THANK YOU, SENATOR. WHAT I DO AND WHAT I'VE DONE AND ALL OF MY 570 SOME ODD OPINIONS IS TO APPLY A METHODOLOGY THAT IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE MY IMPARTIALITY AND TO RESPECT THE LIMITS OF MY JUDICIAL ROLE. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M RECEIVING THE CASES, AND AT THE OUTSET, I'M SETTING ASIDE ANY PERSONAL VIEWS THAT I MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PARTIES, ABOUT THE ISSUES, AS I ALSO SET A MY D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR ME AND, IT DOESN'T MATTER THERE -- MATTER TO ME WHETHER THE ARGUMENT IS BEING MADE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR A DEATH ROW INMATE. WHAT I'M DOING IS LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENTS, I'M LOOKING AT THE FACTS, I AM APPLYING THE LAW AND AS NEUTRAL AND CONSISTENT IN MANNER AS I CAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE DUTY AND REQUIREMENT OF THE JUDICIAL OATH. I AM ALSO VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE LAW TO PREVENT ME, AS A JUDGE, FROM BECOMING A POLICYMAKER. THIS MEANS THAT I CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE MY JURISDICTION. IT MEANS THAT I LOOK AT THE TEXT AND FOCUS ON THE TEXT AND THE INTENTIONS OF THE LEGISLATORS THAT DRAFTED THAT PROVISION, OR THE INTENTIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL. IT MEANS I AM LOOKING AT PRECEDENT. IF I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT, I WOULD BE UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLES AS I CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT AND MAKING SURE THAT THE COURT IS PUTTING FORWARD CONSISTENT AND PREDICTABLE RULINGS AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE RULE OF LAW. ALL OF THESE ICS CONSTRAINTS ON JUDICIAL AUTHORITY THAT I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN MY INDEPENDENCE AS IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. JUDGE JACKSON, I SAT ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES TRY TO PIN LABELS ON THE NOMINEES THAT COME BEFORE US, I FIND YOUR METHODOLOGY TO BE A LEAD JUDGE TO COME UP WITH FAIR AND OBJECTIVE RESULTS. I THANK YOU FOR THAT, WE ARE GENERALLY BOUND. IT WILL NOT BE THE CASE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT CAN OVERTURN ITS OWN PRESIDENTS. THAT IS WHY I FOUND YOUR KNOWLEDGE INSTRUCTIVE. IN THAT CASE, YOU HAD A PRESIDENT. IT ALREADY CONFRONTED THE ISSUES YOU FACED. HOWEVER, IT WAS ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT AND YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY IT. YOU NONETHELESS FOUND -- FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT PRECEDENT. WHY DID YOU FIND THAT SO PERSUASIVE? 