THIS HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. IT WILL BEGIN IN THE CONSIDERATION OF JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON. WELCOME, TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. HON. KETANJI BROWN: THANK YOU. 
WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THOSE INTRODUCTIONS.
THIS HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WELCOME JUDGE JACKSON.
THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAHEY. NEXT UP IS ANOTHER FORMER CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GRAHAM. SENATOR FEINSTEIN?
THANK YOU, SENATOR FEINSTEIN. SENATOR CORMAN FROM TEXAS.
SENATOR WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND.
THANK YOU, SENATOR WHITEHOUSE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LEE. SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.
SENATOR CRUZ OF TEXAS.
THANK YOU SENATOR. SENATOR KUNZ FROM DELAWARE.
THANK YOU SENATOR SASSE. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL OF CONNECTICUT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. SENATOR GRASSLEY JUST ASKED ME WHAT THE PLAN IS. THE PLAN IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO MORE SENATORS AND THEN TAKE A 30-MINUTE BREAK FOR LUNCH. WE HAVE SENATOR HAWLEY OF MISSOURI. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR HAWLEY. CERTAINLY THE JUDGE DESERVES TO BE HEARD ON THAT TYPE OF A CHARGE. SENATOR HIRONO?
WE WILL GO TO BREAK AND RETURN AT 2:05. WHEN YOU HEAR THIS WE ARE BACK IN BUSINESS. IT
THIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL RESUME AND NEXT IS THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS FOR OPENING STATEMENTS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SENATOR BOOKER.
SENATOR KENNEDY OF LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU SENATOR KENNEDY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
SENATOR BLACKBURN OF TENNESSEE.
ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE NOW COMPLETED THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS. AT THIS POINT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME LOGISTICS. I WILL ASK THAT THE TWO INTRODUCERS PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE WITNESS TABLE. JUDGE JACKSON, YOU CAN TAKE A BREAK FROM THE SPOTLIGHT. WE HAVE TWO GUESTS INTRODUCING JUDGE JACKSON. WE WILL HEAR FROM THOMAS GRIFFITH, WHO SERVED ON THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM 2005-2020, AND LISA FAIRFAX WHO SERVES AS PROFESSOR ED CODIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTIONAL THAT INSTITUTION FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL. JUDGE GRIFFITH, WE WILL START WITH YOU. 
THANK. LISA FAIRFAX.
THANK YOU. PROFESSOR FAIRFAX AND JUDGE GRIFFITH, I AM SURE JUDGE JACKSON AND HER EMILY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. I WANT TO ADD SENATOR DOUG JONES , WHO HAS INTRODUCED JEB -- JUDGE JACKSON TO MANY OF US. DOUG, THANK YOU FOR SERVING IN THIS CAUSE AND HELPING THE PRESIDENT AND JUDGE JACKSON. WE ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROGRAM. THAT IS TO HEAR FROM JUDGE JACKSON. IF WE CAN SET UP A TABLE -- BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, JUDGE, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE OATH. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? 
I DO.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE JUDGE HAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. YOU MAKE NOW PROCEED. -- MAY NOW PROCEED.
