THANK YOU, SENATOR DURBIN, RANKING NUMBER GRASSLEY. JUDGE, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. IT IS A JOY AND BLESSING TO WELCOME YOU AND YOUR FAMILY THIS MORNING. AS BOTH SENATORS KLOBUCHAR AND KRUZ HAVE LAID OUT IN GREAT AND FORCEFULLY TOOK, THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAVE DAILY INFLUENCE, REGULAR BEARING ON THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF AMERICANS. THAT IS WHY HEARINGS FOR THIS IMPORTANT ROLE ARE SO CONTENTIOUS. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS DAY SINCE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED YOUR NOMINATION IN FEBRUARY, AND OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS, MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF HELPING INTRODUCE YOU TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN GAIN A SENSE OF CONFIDENCE THAT I HAVE OF YOUR VALUES, SKILLS, YOUR COMPETENCE, AND THE NECESSITY OF CONFIRMING YOU TO THE SUPREME COURT. WE WILL BE INVITING YOU TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND SHARE THE LIST OF EXPENSES, THE STRONG QUALIFICATIONS, THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, AND THE STRENGTH OF CHARACTER THAT MADE YOU NOT ONLY AN HISTORIC NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT AN OUTSTANDING ONE, AS WELL. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE UP FRONT THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN SELECTED YOU TO FILL THE SEATS ON THE COURT BEING VACATED BY JUSTICE BREYER, A JUSTICE WHOM I ADMIRE, AND THE WORK HE HAS DONE OVER DECADES HAS SHOWN US A MODEL OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. IN HIS 42 YEARS ON THE FEDERAL BENCH, 30 ON THE SUPREME COURT, HE HAS LIVED UP TO THE HIGHEST IDEALS OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. HE HAS SERVED WITH WISDOM, FAIRNESS, AND RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF OUR NATION, AND ITS PEOPLE. HE HAS A KEEN LEGAL MIND AND LOVE OF THE LAW OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO HAS READ HIS DECISIONS AND CERTAINLY TO SOMEONE WHO CLERKED TO HIM ON THE SUPREME COURT AND HAD THE BENEFIT OF HIS MENTORSHIP OVER MANY YEARS. YOU HAVE HAD BROAD EXPERIENCE IN YOUR STELLAR LEGAL CAREER THAT WILL MAKE YOU A UNIQUE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE SUPREME COURT. OR AS A JUDGE IN JUST ABOUT EVERY LEVEL OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, ENGAGING IN JUST ABOUT EVERY AREA OF FEDERAL LAW. YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A PRIVATE PRACTICE OCCURRED AS ATTORNEY WITH LARGE LAW FIRMS, AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, VICE CHAIR OF THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION, AND NEAR DECADE OF SERVICE AS A FEDERAL JUDGE HAVE GIVEN YOU INSIGHT INTO THE WAYS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR STATUTES, SENTENCING GUIDELINES, AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS ALL COME TOGETHER TO DIRECTLY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS MY FAMILIES, AND OUR COMMUNITY. YOU ARE ABLE TO PERCEIVE THE FULL SUITE OF OUR LAW WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IMPACTED BY IT, CAUGHT UP IN IT. AND IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT WITH THIS PRACTICAL AND PROXIMATE VIEW.YOU VALUABLE EXPERIENCE, CLERKING FOR JUDGES IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, CIRCUIT COURT, AND FOR JUSTICE BREYER AT THE SUPREME COURT. YOU DEVELOP YOUR CAREER AS A LEGAL ADVOCATE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS SERVICE. YOU TOOK ON COMPLEX CASES INVOLVING CHALLENGING AND UNSETTLED AREAS OF THE LAW. YOU WORKED PRO BONO. AND WITHOUT REGARD TO POLITICAL VIEWS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CASES. YOU HELPED ENSURE BEDROCK CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM HELD STRONG, EVEN IN TIMES OF GREAT STRESS. THE WORK YOU DID IN THESE RULES DISTINGUISHED YOU AS A TALENTED APPELLATE LITIGATOR, AS A FORMIDABLE LEGAL MIND. YOU HELPED CRAFT POLICY FOR THE U.S. SENTENCING -- CENSUS -- SENTENCING COMMISSION, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES IN SENTENCING YOU LATER SERVED AS THE VICE CHAIR ON THE COMMISSION. YOU PARTNERED WITH COLLEAGUES WHOSE PERSPECTIVES ON THE LAW EXPAND THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM, AND YOU ENACTED MEANINGFUL REFORM TO REDUCE UNJUST EXPERIENCE AND INCREASE FAIRNESS IN SENTENCING. I EXPECT TO DISCUSS YOUR SENTENCING COMMISSION EXPERIENCE IN SOME DETAILS. WHILE SERVING ON THE COMMISSION, NEARLY ALL DECISIONS WERE UNANIMOUS, AND THERE WAS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF HIGHLY COMPLEX, WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS WORKING HARD TO ACHIEVE ON THE GROUND. ONE NOTABLE INSTANCE, YOU ENDED UP GOING TO CONSERVATIVE QUESTIONERS TO OPPOSE AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THE LAW REQUIRED A DIFFERENT RESULT, AND YOU FOLLOWED THE LAW. SOMETHING THAT OFTEN GETS LOST IN OUR DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT IS THAT MANY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ARE UNANIMOUS OR DECIDED BY VERY BROAD MAJORITIES. THESE DECISIONS ARE EVERY BIT AS CRITICAL TO THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNCTIONING AND THE GENESEE OF THE COURT AS THE HANDFUL THAT ARE VERY CONTENTIOUS AND WIDELY DISCUSSED PUBLICLY. YOUR SERVICE ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION AND YOUR TIME ON THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVE PREPARED YOU TO BE A POSITIVE FORCE FOR CONSENSUS AMONG THE JUSTICES IN THIS CHALLENGING CHAPTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY. I ALSO THINK WE WILL HAVE SOME EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT YOUR RECORD OF SERVICE ON THE FEDERAL BENCH. YOU WERE CONFIRMED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN 2013, BRITAIN MORE THAN 500 PUBLISHED OPINIONS, CONFIRMED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LAST YEAR YOUR IT IN YOUR NEAR DECADE AS A JUDGE, YOU HAVE AUTHORED OPINIONS IN THE CASES SPANNING A MYRIAD OF COMPLICATED ISSUES, FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TO CIVIL RIGHTS, FROM CRIMINAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, LABOR, EMPLOYMENT LAW, NATIONAL SECURITY, IMMIGRATION LAW, AND MANY MORE. YOU'RE RICH, COMPLEX, AND DEEP DECISION RECORD GIVES US THE BEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE YOU WILL BE. AND I HAVE CONCLUDED YOU ARE JUDAS-ISH -- JUDICIOUS AND A PARSABLE, GREAT QUALITIES FOR A JUSTICE. IN EVERY CASE, HE YOU CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT, FACTS, THE LAW, AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU ASK ABOUT APPLICABLE STATUTES AND PRECEDENTS THAT APPLY. ULTIMATELY, YOU HAVE COME TO A DECISION BASED ON THAT METHODOLOGY, NOT ON ANY PARTICULAR POLICY PREFERENCES. THIS COMMITTEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SOME STRIKING OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FOR YOUR NOMINATION FROM A VERY BROAD RANGE OF SOURCES. I AM CERTAIN WE WILL BE HEARING ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE ENTHUSIASTIC STATEMENTS OVER THE COMING DAYS. BUT IN SOME OF THE LETTERS I HAVE REVIEWED PERSONALLY, I HAVE BEEN STRUCK, LETTERS FROM LAWYERS THAT HELD APPOINTED POSITIONS IN REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, LETTERS FROM PROMINENT LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS, FEDERAL JUDGES APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. THEY HAVE PRAISED YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, YOUR CHARACTER, YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO EVENHANDED AND IMPARTIAL JUDGING AND THE RULE OF LAW. THIS IS THE FOURTH SUPREME COURT NOMINATION PROCESS IN WHICH I AM PARTICIPATING IN AS A SENATOR. AS WE BEGIN THIS WEEK'S HEARINGS, I REMAIN HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER AS A COMMITTEE AND ENGAGE IN RESPECTFUL, GOOD FAITH BIPARTISAN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR NOMINATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY THIS WEEK. I