JUDGE JACKSON, YOU CAN RELAX. I VOTED FOR YOU, AND WHEN YOU APPEARED AS A POTENTIAL NOMINEE WE STARTED DOING WORK LOOKING AT YOUR RECORD AND STORY. WE MET WITH THE PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS HIS PROCESS AND GOALS. WHEN YOUR NOMINATION WAS ANNOUNCED, WE OBVIOUSLY BROUGHT THE WORK ON YOUR RECORD MORE INTO FOCUS, AND NOW I HAVE HAD THE CHANCE OVER 15, 16 HOURS TO SEE YOUR PERFORMANCE IN THIS HEARING, WHICH I THINK SETS THE GOLD STANDARD FOR PATIENTS AND COURTESY -- PATIENCE AND COURTESY. I AM PREPARED TO NOT ONLY SUPPORT YOU, BUT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE VERY PROUD AND VERY HONORED AND VERY EXCITED TO SUPPORT YOU. THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE MY TIME TO HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO. THE FIRST HAS BEEN THE QUESTION -- I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A BUNCH OF THESE AND I DON'T THINK OF EVER HEARD IT COME UP SO MUCH -- QUESTION ABOUT THE NOMINEES JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE ONE. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION YOUR OATH OF OFFICE , CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENTS AND CONSTITUTION ITSELF GAVE YOU YOUR GUIDE PATH. WHEN YOU ARE PURSUING THE LAW AND CONVENTIONS OF THE LANGUAGE AND YOUR LOGIC GAVE YOU THAT PATH. THE FACT THAT JUDGE JACKSON SAID I DON'T HAVE A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, I HAVE A JUDICIAL METHODOLOGY DOESN'T BOTHER ME A BIT. IT BOTHERS ME THE EXPECTATION THAT A NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WILL STOP A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY CAN BE A SCREEN FOR A PREDISPOSITION. THAT JUDGE IS, FRANKLY, SHOULD NOT HAVE, BUT FOLKS IN POWER INFLUENTIAL IN THE PROCESS MAY VERY WELL WANT THEM TO HAVE. SO, WHEN I THINK ABOUT JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, ONE OF THEM THAT HAS COME UP IS ORIGINALISM. ONE PROBLEM WITH JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS OCCASIONAL ADHERENCE, SELECTIVE ADHERENCE, WHICH IN MY MIND MAKES IT LESS OF A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND MORE OF A DOCTRINE OF CONVENIENCE WHEN IT HELPS THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO HELP. ORIGINALISM STRIKES ME AS BEING THAT KIND OF A DOCTRINE. THE PLACE WHERE I THINK THAT WE HAVE THE BIGGEST GAP BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE IN ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN WITH RESPECT TO WHAT I HAVE WITNESSED WITH RESPECT TO CORPORATE POWER IN OUR DEMOCRACY IN THE TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN IN THE SENATE. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FOUNDING DAYS, THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION THAT CORPORATIONS WOULD HAVE ANY ROLE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. NIL. IT DOESN'T TURN UP IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES. IT DOESN'T TURN UP IN THE ARGUMENTS LEADING UP TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS ONLY WHEN CORPORATIONS BECAME BIG AND POWERFUL MANY DECADES LATER THAT THEY BEGAN TO INTRUDE IN OUR POLITICS AND CORRUPTED OUR POLITICS IN A TERRIBLE WAY, HISTORY SHOWS. THAT LED TO THE MOVEMENT BY MUCKRAKERS WHOSE BEST LEADER WAS PROBABLY TEDDY ROOSEVELT, TO KNOCK DOWN THE GRASPING POLITICAL POWER OF CORPORATIONS AND RAIN THE MEN -- REIGN THEM IN. WE HAD REAL VICTORIES AT THAT TIME, BUT THE VICTORIES OF THOSE OF GREAT WEALTH AND POWER DON'T GO AWAY AND THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY CREPT FORWARD WILL STOP IT IS AN AGE-OLD STORY. