're going to get there. I mean, there was never a question we were going to get there. The days were long. The nights were long. And like I said, we were navigating three or four different time zones, so that was a challenge. But it was a high. I was just so excited to be able to do it.
I mean, who else can say-- very few people can say they've had the opportunity to do something of this scale that affects the nation in such a powerful, powerful way. So no, there was never any doubt that we would get it done.
And with that, role those credits.
[GREGORY ISAACS, "REPORT TO ME"]
Lost in the Stacks is a collaboration between WREK Atlanta and the Georgia Tech Library, written and produced by me, Charlie Bennett, and Fred [INAUDIBLE] Rascoe, and Marlee Givens.
Legal counsel and, hmm, a mysterious box of law records marked In Case of Nomination--
Whoa.
--were provided by the Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group in Atlanta, Georgia.
What does Phillip know?
Special thanks to Pia and Jason for being on the show, to the ABA for stepping up to lead judicial nominee background checks, and thanks as always to each and every one of you for listening.
Our web page is library.gatech.e du/lostinthestacks where you'll find our most recent episode, a link to our podcast feed, and a web form if you want to get in touch with us.
Next week, it's the first show of the fall semester at Georgia Tech, and we're talking about teaching again, especially our own classroom experiences.
Uh-oh.
Can't believe the semester's already starting.
I know.
Don't talk like that, Fred. FRED RASCOE: Where's the time go? It's time for our last song today, and we close with a song about things happening in secret but later being disclosed in a report. It's oddly specific. It's a very specific song.
This is "Report to Me" by Gregory Isaacs-- it's definitely not about a Supreme Court nomination, I'll tell you that-- right here on Lost in the Stacks. Have a great weekend, everybody.
This rock is still not square.
[GREGORY ISAACS, "REPORT TO ME"]
[MUSIC PLAYING]