THANK YOU IS JACKSON. STARTING TOMORROW, WILL BE SOME SERIOUS EXCHANGE IN QUESTION. 30 MINUTES AND THEN THE FOLLOWING DAY 20 MINUTES FOR EACH SENATOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOU A OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE THINGS YOU HAVE HEARD AN ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS. MEMBERS HAVE UNTIL THURSDAY AT 5:00 P.M. TO SUBMIT TO THE RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO RECONVENE AT 9:00. WE THANK ALL OF THE DISSIDENTS OF THE AUDIENCE FOR KEEPING THIS DIGNIFIED, RESPECTFUL AND CIVILIZED. WE HOPE TO CONTINUE THA 
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WELCOMED ORDER. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE JACKSON AND WELCOME BACK TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THIS SECOND DAY IS KNOWN AS TRIAL BY ORDEAL. THIS WILL BE YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BUT EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAS 30 MINUTES TO ASK AND I KNOW THEY WILL BE CAREFUL TO STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS OF THOSE 30 MINUTES. I WILL REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT SPEECHES DO NOT HAVE TO BE TURN OUT TO BE IMMORTAL. PRESIDENT LINCOLN LEARNED I GET A THAT 240-- LEARNED AT GETTYSBURG THAT 240 WORDS IS ENOUGH. WE WILL TAKE A FEW BREAKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. A FEW OF THEM ARE SCHEDULED -- ONE FOR LUNCH, ONE FOR DINNER AND SEVERAL SHORTER ONES IN THE MEANTIME. IF VOTES ARE CALLED ON THE FLOOR WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO KEEP THINGS GOING. WE WELCOME ALL OUR FRIENDS IN THE AUDIENCE AND ASK THAT THEY BE QUIET AND RESPECTFUL DURING THE HEARING. LET'S GET STARTED WITH QUESTIONING. THERE WERE TWO ISSUES THAT CAME UP REPEATEDLY YESTERDAY FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS AT THE OUTSET. ONE WAS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. NO ONE QUESTIONS YOUR CREDENTIALS OR SERVICE AS CLERK AND AS FEDERAL JUDGE, BUT TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED WHAT IS YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY? DOES IT FIT INTO SCALIA'S ORIGINALISM, CAVANAUGH'S TEXTUALISM? IS A CONSERVATIVE? I HAVE DISCOVERED THE ANSWER. DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR TIME AS JUDGE, YOU HAVE WRITTEN OPINIONS, 573 TO BE EXACT AND THEY MORE OR LESS EXPRESS YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW AS THE FACTS ARE PRESENTED TO YOU IN EACH OF THOSE CASES. SOME 12,000 PAGES FROM THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, FOR MOST OF US AS ELECTED SENATORS PEOPLE ASK " WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY?" AND WE POINTED TO OUR VOTING RECORD. THIS COMMITTEE IS DELVING INTO EVERYTHING YOU HAVE PUBLISHED. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT AT THE OUTSET FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR A LABEL WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY? JUDGE BROWN-JACKSON
ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH HAS COME UP TO MY SURPRISE, I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT MY REPUBLICAN -- I HAVE SPOKEN TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ABOUT THEIR FASCINATION WITH IT -- IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT KNOWN AS COURT PACKING. THERE IS ONE LOVING SENATOR WHO HAS EFFECTIVE -- LIVING SENATOR WHO HAS CHANGED THE SIZE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT IS SENATOR MCCONNELL WHO SHRANK THE COURT TO EIGHT WHEN HE REJECTED THE CONFIRMATION HEARING OF ERIC GARLAND. AMY CONEY BARRETT WAS ASKED ABOUT IT. SHE SAID SHE " COULD NOT OPINE ABOUT IT." SHE SAID SHE COULD NOT SHARE HER VIEWS, STATING " I WILL NOT EXPRESS AAN OPINION ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY." I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A SEPARATE SET OF RULES FOR REPUBLICAN NOMINEES AND DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES. IF A SENATOR ASKED DO TODAY ABOUT CHANGING THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE SPRING COURT, WHAT WOULD YOUR ANSWER BE?
