THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATED YOU AND THE CONVERSATION YOU AND I HAD IN MY OFFICE A FEW DAYS AGO. LOOK FORWARD TO MORE OF THAT THIS WEEK. I ENJOYED ALSO MEETING YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR TWO LOVELY DAUGHTERS. THEY ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE. I'M GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOUR SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR. YOU BRING TO THE COURT, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU LAST WEEK, A UNIQUE SET OF EXPERIENCES. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED, YOU WILL BE SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED AT ALL THREE LEVELS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOU WILL HAVE A PERSPECTIVE THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF MOST WHO HAVE SERVED ON THAT COURT DURING THE MODERN ERA. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE CONSIDERED AND TO BE HERE TO TALK TO US ABOUT OUR QUESTIONS. OUR QUESTIONS. I ECHO WHAT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID TODAY IN THAT I AM DEDICATED, AS I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, TO MAKING SURE THESE HEARINGS ARE RESPECTFUL,. ENGAGING IN THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION IS NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD EVER ASPIRE TO. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS OCCURRED ON THIS COMMITTEE IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS. I AM PLEASED TO SAY IT HAS NEVER BEEN UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP THAT SUCH ATTACKS HAVE OCCURRED AND I INTEND TO MAKE SURE THIS HEARING IS NO EXCEPTION TO THAT. THERE ARE A FEW REASONS FOR THAT. FIRST AND FOREMOST THE MOST OBVIOUS IS RESPECT TO HUMAN BEINGS REQUIRES IT. SECONDLY, IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE FOCUS ON PERSONAL ATTACKS. THAT MEANS WE WILL BE BETRAYING OUR DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR CONSTITUENTS TO MAKE SURE WE DO OUR JOBS FAIRLY AND PROPERLY. WHEN WE ARE FOCUSED ON THINGS WE HAVE NO BUSINESS DOING, LIKE BRINGING FORWARD SPURIOUS LAST-MINUTE ACCUSATIONS OF A PERSONAL NATURE, WE NEGLECT THE IMPORTANCE OF TALKING ABOUT THE JURIST PRUDENTIAL ROLE, THE PHILOSOPHY THAT GUIDES INDIVIDUAL JURISTS, AND THE DOCUMENT WE ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR AN ADDITIONAL REASON, A THIRD REASON. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT HAVING BEEN NOMINATED TO THIS POSITION YOU STAND A DECENT LIKELIHOOD OF ULTIMATELY BEING CONFIRMED TO THIS POSITION IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE AS A COMMITTEE, AS THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, NOT ENGAGE IN SPEECH OR BEHAVIOR THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT IS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURTS THAT GIVES THEM THEIR POTENCY, THEIR POWER, THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. WE ALL HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T UNDERMINE THAT VERY THING THAT WE PURPORT TO BE PROTECTING. LET ME TELL YOU SOME OF THE THINGS I LOOK FOR WHEN REVIEWING A NOMINEE AND A FEW THINGS I INTEND TO FOCUS ON IN THESE HEARINGS WITH YOU. ONE OF THEM WILL INVOLVE ANY NOMINEE'S COMMITMENT TO JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT, TO UNDERSTANDING THE JUDICIAL ROLE, WHAT IT IS AND IS NOT. ANY JUDICIAL NOMINEE THESE DAYS WILL ACKNOWLEDGE HE OR SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW BASED ON WHAT IT SAYS RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL OPINION. THIS IS ALL VERY TRUE. IT RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO HOW EXACTLY THAT GOES ABOUT AND WHAT STEPS, WHAT TOOLS, WHAT RHETORICAL LINGUISTIC DEVICES THE JURIST IN QUESTION MIGHT FOLLOW IN ORDER TO DO THAT. I AM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO IS IDEALLY GOING TO ECHO SOMETHING JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAID IN HER PROCEEDINGS. SHE LIKENED THE CONSTITUTION, THIS DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY WISE MEN NEARLY TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES AGO, WISEMEN WHO I BELIEVE WERE RAISED BY ALMIGHTY GOD TO THAT PURPOSE, TO THE EXTENT WE FOLLOW THAT DOCUMENT TO FOSTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREATEST CIVILIZATION THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. SHE LIKENED THIS AND OUR COMMITMENT TO IT AS A LITTLE LIKE WHAT ODYSSEUS TOLD HIS CREW. THE CONSTITUTION IS LIKE HOW ODYSSEUS TIES HIMSELF TO THE MAST TO RESIST THE SONG OF THE SIRENS. SHE GOES ON TO