THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN DURBIN. WELCOME BACK, JUDGE JACKSON. YESTERDAY, YOU AND I DISCUSSED THE COURTS INCREASING RELIANCE ON ISSUED ORDERS ON SHADOW DOCKETS. AND LESS THAN AN HOUR AGO, THE COURT ONCE AGAIN USED A SHADOW DOCKET TO THROW OUT WISCONSIN'S REDISTRICTING MAPS. AND BECAUSE THIS DECISION JUST CAME OUT, I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO HAVE IMMEDIATELY REVIEWED IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS POINT, THAT IN HER DEFENSE, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JOINED BY JUSTICE KAGAN, CALLED THE COURTS MOVE UNPRECEDENTED. SHE NOTED THAT, IN AN EMERGENCY POSTURE, THE COURT SUMMARILY OVERTURNED A WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECISION RESOLVING A CONFLICT OVER THE STATE'S REDISTRICTING, DECISION THAT WAS RENDERED AFTER A FIVE-MONTH PROCESS INVOLVING ALL INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS, BASED ON AN OBLIGATION THAT IS, IN HER WORDS, HAZY AT BEST, EVEN THOUGH SUMMARY REVERSALS ARE GENERALLY RESERVED FOR DECISIONS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. AGAIN, I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS UNDERSCORES THE POINT THAT I MADE YESTERDAY, THAT THE COURT'S INCREASING PRACTICE OF USING THE SHADOW DOCKETS TO DECIDE CASES THAT HAVE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AND AS YOU AND MANY OTHER NOMINEES HAVE SET IS FUNDAMENTAL, IS INCREDIBLY TROUBLING. YOU HAD IN THE OTHER CASE I MENTIONED YESTERDAY WERE JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTED, THE TEXAS ABORTION BOUNTY HUNTER CASE, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE, THE SHADOW DOCKET. WHILE I AM NOT GOING TO ASK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY READ IT, DOES YOUR RECORD OF WRITING DECISIONS THAT ARE THOROUGH AND LISTENING TO LITIGANTS IN CASES, COULD YOU JUST GENERALLY TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING FULL BREAKDOWNS ON THE MARRIAGE, AS WELL AS PUBLIC ORAL ARGUMENTS, IF YOU BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS A JUDGE IN MY WORK OVER THE LAST DECADE, I HAVE SEEN THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AT LEAST TO ME IN MY TIME AS A JUDGE TO DATE, TO HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM ALL SIDES IN THE CASE. THE DUTY OF A JUDGE IS TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS, YOU MAKE DETERMINATIONS BASED ON ARGUMENTS. AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO SO. I KNOW THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCKET, YOU HAVE NOT ASKED ME THE QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT BECAUSE I WOULD SAY WHAT I SAID BEFORE, WHICH IS I WOULD BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SPEAK WITH THE JUSTICES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A NEED TO BALANCE AND GETTING A FULL BRIEFING WITH EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE COURT HAS LONG HAD THAT IN ITS PROCEDURES, THE ABILITY TO RULE QUICKLY ON VARIOUS CASES. IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY TIME CLERKING ON THE COURT THAT THE COURT DOES RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF ALLOWING THINGS TO WHAT WE CALL PERCOLATE, MEANING LOWER COURTS CAN HEAR ISSUES, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, AT LEAST IN SOME RECENT CASES, JUSTICES HAVE HAD ORAL ARGUMENT RELATED TO SOME EMERGENCY MATTERS. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A JUDGE IN THE WORK THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING, I KNOW THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM THE PARTIES. ...