I AGREE WITH JUSTICE BARRETT AND HER RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION WHEN SHE WAS ASKED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. I NORTHSTAR IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE -- MY NORTHSTAR IS THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE IN OUR CONSTITUTIO
AS A MOTHER AND A JUDGE WHO HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH THESE CASES, I WAS THINKING THAT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. THESE ARE SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES THAT A JUDGE HAS TO DEAL WITH BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PICTURES OF SEX ABUSE OF CHIL
IT SHOULD BE NOTICED AS WELL THAT THE, CASES WHICH THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI MENTIONED YESTERDAY ALWAYS RESULTED IN INCARCERATION OF SOME MAGNITUDE. I WANT TO READ WHAT YOU WROTE ON THE RECORD -- " THIS FAMILY HAS BEEN TORN APART. YOU HEARD IT IN THEIR VOICES. THE IMPACT ON THE VICTIMS MAKES YOUR CRIME THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE THIS CRIME HAS EVER SENTENCED," AND YOU IMPOSED 29.5 YEARS ON THAT SENTENCE. YOUR RECORD -- WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE IS AN ISSUE, WHICH THIS COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE NOT WANTED TO ADMIT -- THE ORIGINAL LAW WAS WRITTEN YEARS AGO AND THE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL WAS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING. NOW THAT WE HAVE COMPUTER ACCESS TO VOLUMINOUS AMOUNTS OF MATERIAL IT HAS, RAISED THE QUESTION HAS IT NOT WITHIN THE JUDICIARY ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCING IN TODAY'S CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED BEFORE THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, WAS IT NOT? SENTENCING COMMISSION WROTE AT LEAST ONE REPORT LOOKING AT THE OPERATION OF THIS GUIDELINE. THE GUIDELINE WAS BASED ORIGINALLY ON A STATUTORY SCHEME AND DIRECTIVES, SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES BY CONGRESS AT A TIME WHICH MORE SERIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS WERE IDENTIFIED BASED ON THE VOLUME, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS THEY RECEIVED IN THE MAIL AND THAT MADE TOTAL SENSE BEFORE WHEN WE DID NOT HAVE THE INTERNET, WHEN WE DID NOT HAVE DISTRIBUTION. THE WAY IT IS NOW STRUCTURED BASED ON THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IS LEADING TO EXTREME DISPARITIES IN THE SEVEN -- THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS SO EASY FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE VOLUMES OF THIS MATERIAL NOW BY COMPUTERS IT IS NOT DOING THE WORK OF DIFFERENTIATING WHO IS A MORE SERIOUS OFFENDER IN THE WAY THAT EIGHT USE TO SO THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY COURTS ARE ADJUSTING THEIR SENTENCES IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES BUT IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE COURT'S VIEW OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS OFFENSE. 
 THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WROTE AT LEAST ONE REPORT LOOKING AT THE OPERATION OF THIS GUIDELINE. THE GUIDELINE WAS BASED ORIGINALLY ON A STATUTORY SCHEME AND DIRECTIVES, SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES BY CONGRESS AT A TIME WHICH MORE SERIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFEND
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI'S ACCUSATIONS. THE WASHINGTON POST HAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE INACCURATE AND UNFAIR TO YOU. ONE WRITER HAS SAID THAT THEY ARE " MERITLESS TO THE POINT OF UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS." BETWEEN 2015 AND 2020 IN THE D.C. DISTRICT COURT WHERE YOU SERVED JUDGES IMPOSED BELOW GUIDELINES SENTENCES 80% OF THE TIME FOR THE REASONS YOU JUST EXPLAINED. JUDGES IN MISSOURI DID SO 77% OF THE TIME. ONE PARTICULAR JUDGE THE SENATOR SUPPORTED TO BECOME A FEDERAL JUDGE BY APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP UNFORTUNATELY HAS A 77% RECORD -- LET ME MAKE SURE THIS IS ACCURATE. HERE IT IS. SARAH PITLYK, THE SENATOR'S CHOICE FOR MISSOURI, SENTENCED A PERSON IN POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO 60 MONTHS, WELL BELOW THE GUIDELINES. SHE APPEARS TO HAVE RUN INTO THIS SAME CHALLENGE YOU HAVE DESCRIBED HERE SO GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF THIS ISSUE, IT SEEMS LIKE WE AT LEAST SHARE THE BURDEN BY YOUR INTERPRETATION TO DEFINE THE STATUTE IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY. IS THAT THE WAY YOU SEE IT? CONGRESS IS TASKED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SETTING PENALTIES. -- RESPONSIBILITY OF SETTING PENALTIES. CONGRESS TELLS JUDGES WHAT TO DO WHEN WE SENTENCE. CONGRESS HAS TO DETERMINE HOW IT WISHES FOR JUDGES TO HANDLE THESE CASES, BUT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS THE WAY THE LAWS WRITTEN, THE WAY CONGRESS HAS -- THE LAW IS WRITTEN, THE WAY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THESE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. THERE ARE JUDGES WHO ARE VARYING BECAUSE OUR ULTIMATE CHARGE FROM THIS BODY IS TO SENTENCE IN A WAY THAT IS SUFFICIENT BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. 