EXPLAIN THAT HE TOLD THE CREW, DO NOT UNTIE ME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I BEG OR PLEAD. DO NOT UNTIE ME FROM THE MAST. HE WANTED TO AVOID THE TEMPTING CALL OF THE SIRENS. THE TEMPTING CALL OF THE SIRENS IS INHERENT IN GOVERNMENT. IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND THAT IS WHY WE TIE OURSELVES TO IT. CRITICAL TO THAT IS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, THE ULTIMATE BACKSTOP. THE BACKSTOP THAT IS THERE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES. THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT JUST SOME THING FOR THE COURTS, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS OWNED EXCLUSIVELY AND INDEPENDENTLY BY THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY OR SUPREME COURT ITSELF. BUT IT PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE. THE COURT IS THERE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES THAT ARISE WITHIN THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AS TO THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION OF FEDERAL LAW, WHETHER IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF OR AS ENACTED INTO LAW BY CONGRESS. SO WE NEED JURISTS WHO ARE WILLING TO RESPECT THAT ROLE AND DEMONSTRATE JUDICIAL HUMILITY. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS AN ABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COURTS THAT ENTAIL POLICY. THE JOB OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIARY IS NEVER TO EXERT WILL OR FORCE, IT IS ONLY JUDGMENT, DISCERNING WHAT THE LAW SAYS. A NOMINEE ALSO I BELIEVE NEEDS TO SHOW A STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF FORMS OF SEPARATION OF POWERS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION ALONG TWO AXES, ONE THE VERTICAL, FEDERALISM. IT SAYS MOST OF THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, MOST POWERS THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT EXERCISE ARE TO BE EXERCISED AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. POWER THAT IS FEDERAL IS THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE NORM IN OUR SYSTEM. THE OTHER FORM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS OPERATES ALONG THE HORIZONTAL AXIS. IT RECOGNIZES WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS LIMITED, OUR BRANCH MAKES THE LAWS. ANOTHER BRANCH HEADED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, ENFORCES AND THE THIRD BRANCH INTERPRETS THEM, RESOLVING DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES COMING BEFORE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT A JURIST WITHIN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERPRETING THE LAW AS IT WAS WRITTEN, AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT OR AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION. THIS IS PART OF HOW WE TIE OURSELVES TO THE MAST. MAKING SURE WE UNDERTAKE EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE INTERPRETING IT BASED ON HOW THE PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD THOSE WORDS, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT AND INTENT. THE PUBLIC MEETING AT THE TIME IT BECAME LAW. THIS IS HOW WE MAINTAIN THE RULE OF LAW. THIS IS PART OF HOW WE HAVE GIVEN FORCE TO THIS GREATEST CIVILIZATION HUMAN HISTORY HAS EVER RECORDED. IT IS THROUGH THE RULE OF LAW AND TIDYING OURSELVES TO THAT MAST -- TIDYING OURSELVES TO THAT MAST -- TYING OURSELVES TO THAT MAST. WE HAVE SEEN EFFORTS TO DELEGITIMIZE THE COURTS AND I HAVE SECOND EVERY TIME I SEE -- AND I AM SICKENED EVERY TIME I SEE OR HEAR THESE. WE HEARD TODAY COMMENTS THAT I THINK DELEGITIMIZE THE COURT. ANOTHER THING THAT CAN DIGITAL DELEGITIMIZE THE COURT'S COURT PACKING. THIS WAS ATTEMPTED BY FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT IN 1937 AND DID LASTING DAMAGE. IT DID NOT SUCCEED AS A LEGISLATIVE MATTER. BUT IT IS ARGUABLE THAT LEFT A MARK AND NOT A PRETTY ONE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES US TO HAVE NINE AND ONLY NINE JUSTICES, THAT IS LEFT TO CONGRESS' DETERMINATION. BUT NINE IS THE NUMBER THAT WORKS. IT HAS WORKED NOW 152 YEARS. IT IS NOT WHEN WE OUGHT TO REVISIT AND ONE THAT SEVERAL JUSTICES, INCLUDING YOUR FORMER BOSS, JUSTICE BREYER, WHO I ENJOYED GETTING TO KNOW WHEN SERVING ON THE SUPREME COURT. HE, JUSTICE GINSBURG, AND SO MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN A AGAINST THAT. WE LOSE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THE COURT IF WE ALLOW ARGUMENTS TO TAKE ROOT THAT ARE FOCUSED ON EXPANDING THAT AND TURNING THE COURT INTO A POLITICAL BODY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 