THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND JUDGE JACKSON. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS YOU HEARD ABOUT YESTERDAY. THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT -- JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT. WE WILL START WHAT IT -- ALL WHAT IT MEANS TO ME. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HEARD FROM MEMBERS FROM THE COMMITTEE, WHETHER THEY COUCHED IT IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR NOT, RELATES TO THE IDEA THAT JUSTICE SHOULD BE BLIND. THAT JUSTICE WITHIN OUR SYSTEM PROPERLY, IS BLIND. JUDGES SERVING IN THE COURTS, SHOULD BE BLIND IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THE LAW, UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAW IS. WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IDEA OF WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE IS LEFT TO OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE JUDICIARY. IN THIS RESPECT, WE RECOGNIZE THAT LIGHT JUSTICE AND JUSTICES -- BLIND JUSTICES AND JUSTICE, ARE WILLING TO RECOGNIZE IF THERE IS A POLICY FLAW IN THE LAW AND NEED TO BE CHANGED, IT IS NOT THE RULE OF THE COURT TO CHANGE IT. IT BELONGS TO TWO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THIS REQUIRES JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND JUDICIAL ABILITY. AND IT GETS BACK TO WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING WHEN I REFER TO JUSTICE BARRETT, DRAWING ON THE ANALOGY FROM THE ODYSSEY, OF ODYSSEUS BITING HIMSELF TO THE MAST OF THE SHIP. MOST OF THIS REFER TO THIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AS CONTEXTUALISM. IT IS NEITHER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC. IT IS THE APPROACH THAT SAYS WHAT THE LAW SAYS MATTERS IN THE JAW OF THE JURORS -- JOB OF THE JURORS IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TEXT MEANS. TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE TEXT IN QUESTION. WHILE I DOUBT THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE COOL DISAGREE OF THE IDEA THAT JUSTICE SHOULD BE BLIND AND POLICY CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE BY -- PRIMARILY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT BY THE COURTS, WE HEARD STATEMENTS THAT WERE AT ODDS WITH THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE. -- THAT CONCEPT OF JUSTICE. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES MENTIONED THAT YOU SHOULD INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN WAYS THAT WORK FOR PEOPLE TODAY. FAIR ENOUGH. THAT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE. THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT TO ASCERTAIN WHAT POLICY -- THE POLICY. IT IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. SO FAR AS THIS RELATES TO POLICY, NOT REALLY THE JOB OF THE COURTS. YOU ADMONISHED THAT YOU MUST BE ABLE TO SEE THE REAL PEOPLE AT THE OTHER END OF THE COURT'S WILLING LIKE AMERICANS WHO ARE ONE SUPREME COURT DECISION FROM LOSING THEIR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. THAT TYPE OF JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WHAT HAVE YOU STEP INTO THE ROLE OF POLICYMAKER AND DECIDE WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE, WHETHER -- RATHER THAN WHAT THE LAW IS. YOU QUOTED A COUPLE TIMES YESTERDAY, -- WILL IS EXPRESSED BY HAMILTON, AND IT REFERS TO WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE. JUDGMENT PERTAINS TO WHAT THE LAW IS. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH HAS THE B HALLER -- THE LETTER --LATTER POWER BUT NOT THE FORMER. I WILL LOVE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT BLIND JUSTICE MEANS AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT. DOES THE LAW DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A CASE OR DOES THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE DETERMINE THE LAW?