 SENATOR, CONGRESS IS TASKED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SETTING PENALTIES. -- RESPONSIBILITY OF SETTING PENALTIES. CONGRESS TELLS JUDGES WHAT TO DO WHEN WE SENTENCE. CONGRESS HAS TO DETERMINE HOW IT WISHES FOR JUDGES TO HANDLE THESE CASES, BUT AS IT CURRE
THANK YOU, SENATOR. SEPTEMBER 11 WAS A TRAGIC ATTACK ON THIS COUNTRY. WE ALL LIVED THROUGH IT. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED. THERE WERE MANY ACCORDANT DEFENSES AMERICANS UNDERTOOK. THERE WERE AMERICANS WHO SERVICE CAME IN THE FORM OF MILITARY ACTION. MY BROTHER 
JUDGE JACKSON, THOSE OF US WHO READ ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT REALIZE THERE IS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF THE JUSTICES. YOU HAVE SEEN IT PERSONALLY AS A CLERK, AN ATTORNEY YOURSELF. I WILL CLOSE WITH ONE QUESTION HERE THAT COMES TO MY MIND. I WAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN THE WAR ON DRUGS WAS PASSED 30 YEARS AGO. IT WAS AT THE ADVENT OF CRACK COCAINE. IT SCARED THE HELL OUT OF US. THE NOTION OF A CHEAP NARCOTIC, HIGHLY ADDICTIVE, DESTRUCTIVE TO MOTHERS AND THEIR FETUSES LED US TO IMPOSE A SENTENCING DISPARITY BETWEEN CRACK AND POT OR COCAINE THAT WAS UNPRECEDENTED. 100 TO ONE. THE NOTION WAS TO IMPOSE A FEDERAL STANDARD AND STOP THE ADVANCE OF CRACK COCAINE. WE FAILED FROM THE OUTSET. THE PRICE OF CRACK COCAINE ON THE STREET WENT DOWN, -- UP INSTEAD OF DOWN. I'M SORRY. I DID THAT WRONG. DOWN INSTEAD OF UP. THE NUMBER OF USERS WENT UP INSTEAD OF DOWN. WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE WE WERE FILLING FEDERAL PRISONS WITH VIOLATIONS PRIMARILY FOR POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS BEING INCARCERATED AT A TIME. I CAME HERE TO THIS COMMITTEE IN AN EFFORT TO CHANGE IT, NEGOTIATED A REVISION OF THE MEASURE FROM 100 TO ONE TO 18 TO ONE WITH SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS. IT WAS PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE, THE SENATE, AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. THEN THE COMMISSION HAD TO CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH THESE NEW GUIDELINES COMING FROM CONGRESS. YOU ACHIEVED A CONSENSUS. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE A SENTENCING COMMISSION IS A DIVERSE GROUP AND VERY TRANSPARENT. COULD YOU CLOSE IN THE LAST MINUTE AND TELL ME ABOUT THE EFFORT TO FIND CONSENSUS ON AN ISSUE THAT CONTROVERSIAL?
YES, SENATOR. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION IS A VERY DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES BY LAW. AT THE TIME I WAS ON THE COMMISSION, WE HAD A RANGE OF PEOPLE. JUDGES FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, WHO HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT
THANK YOU. SENATOR GRASSLEY.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. WELCOME TO OUR COMMITTEE. I GOT HOME LAST NIGHT AT 8
THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] 
SHE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT MY STATEMENT.
[LAUGHTER]
BESIDES THE FACTS WE MIGHT HAVE SOME VOTES ON THE U.S. SENATE, I'M NOT BEING RUDE TO YOU, I MAY HAVE TO GO ACROSS THE HALL TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON ISSUES WITH TARIFFS, AND DOWN TO THE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE FOR ISSUES ON RURAL HEALTH CARE. DO YOU BELIEVE, LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY -- DO THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREE-SPEECH PROTECTIONS APPLY EQUALLY TO CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL PROTESTERS? YES. 
