I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO SITTING ON THE BENCH. BUT THEY ARE OUT THERE AND THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN. AND THEIR SPECIFIC PLAN, MATTER OF FACT, I WAS INSPIRED BY SENATOR WHITE HOUSE'S SEAT SO I WENT OUT TO DEMAND JUSTICE. THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN. STEP ONE, FOUR SEATS ON THE SUPREME COURT. WE MUST ADD FOUR SEATS ON THE SUPREME COURT TO RESTORE BALANCE, WHICH BY THEIR OPINION IS A MAJORITY WITH THEIR VIEW AND THEIR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. THEY'RE THRILLED PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS PROMISED TO APPOINT A COMMISSION, IN FACT THEY'RE SO THRILLED THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN INFLUENCE THE OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION BY ENDORSING THEIR FOUR SEAT STRATEGY. THEY WANT TO RECRUIT 25,000 VOLUNTEERS, THIS IS ON THEIR WEBSITE, THEIR STRATEGY, TO INFLUENCE THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN THEY WANT TO NUKE THE FILIBUSTER, 51 VOTES, TO MAKE A DECISION THAT COULD ULTIMATELY BE TO PACK THE COURTS. THIS IS THEIR STATED GOAL, THEY'RE PROUD OF IT. SENATOR WHITE HOUSE WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE PRIOR PRESIDENT WAS INFLUENCED BY AN ORGANIZATION, I WOULD SAY THAT SENATOR JACKSON AND ALMOST EVERYBODY THAT THE. -- PRESIDENT VETTED -- I'M SORRY, JUDGE JACKSON ARE ON THIS LIST. I THINK IT'S INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO SAY THE ADMINISTRATION THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY THIS ORGANIZATION. WE'VE TRACKED SOME OF THE FUNDRAISING AND SUPPORT IN THE RE-ELECTIONS AND THEY'RE ENGAGED AND INFLUENCED BY IT. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT WITH THE COURT PACKING RISK THAT WE HAVE TODAY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF TWO BACK IN JANUARY, SENATOR SCHUMER LAID OF WEIGHT DOWN -- A VOTE DOWN ON THE FLOOR THAT ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE FILIBUSTER LIMIT OF 60 TO 51. HE WAS DOING IT AS A WAY TO PASS A SINGLE BILL, BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SENATOR REID NUKED THE EXECUTIVE CALENDAR. IT LED TO YOU ONLY BEING SUBJECT TO 51 VOTES TO BE CONFIRMED. THAT NUKED THE EXECUTIVE CALENDAR. IN JANUARY, SENATOR SCHUMER WAS LOUD -- LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE SAME THING. THAT IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SENATE INSTITUTION, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CONSENSUS-BASED. WHAT DISAPPOINTED ME MOST ABOUT THAT VOTE IS BACK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS CALLING ON US AND PRESSURING US TO NUKE THE FILIBUSTER WHEN WE HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS, I SIGNED ONTO A LETTER WITH MORE THAN 60 MEMBERS TO SAY THAT I WOULD NEVER DO THAT IN THE FACE OF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WHOSE POLICIES I SUPPORTED. I DID THAT TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE, I RESPECT THIS INSTITUTION, AND I RESPECT THE COURT, WHICH ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN -- WE WOULD HAVE HAD PRESSURE FROM OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE TO PACK THE COURT OF THE BIT MORE. EVERY MEMBER WHO WAS HERE BACK WHEN WE SIGNED THAT LETTER WHO IS ON THIS COMMITTEE CHANGED THEIR POSITION. ANNA VOTED TO POTENTIALLY NEW FOR FILIBUSTER JUST TWO MONTHS AGO. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN ABOUT THE POLITICAL WINS AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE IT COULD DO TO THE SENATE AND DO TO THE SUPREME COURT. I THINK IT WAS FEDERALIST PAPERS 78 WHERE HAMILTON TALKED ABOUT THE VULNERABILITY, OR FEEBLENESS. HE WAS ARGUING THE CASE FOR LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS BUT I DO THINK THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS A FRAGILE INSTITUTION. I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE THINK IT IS POLITICIZED NOW, THINK ABOUT HOW IT WOULD BE IF WE DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF THE SENATE SO THAT A STRICT PARTY LINE PARTISAN VOTE, WE EXPAND THE COURT. THAT IS WHY COURT PACKING IS