AM EXCITED SO MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO GET TO KNOW YOU A BIT, TO MEET WITH YOU, TO TALK WITH YOU ONE-ON-ONE AND GET A SENSE OF YOUR CHARACTER COME EXPERIENCES, AND BACKGROUND, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOU TO BRING THAT OUT. AT THE END OF THIS WEEK'S HEARINGS, I EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE CLEAR TO ALL, THAT YOU ARE IMPECCABLE AND QUALIFIED IN THE LAW. I THINK IT WILL BE PLANED TO ANY AMERICAN WATCHING, YOU HAVE A DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF EXCELLENCE. YOU WILL DECIDE CASES AS A JUSTICE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND THE LAW, AND YOU WILL BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS ALSO MY HOPE FOLKS WILL GET A CHANCE TO MEET THE FAMILY THAT SHAPED YOU. IT WAS DELIGHTFUL TO HAVE A FEW MOMENTS TO GET TO TALK TO YOUR PARENTS AND BROTHER BEFORE WE BEGAN TODAY AND TO REFLECT ON HOW HAVING PARENTS, GRADUATES OF HBCU'S, PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, WHO THEN WENT ON TO GREAT CAREERS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS. JOHNNY BROWN ESQUIRE AND DR. HILARY BROWN SAID A GREAT STANDARD. ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE SENTENCES BEFORE THIS WAS ONLY TALKING TO YOUR BROTHER, WHO SAID, OH, I'M NOT SURPRISED TO BE HERE AT ALL, THIS WAS THE SORT OF THING FOR WHICH MY SISTER WAS DESTINED FROM THE VERY START. DESTINED PERHAPS, BUT TODAY YOU ARE BEGINNING A PROCESS OF WALKING THROUGH THIS DOOR BECAUSE OF COURAGE, HUMILITY, DETERMINATION, AND A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE. JUST AS ANOTHER PERSON IN AMERICAN HISTORY, RUBY BRIDGES, WALKED THROUGH A CRITICAL DOOR IN OUR HISTORY WITH HER CHIN HELD HIGH, BACK HELD STRAIGHT, AND A FIERCE DETERMINATION TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, SO YOU, TOO, TODAY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF WALKING THROUGH THIS NEXT OPEN DOOR WITH THE SORT OF SPARKLING WIT, BRILLIANT MIND, AND COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE THAT WILL MAKE ITS MARK ON AMERICAN JULIE MUCH MORE POWER THAN OUR CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS EVER ANTICIPATED. LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS. WE ARE HERE IN PART BECAUSE OF DECADES AND DECADES OF RECKLESSNESS BY ALL THREE BRANCHES. NOT JUST ONE, BY ALL THREE. CONGRESS, THE ARTICLE ONE BRANCH, FAILED TO CARRY OUT OUR TASKS RESPONSIBLY AND REGULARLY. RATHER THAN MAKE TOUGH POLICY CHOICES, WE PASSED INCREDIBLY VAGUE LAWS AND THEN JUST PUSHED THE DETAILS ON DOWN PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WITH ELECTED BUREAUCRATS IN THE ARTICLE TWO BRANCH. THEN WHICHEVER PARTY THE HEAD OF THAT BRANCH COMES FROM GRANTS MORE AND MORE POWER WITH THEIR PENS AND PHONES. THEN THE SUPREME COURT TENDS TO OVERSTEP THE BOUNDS THAT THE CONSTITUTION SETS ON JUDICIAL POWER. THE COURT HAS IGNORED RESTRICTIONS ON ITS AUTHORITY, INSERTING ITSELF INTO POLICY DEBATES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE TWO POLITICAL BRANCHES. WHAT DO I MEAN WHEN WE SAY ARTICLES ONE AND TWO ARE POLITICAL? IT MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE IN POWER OVER ARTICLES ONE AND TWO BUT NOT IN THE LONG-TERM OVER ARTICLE THREE. THE MEN AND WOMEN IN ARTICLE ONE AND ARTICLE TWO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ANSWERING DIRECTLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET TO HIRE OR FIRE US EVERY TWO, FOUR, OR SIX YEARS. BUT RATHER THAN HONOR THE RULES GIVEN TO EACH BRANCH, ACTIVIST JUDGES USURPED THE POWERS GIVEN TO ARTICLES ONE AND TWO, WHICH WERE COMPLICIT IN THIS OVERREACH. MANY YEARS OF CORRODING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE POLARIZATION AND VICIOUSNESS THAT ARE POISONING OUR POLITICS MORE BROADLY. WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR CIVIC HEALTH AND LIFE IS NOT HEALTHY, AND THIS WAS MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, IT IS AT LEAST GOOD THAT THIS ONE GOT KICKED OFF WITHOUT A BUNCH OF YOCALS HAVING TO BE ARRESTED