YES. 
DO YOU BELIEVE THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
SENATOR, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. 
COULD YOU TELL ME HOW YOU MIGHT GO ABOUT CITING WHAT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE ABSTRACT IN THE SORT OF WAY YOU MAY HAVE POSED THE QUESTION. THERE IS PRECEDENT IN THE SUPREME COURT RELATED TO VARIOUS RIGHTS THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED AS FUNDAMENTAL. THE COURT HAS SOME PRECEDENTS ABOUT THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS FUNDAMENTAL. THE COURT HAS SAID THE 14TH AMENDMENT, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES SUPPORT SOME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BUT ONLY THINGS THAT ARE IMPLICIT IN THE ORDERED CONCEPT OF LIBERTY OR DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE HISTORY AND TRADITIONS OF THIS COUNTRY. THE KINDS OF RIGHTS THAT RELATE TO PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY. THEY HAVE RECOGNIZED A FEW THINGS IN THAT CATEGORY. THAT IS THE TRADITION OF THE COURT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER SOMETHING IS FUNDAMENTAL IN THAT WAY. 
SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE ABSTRACT IN THE SORT OF WAY YOU MAY HAVE POSED THE QUESTION. THERE IS PRECEDENT IN THE SUPREME COURT RELATED TO VARIOUS RIGHTS THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED AS FUNDAMENTAL. THE COURT HAS SOME PRECEDENTS AB
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT, PERSONAL FOR ME OVER A LONG TIME AND ABOUT HALF OF THIS COMMITTEE BUT IT IS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE EVEN WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE -- I FAVOR ALLOWING SUPREME COURT HEARINGS TO BE TELEVISED. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM? ABOUT 40, 50, 45 STATES ALLOW. WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES THEIR VIEWS IN UNDERSTANDING ALL THE VARIOUS POTENTIAL ISSUES RELATED TO CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM BEFORE I TOOK A POSITION ON IT. 
 I WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES THEIR VIEWS IN UNDERSTANDING ALL THE VARIOUS POTENTIAL ISSUES RELATED TO CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM BEFORE I TOOK A POSITION ON IT. 
FAIR ANSWER AT THIS POINT. I WILL ASK YOU ABOUT A BILL I GOT PAST A LONG TIME AGO AND IT IS SOMETHING, AT SOME LEVEL OF COURT, SOMETIMES DISTRICT COURT, SOMETIMES CIRCUIT COURT, EVEN ONCE OR TWICE AT THE SUPREME COURT, THESE COURTS TEND TO DO DAMAGE TO A BILL CALLED THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. THIS BILL HAS BROUGHT $70 BILLION OF FRAUDULENTLY TAKEN MONEY BACK TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY SINCE PAST. COURTS HAVE WEAKENED IT, SENATOR LAHEY AND I USUALLY FIND OURSELVES HAVING TO PASS LEGISLATION TO SAY TO THE COURTS, YOU GOT IT WRONG. IN FACT THERE IS A CONTROVERSIAL BILL RIGHT NOW BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE ON THAT VERY SUBJECT. IT HAS FOUGHT FRAUD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES. $70 BILLION IS PRETTY IMPORTANT. IF YOU ARE APPROVED TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT IN THE ISSUE OF FALSE CLAIMS COMES UP, I HOPE YOU THINK OF CHUCK GRASSLEY. [LAUGHTER] WELL, AND SENATOR LAHEY. [LAUGHTER] THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT IS ONE OF THE BEST TOOLS WE HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT FRAUD AND RECOVER TAXPAYER MONEY. I HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES TO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO SHINE A LIGHT ON FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE IN THE GOVERNMENT SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND I WILL START WITH A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNNAMED, ONCE SUGGESTED THE SUITS WERE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." ANOTHER WORD HE USED WAS DANGEROUS. HE ARGUED IT VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE. UNDERSTANDING YOU MAY GET A CASE BEFORE YOU ON THE FULL CLAIMS ACT BUT MAYBE THIS APPOINTMENT CLAUSE IS SOUND ENOUGH, YOU COULD ANSWER TO VIOLATION OF THE CLAUSE? AM NOT FAMILIAR -- 
 I AM NOT FAMILIAR -- 
COULD YOU ANSWER IN WRITING?