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE CORPORATE POWER CONTROLLING THIS CONGRESS IN A WAY THAT IS REALLY REMARKABLE. WE HAVE A COMPLETE INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE HAVOC THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS ARE CREATING, BECAUSE HALF OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN DISARMED AND DISABLED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. WE CANNOT EVEN HAVE A REASONABLE, SENSIBLE DISCUSSION ON IT, BECAUSE THE POWER OF THAT INDUSTRY IS SO GREAT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT MANIFESTED FIRST WITH THE PUBLIC INJUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT LETTING CORPORATIONS INTO POLITICS. THAT WAS INTERESTING. ONCE THEY WERE IN, THEY LET THEM SPEND MONEY IN POLITICS. THEN, ONCE THEY LET THEM SPEND MONEY IN POLITICS, THEY LET THEM SPEND UNLIMITED MONEY IN POLITICS. NOW, WE ARE LOOKING AT A COURT WHOSE MAJORITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS, THE BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFUL CORPORATIONS THAT WE HAVE, TO NOT ONLY GET INTO POLITICS, SPEND MONEY ON POLITICS, SPEND UNLIMITED MONEY IN POLITICS, BUT TO SPEND UNLIMITED MONEY IN POLITICS ANONYMOUSLY TO HIDE FROM THE REAL VOTERS, THE REAL THE PEOPLE WHO THEY ACTUALLY ARE WHEN THEY ARE INTERVENING IN POLITICS AND PLAY THROUGH PHONY FRONT GROUPS WITH RIDICULOUS NAMES. RHODE ISLAND IS FOR PEACE, PUPPIES, AND PROSPERITY IS THE EQUALITY OF THE NAME THAT IS INVOLVED. LET'S NOT GET TOO EXCITED ABOUT JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IF IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SCREEN FOR A PREDISPOSITION THAT WILL BENEFIT CERTAIN PLAYERS IN THE ARENA. LET'S CERTAINLY NOT TAKE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY TO SERIOUSLY WHEN IT EVAPORATES IN THE FACE OF THE INTERESTS THAT HAVE PUSHED THE PHILOSOPHY. I THINK ORIGINALISM QUALIFIES THAT WAY, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE INTEGRITY, A JUDICIAL TEMPERANCE,, BUT A PHILOSOPHY? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? THE SECOND THING HAS TO DO WITH THE IMPRESSION OF COURT PACKING AND INTEGRITY OF THE COURT. I HAVE A POSITION ON THIS AND I JUST WANT TO SAY IT SO IT IS ALL CLEAR AND NO ONE IS READING THINGS INTO IT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE AND I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO MAKE MY POINT. COURT PACKING CAN BE DONE BY ADDING NEW SEATS TO THE COURT, I HAVE NOT PROPOSE THAT. I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE MEMBER IN THE SENATE WHO HAS PROPOSED THAT. IT HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED HERE. YOU CAN ALSO PACK A COURT BY PICKING THE JUSTICES. IN FACT, THERE IS A LONG, UNPLEASANT AMERICAN TRADITION OF AGENCIES BEING TAKEN OVER BY VIRTUE OF PICKING THE MEMBERS. IT IS CALLED AGENCY CAPTURE OR REGULATORY CAPTURE. IT GOES BACK A LONG WAY. THERE IS AN ABUNDANT LITERATURE IN ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ABOUT CAPTURE. AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES A COURT IMMUNE TO CAPTURE. THAT IS WHY WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS IN MY INITIAL REMARKS, I SAID IT IS THE FOLKS WHO HAVE TRIED TO CAPTURE THE COURT HAVE TREATED IT NO DIFFERENT THAN A 1950 RAILROAD COMMISSION. BECAUSE THEY WERE LEGENDARY FOR HAVING BEEN CAPTURED BY PICKING THE MEMBERS THAT WOULD RULE FOR THE RAILROAD. AND THERE ARE MANY OTHERS. GO BACK TO MMF AND THE GULF WAR EXPLOSION. SO THAT IS MY CONCERN. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PICKING OF THE JUSTICES HAS BEEN HANDED TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. AND WE KNOW THAT IS THE CASE BECAUSE, AS I SHOWED YESTERDAY, EVERYBODY INVOLVED ADMITTED IT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID SO. THE COFOUNDER OF THE FEDERAL SOCIETY SAID SO. A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID SO. AND THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL COUNSEL SAID SO. AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT PROCESS BY WHICH THE JUSTICES WERE PICKED? WE DON'T KNOW. THERE WAS NOT A POLL TAKEN OF FEDERAL SOCIETY MEMBER SAYING GIVE US YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY MEETING OF THE BOARD, LET'S PICK THIS UP AND GO THROUGH A PROPER AGENDA. WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED IS THAT PEOPLE WENT INTO A BACK ROOM AND THERE WAS WHEELING AND DEALING, AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DARK MONEY DOLLARS FLOWED INTO FEDERALIST SOCIETY DURING THIS PERIOD, AND IT CAME OUT AND WENT STRAIGHT TO THE PRESIDENT AND STRAIGHT TO HEAR. BUT THE PICKING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE CONFINES OF A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION BY ANONYMOUS SPECIAL INTERESTS. THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT DOES THAT BY WAY OF HOW YOU PICK JUDGES. IF WE WENT TO SOME BANANA REPUBLIC -- BUT THAT IS THE WAY THAT RECENT JUSTICES HAVE BEEN PICKED. COURT PACKING BY COURT PICKING. DEPUTIZING THIS TO THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, IT IS UNUSUAL. THEM HAVING NO PUBLIC PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING THAT DEPUTIZATION IS VERY UNUSUAL. THESE MYSTERIOUS LISTS THAT WERE PRODUCED AND HOW PEOPLE GOT ON AND OFF THEM, THE DESERT AND USUAL, UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR HISTORY, AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF DARK MONEY, $400 MILLION I THINK IS A LOT OF ANONYMOUS MONEY THAT HAS BEEN CHRONICLED BEING SPENT TO CONTROL WHO GETS PUT ON THE COURT. AND CONTROLLING WHO GETS PUT ON A GOVERNMENTAL BODY IS HOW YOU CAPTURE A GOVERNMENTAL BODY, AND A CAPTURED GOVERNMENTAL BODY IS A WRONG THING, WHETHER IT IS A RAILROAD COMMISSION OR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THERE IS, IN THAT METHOD OF JUDICIAL SELECTION, NOT JUST THE PROSPECT OF IMPROPRIETY BUT INDEED THE LIKELIHOOD OF IMPROPRIETY. IF IT IS PAY TO PLAY AND CHECK FOR MILLIONS ANONYMOUSLY DELIVERED WILL GET YOU IN THE ROOM AND DECIDE WHO WILL BE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WE GOT A PROBLEM. AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. AND THE THING THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT AS YOU PURSUE THIS AND PLAY IT OUT AND SEE THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT LINE UP IN AN ASTONISHINGLY CLEAR PATTERN WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLICAN DARK MONEY DONORS. THAT IS MY CONCERN. I THINK THAT IS A LUJAN EMMETT CONCERN. IF YOU DISAGREE, DISAGREE, BUT THAT IS A CONCERN, AND I WANTED TO LAY IT OUT HERE BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT COURT PACKING, IT IS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT AND ABOUT THE UNFORTUNATE COMPARISON THAT CAN BE MADE NOW BETWEEN THE CAPTURED AGENCIES, DELIVERED THROUGH PICKING OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP, AND WHAT LOOKS MORE AND MORE LIKE A CAPTURED COURT DELIVERED BY THE PICKING OF ITS MEMBERSHIP IN SECRET WITH A VERY, VERY HIGH TICKET PRICE TO BE IN THE ROOM WHERE THE PICKING TOOK PLACE. LIKE I SAID MY COLLEAGUES CAN AGREE, COLLEAGUES CAN DISAGREE, BUT WE ALL HAVE OUR SHOT TO MAKE OUR CASES. IT HAS COME UP TANGENTIALLY IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS, SO I WANTED TO LAY OUT WHAT MY CASE IS AND EXPLAIN IT AS CLEARLY AND SIMPLY AS I CAN, AND I THINK THEY CHAIRMAN FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY, AND I YIELD BACK MY REMAINING SEVEN MINUTES. AND I CONGRATULATE, YOUR HONOR, YOU FOR THE PATIENTS YOU HAVE SHOWN WITH ALL OF US. IT IS NOT OVER, BUT IT IS CLOSE. 