AND CARRIED FROM THE ROOM. WHEN CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY SPOKE A COUPLE YEARS AGO, IT TOOK LIKE AN HOUR TO GET STARTED. THAT NONSENSE, THE THEATRICS, HAPPENED BECAUSE OF A BROADER PROBLEM. ORIGINALISTS HAVE SOUGHT TO RETURN TO COURT TO ITS HISTORIC ROLE, THE SUPREME COURT NOMINATION PROCESS HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY PUNCTUATED WITH NOT JUST THOSE THEATRICS BUT ALSO WITH A LOT OF PERSONAL ATTACKS. THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CAREFUL, THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF A NOMINEE'S RECORD TO HELP THE SENATE MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON A NOMINEE'S FITNESS FOR A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. THAT IS WHY THESE HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT. NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE ACT LIKE JACK WAGONS, BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE BEFORE US NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT WILL POTENTIALLY SERVE FOR A LIFETIME, SO THAT OFFICE AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND ALSO CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS A LIFETIME RESPONSIBILITY. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THIS PROCESS HAS WORKED LIKE THAT. INSTEAD, IT IS OFTEN STAGING GROUND FOR NASTY, EVIDENCE-FREE PERSONAL ATTACKS. WE STARTED DOWN THIS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ROAD IN THE 1980'S WITH JUDGE BORK'S HEARINGS, AND SENATORS HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AND DISGUSTING THEATRICS EVER SINCE. THE MOST RECENT SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REPEATED ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE NOTHING MORE THAN UNFILTERED RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY AGAINST HER. THE NOMINEE BEFORE HER WAS ACCUSED OF SERIAL RAPE, AIDED BY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. IF THIS PROCESS WERE CONDUCTED IN GOOD FAITH, MIGUEL ESTRADA AND JANICE ROGERS BROWN MIGHT WELL BE ON THE SUPREME COURT TODAY, BUT THEIR OPPONENTS LIED AND BULLET RATHER AND ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES MINORITY JUDGES. WE HAVE GOTTEN SO USED TO THIS KIND OF BULLYING THAT TWO YEARS AGO, THE CURRENT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER STOOD ON THE STEPS OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL AND SCREAMED THREATS AGAINST TWO JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEY WOULD QUOTE, REAP THE WHIRLWIND IF THEY RULED IN A WAY THAT DID NOT ALIGN WITH CHUCK SCHUMER'S POLITICAL PREFERENCES. THAT IS WEIRD. WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO PAUSE AND SAY THAT IS WEIRD. THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. THIS PROCESS IS BROKEN BUT IT IS A PRODUCT OF A BROADER BROKENNESS AND THE EROSION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO TAKE A STRIKE -- A SLEDGEHAMMER TO THE STRUCTURE, AND IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT IS MORE OF US EMBRACE AND ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS PHILOSOPHY OF OUR JOB, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE JOBS OF PUBLIC TRUST, OUR POLITICS BECOMES UGLIER, MORE BRUTAL, AND MORE PATHOLOGICAL. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONGRESS CAN CARRY OUT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY RESPONSIBLY WITHOUT A LOT OF THAT PAST UGLINESS. JUDGE JACKSON HAS SERVED FOR THE LAST NINE MONTHS ON THE PRESTIGIOUS U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE ARE THAT, YOU SPENT EIGHT YEARS ON THE D.C. DISTRICT COURT. SHE HAS A LONG RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND A LONG ROSTER OF COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS WHO WILL TESTIFY TO HER PROFESSIONALISM. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES SHE SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT AND IT IS THE JOB OF THIS BODY TO EVALUATE THAT RECOMMENDATION ON ITS MERITS. SO WHAT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING FOR? WE SHOULD START WITH JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. THE SENATE SHOULD HAVE A JUTE -- A GOOD SENSE OF THE PRINT SUPPOSE THAT WILL GUIDE A NOMINEE'S DECISION-MAKING ON EVENTS. A ROBUST AND THROUGHOUT JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY CAN ALSO HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW, WHEN FACED WITH DIFFICULT OR UNPRECEDENTED DECISIONS, AS THE COURT OCCASIONALLY IS -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLEMENT SENATOR KUNZ A MINUTE AGO MENTIONING A HUGE, HUGE SHARE OF DECISIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE 9-0. THEY JUST TEND TO NOT BE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE HEADLINES, BUT THEY ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AND THE PUBLIC TRUST WE NEED TO RESTORE IN ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WOULD BE WELL SERVED BY PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO SOME OF THOSE 9-0 DECISIONS. BUT THE ONES THAT TEND TO BE MOST CONSENSUS -- CONTENTIOUS ARE THE OCCASIONS WHERE JUDGES HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY DO IN AREAS WHICH ARE GREY AND AMBIGUOUS, WHERE THE LAW MIGHT NOT BE CLEAR. SO IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE TO TELL US HOW SHE OR HE WORKS OUT THOSE PRINCIPLES IN TIMES THAT ARE NEW AND CONFUSING. THIS WILL MAKE THEIR RULINGS MORE DURABLE AND SOUND AND IT WILL HELP REBUILD PUBLIC TRUST IN THE COURT AND IN THE GOVERNMENT MORE GENERALLY. UNFORTUNATELY TOO MANY OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS DO NOT REST ON SOLID CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND RELIABLE LEGAL REASONING. JUSTICES HAVE TOO OFTEN WRITTEN POLICY -- AND RETROFIT BAD DECISION-MAKING TO JUSTIFY THE RULING. SOME OF THE MOST DIVISIVE CASES RECENTLY FIT THAT BILL. IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT, WHILE WE SHOULD ALL RESPECT THE GINSBERG RULE, THE IDEA THAT JUDGES SITTING BEFORE THIS PANEL SHOULD NOT WEIGH IN ON HYPOTHETICAL CASES THAT ARE LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE COURT, NOMINEES DO NONETHELESS HAVE A DUTY TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THEIR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, THEIR LEGAL VIEWS, AND THEIR INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO CONSENT TO ANY NOMINEE WHO OPERATES ON PRINCIPLES THAT ARE OBSCURE, CONFUSED, OR CONCEALED. THAT MEANS EACH OF US HAS A JOB TO DO IN THESE HEARINGS. IT IS OUR JOB TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT HELP GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE NOMINEE. IT IS JUDGE JACKSON'S JOB TO MAKE HER PHILOSOPHY CLEAR AND WELL UNDERSTOOD. AT THE END OF A CONSTRUCTIVE HEARING, AND NOMINEE WILL GET A GOOD SENSE OF HOW SHE THINGS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE, WHAT IT DOES AND DOES NOT DO, AND THE KEY PILLARS THAT SUPPORTED. MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS WE SHOULD ALL MEMBER THAT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS NOT A LAWMAKER BY ANOTHER NAME. A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FORMS A CRUCIAL BUT LIMITED FUNCTION IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. NAMELY, TO INTERPRET AND FAIRLY APPLY THE TEXT OF THE LAW AS WRITTEN, AND AS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME IT WAS ADOPTED. A FORTHCOMING NOMINEE WILL MAKE CLEAR A COMMITMENT TO UPHOLD THAT PURPOSE, WHICH IS THE COURT'S TRUE PURPOSE, NOT THE PURPOSE CONCOCTED FOR RIGHT BY DECADES OF POLITICAL USE, ABUSE, AND OVERREACH. A GOOD NOMINEE WILL SHOW A COMMITMENT TO THE STRICT PROTECTION OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS, NOT THE FABRICATION OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS TO CONTORTED READINGS. AN EXCELLENT NOMINEE WILL OFFER A ROBUST JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT MAKES SOUND DECISIONS MORE LIKELY AND MORE TRUSTED BY THE PUBLIC. CHAIRMAN, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM JUDGE JACKSON THIS COMING WEEK. ...