IMPORTANT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ASK A QUESTION THAT I KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER, BUT I KNOW THAT JUSTICE BREYER AND JUSTICE GINSBURG DID. IF THERE IS ANY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LISTENING RIGHT NOW, I WISH THAT THEY WOULD SPEAK UP BECAUSE I THINK YOUR INSTITUTION IS IN PERIL AND ACCELERATING IT TO A TRULY POLITICAL BODY IS ONLY ONE SUCCESSFUL NUKCLEEAR FILIBUSTER VOTE AWAY IN THE SENATE. I WAS A PARTNER AT PRICE WATERHOUSE ACT DURING THE ENRON SCANDAL. I SAW ABOUT A 100-YEAR-OLD TOP-TIER, BIG FIVE CONSULTING FIRM CEASED TO EXIST BECAUSE THEIR REPUTATION SUFFERED. IF WE PACK THE COURT, THE ONLY THING THAT YOU WILL HAVE, THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS, IS ITS INTEGRITY AND THE ESTEEM OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN TRUST THAT THEY PUT INTO IT. PACKING THE COURT COULD CAUSE THE SUPREME COURT TO LOSE THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I THINK IF WE WANT TO EXPAND THE COURT, LET'S DO IT FOR THE ONLY VALID REASON. MAYBE THE JUSTICES COME TO US AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE COME TO US AND SAY THE WORKLOAD IS TOO GREAT. THE TIMES HAVE CHANGED. AND THEN COMMENCE 60 MEMBERS OF THIS BODY TO CONSIDER IT. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE GOT A PARTISAN ORGANIZATION PUTTING A PIPELINE OF PEOPLE IN THERE THAT THEY THINK THINK LIKE THEM, HOW CAN ANY REASONABLE PERSON THINK THAT THIS IS JUST KIND OF FIXING THE MECHANICS? IT IS A PARTISAN DECISION THAT EVEN SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER CITED OF THE AISLE HAVE TAKEN THE BAIT, SO MUCH SO THAT THEY WOULD REVERSE A COMMITMENT THEY MADE WITH ME WHEN THEY SIGNED THAT LETTER TO SAY THEY WOULD NEVER NUKE THE FILIBUSTER AND THEN NUKE IT. PRESIDENT BIDEN IS ON THE LIST, TOO. BACK IN 1983, HE GAVE A ROUSING SPEECH IN A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING SAYING, DON'T PACK THE COURT. HE GAVE A ROUSING SPEECH ON THE SENATE FLOOR SAYING, DON'T NUKE THE FILIBUSTER. BUT NOW, WE ARE IN THIS POSTURE WHERE WE CAN DESTROY TWO INSTITUTIONS IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL. I ACTUALLY HOPE THAT YOU CAN, AT SOME POINT, STUDY THE ISSUE THOROUGHLY AND UNDERSTAND THE RISK TO THIS INSTITUTION THAT YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE CONFIRMED TO. IT IS SERIOUS. YOU COULD END UP BEING THERE, YOU WILL HAVE A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, YOU COULD ACTUALLY BE THERE AND WITNESS THIS -- IT'S DEMISE REAL-TIME IF WE ALLOW THE COURT TO BE PACKED. NOW, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- I THINK YOU WERE PART OF A CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE CASTING AS A PRO-LIFE VERSUS PRO-CHOICE ISSUE. TO BE CLEAR, I AM CATHOLIC AND I'M PRO-LIFE. AND I AM PROUD TO HAVE SIGNED AND RATIFIED PRO-LIFE BILLS IN NORTH CAROLINA WHEN I WAS BE GRABBED THE HOUSE THAT HAVE WITHSTOOD JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. BUT I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT CASE WAS ABOUT PRO-LIFE. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT FREE SPEECH. I WANT TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. AND MAYBE YOU CAN DESCRIBE IT TO ME IF YOUR MEMORY SERVES YOU. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU WERE PART OF, I THINK THAT YOU JOINED WITH A COUPLE OF OTHERS, IT SEEMED AS IF THE ARGUMENT WAS BECAUSE THE PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS WERE THREATENING DANGERS FOR WOMEN, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING YOU PUT THOSE WORDS IN THE BRIEF BUT THEY WERE IN THEIR AND THEY WERE A HOSTILE, NOISY CROWD IN THE FACE OF PROTESTERS. AM I CORRECT THAT A PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOISY, IN-YOUR-FACE PROTESTERS, NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY THAN PEOPLE WHO WERE PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES? AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK THE UNDERLYING LAWN MASSACHUSETTS WAS ULTIMATELY STRUCK DOWN UNANIMOUSLY BY THE SUPREME COURT. IS THAT CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. ...