I'M SORRY, I SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU.
THAT IS ALL RIGHT, SORRY, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE QUOTATION OR WHAT THE ATTORNEY MAY HAVE SAID ABOUT THEM. I KNOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS KEY TAM ACTIONS AND HAS ISSUED OPINIONS IN THE AREA AND HAS NOT AT LEAST TO DATE FOUND THEM TO B
ON THE SAME SUBJECT, ALSO, THIS FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUED KEY TAM SUITS ALSO VIOLATE A BROADER SEPARATION OF POWER PRINCIPLES. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS ARE VIOLATED WHEN PRIVATE CITIZENS ARE ALLOWED TO SUE IN THE NAME OF THE U.S.? THAT IS WHAT THOSE SUITS ARE ALL ABOUT, PRIVATE CITIZENS GOING TO COURT. IS AN IMPORTANT CONCERN. THERE ARE STATUTES THAT ALLOW FOR THE KINDS OF LAWSUITS YOU ARE ARTICULATING. I AM NOT AWARE OF IMPEDIMENTS TO THOSE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT MAY BE LITIGATED AND I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, AS I DO CONSISTENT WITH MY METHODOLOGY, AT ANY ARGUMENTS RAISED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LAWFULNESS OF THOSE ACTIONS. 
 IT IS AN IMPORTANT CONCERN. THERE ARE STATUTES THAT ALLOW FOR THE KINDS OF LAWSUITS YOU ARE ARTICULATING. I AM NOT AWARE OF IMPEDIMENTS TO THOSE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT MAY BE LITIGATED AND I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, AS I DO CONSISTENT WITH MY
REMEMBERING ABOUT ALL OF THESE SUITS THAT INVOLVE THE COURTS AND MAKING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, MOST OF THEM ARE BROUGHT BY WHISTLEBLOWERS. REMEMBER, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THESE FRAUDULENT USE OF TAXPAYERS WITHOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS COMING FORTH AND THEY OUGHT TO BE GIVEN SOME CREDIT FOR WANTING THE GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT THE LAWS SAY IT OUGHT TO DO AND SPEND THE MONEY THE WAY CONGRESS IMPLIES THE MONEY BE SPENT. I WANT TO MOVE ON. AT AN EVENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL OF LAW, 2020, YOU QUOTED MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., WHO DREAMT OF A TIME WHEN "THE SONS OF FORMER SLAVES AND THE SONS OF FORMER SLAVE OWNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN TOGETHER AT THE TABLE OF BROTHERHOOD." YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY THINGS IN THE COUNTRY THEN CHANGED INCLUDING THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW'S, OVER THE NEXT FOR YEARS, BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. YOU ADDED "LESS THAN A DECADE AFTER DR. KING'S WORDS, THAT WAS A WORLDVIEW INHABITED. DR. KING HOPED FOR A COUNTRY WHERE WE WOULD ALL BE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF OUR CHARACTER RATHER THAN OUR RACE." DO THESE QUOTES STILL REFLECT YOUR VIEWS ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC TODAY? SENATOR. IN THAT SPEECH, I TALKED ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, MY UPBRINGING. THE FACT MY PARENTS WHEN THEY WERE GROWING UP IN MIAMI, FLORIDA ATTENDED AND HAD TO ATTEND RACIALLY SEGREGATED SCHOOLS BECAUSE BY LAW, WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG, WHITE CHILDREN AND BLACK CHILDREN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO SCHOOL TOGETHER. IN MY REALITY, WHEN I WAS BORN IN 1970 AND WENT TO SCHOOL IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I WENT TO A DIVERSE, PUBLIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE FACT WE HAD COME THAT FAR WAS TO ME A TESTAMENT TO THE HOPE AND PROMISE OF THIS COUNTRY, THE GREATNESS OF AMERICA, THAT IN ONE GENERATION WE COULD GO FROM RACIALLY SEGREGATED SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA TO HAVE ME SITTING HERE AS THE FIRST FLORIDIAN EVER TO BE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. SO, YES, SENATOR, THAT IS MY BELIEF. 
 YES, SENATOR. IN THAT SPEECH, I TALKED ABOUT MY BACKGROUND, MY UPBRINGING. THE FACT MY PARENTS WHEN THEY WERE GROWING UP IN MIAMI, FLORIDA ATTENDED AND HAD TO ATTEND RACIALLY SEGREGATED SCHOOLS BECAUSE BY LAW, WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG, WHITE CHILDREN AND BLA
I THINK IT IS GOOD THE COUNTRY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT YOU JUST TOLD US ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE. I AM GOING TO GO TO SOMETHING THAT THE CHAIRMAN BROUGHT UP. I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN THE THREE STEPS YOU GO THROUGH -- NO, ANOTHER QUESTION BUT ALSO ONE HE BROUGHT UP. I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. YOU SAID IT SHOULD BE A POLICY QUESTION BUT I WANT TO GO SOMETHING IN 2013 DURING YOUR HEARING TO BE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE. SENATOR COLBURN ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU BELIEVED IN THE THEORY THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING DOCUMENT WHOSE MEANING EVOLVES OVER TIME. YOU SAID NO. IN 2021 DURING YOUR CIRCUIT COURT NOMINATION HEARING, YOU DECLINED TO ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION WHEN ASKED WHY THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION OF 2013, NOT IN 2021. IN WRITTEN QUESTIONS YOU NOTED YOU WERE NOT A SITTING JUDGE. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME OR DESCRIBE FOR US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICAL RULES FOR SITTING JUDGES VERSUS JUDICIAL NOMINEES WHO ARE NOT ALREADY JUDGES. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ARE ETHICAL RULES THAT ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT I WILL SAY IT WITH RESPECT TO MY APPROACH TO JUDGING, THERE IS NOT A LABEL, I THINK, THAT FITS WHAT IT IS I DO AND HOW I APPROACHED MY ROLE. AS I MENTIONED TO THE CHAIRMAN, I AM VERY ACUTELY AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF MY JUDICIAL POWER. AND THOSE LIMITATIONS COME IN THE FORM OF ADHERENCE TO THE TEXT. ASSUMING YOU EVEN GET TO THAT STAGE OF THE PROCESS, THAT YOU HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, YOU CAN REACH THE MERITS, THEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE TEXT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A LIVING CONSTITUTION IN THE SENSE IT IS CHANGING AND INFUSED WITH MY OWN POLICY PERSPECTIVE OR THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DAY. INSTEAD, THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE TEXT AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING AND WHAT THE MEETING WAS THEN AS A CONSTRAINT ON MY OWN AUTHORITY. I APPLY THAT CONSTRAINT. I LOOK AT THE TEXT TO DETERMINE WHAT IT MEANT TO THOSE WHO DRAFTED IT. 
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ARE ETHICAL RULES THAT ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT I WILL SAY IT WITH RESPECT TO MY APPROACH TO JUDGING, THERE IS NOT A LABEL, I THINK, THAT FITS WHAT IT IS I DO AND HOW I APPROACHED MY ROLE. AS I MENTIONED TO THE CHAIRMAN, I AM VERY ACUT
ON THIS SAME SUBJECT, I WANT TO POINT OUT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAT ON THE SUPREME COURT. JUSTICE BREYER SAID ANY STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF THE SUPREME COURT MOTIVATED BY A PERCEPTION OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE CAN ONLY FEED THE PERCEPTION, FURTHER ERODING THAT TRUST. JUSTICE GINSBURG QUOTED IT AS BEING A "BAD IDEA." COURT PACKING IS CREATING NEW SEATS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES FOR A PRESIDENT TO APPOINT MORE JUDGES. DO YOU AGREE WITH JUSTICE BREYER AND JUSTICE GINSBURG THAT COURT PACKING IS A BAD IDEA. BEFORE YOU RESPOND, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOU SAY THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE LEFT CONGRESS AS A POLICY ISSUE. I REITERATE SITTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE SPOKEN ON THAT MATTER SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO YOU TO DO IF OTHER PEOPLE SITTING THERE HAVE SAID IT IS A BAD IDEA. NOMINEES TO THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RESPONDED AS I WILL, WHICH IS THAT IT IS A POLICY QUESTION FOR CONGRESS. I AM PARTICULARLY MINDFUL OF NOT SPEAKING TO POLICY ISSUES BECAUSE I AM SO COMMITTED TO STAYING IN MY LANE OF THE SYSTEM. I AM JUST NOT WILLING TO SPEAK TO ISSUES THAT ARE PROPERLY IN THE PROVINCE OF THIS BODY. 
 RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, OTHER NOMINEES TO THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RESPONDED AS I WILL, WHICH IS THAT IT IS A POLICY QUESTION FOR CONGRESS. I AM PARTICULARLY MINDFUL OF NOT SPEAKING TO POLICY ISSUES BECAUSE I AM SO COMMITTED TO STAYING IN MY LANE OF THE SYS
THEN I WOULD INTERPRET YOUR ANSWER, AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO THIS BUT I THINK YOU ARE SAYING BREYER AND GINSBURG SHOULD NOT HAVE STATED THEIR VIEWS ON THAT ISSUE. DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY, ONE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE SUGGESTED THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY DARK MONEY GROUPS. DO YOU AGREE THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY DARK MONEY GROUPS?
I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. I HAVE ONLY THE HIGHEST ESTEEM FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHOM I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO JOIN IF I AM CONFIRMED AND FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY. 
THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. I AM GOING TO GO TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. DURING AN ABA PANEL ON INTERNATIONAL LAW LAST YEAR, JUSTICE BREYER SAID, AS A FEDERAL JUDGE "YOU CANNOT DO YOUR JOB PROPERLY WITHOUT CONSIDERING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND IN SOME CASES, IT IS A GROWING NUMBER." I ASSUME A GROWING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO USE INTERNATIONAL LAW. IN 2018 JUSTICE BREYER SAID "THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE AMERICAN VALUES MAY WELL BE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENS ABROAD." UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN INTERPRETING OUR CONSTITUTION? 
THANK YOU SENATOR. I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE HIGHEST ESTEEM AND RESPECT FOR MY FIRMER BOSS -- MY FORMER BOSS WHO I SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE PAST DECADES CALLING MY JUSTICE, HAVING CLERKED FOR HIM. I DO THINK THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IS VERY LIMITED IN OUR SCHEME AND JUDGING. THERE ARE CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH IT IS RELIED UPON WHERE CONGRESS DIRECTS OR WHERE THE STANDARDS ARE SUCH, THE CASE INVOLVES A TREATY FOR EXAMPLE AND YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ORDER TO ADDRESS IT, BUT THEY, THERE ARE VERY FEW CASES IN WHICH INTERNATIONAL LAW PLAYS ANY ROLE AND CERTAINLY NOT IN INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION. 
I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE ANSWERED MY NEXT TWO QUESTIONS. IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, I STILL WANT TO ASK THEM. DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LOOK TO INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN INTERPRETING ENUMERATED AND UNENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
AGAIN, I THINK YOU HAVE ANSWERED THIS BUT I WILL ASK IT ANYWAY. WHAT SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSES OR RIGHTS HAS THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED BY LOOKING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW? AM NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT ARE PROPERLY ILLUMINATED BY REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
 I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT ARE PROPERLY ILLUMINATED BY REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
NOW I WANT TO GO TO A QUESTION SENATOR DURBIN ASKED/ I WILL PROBABLY GO A LITTLE MORE BUT I REMEMBER THIS IS ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND YOU MADE THREE POINTS YOU TAKE TO GO THROUGH A CASE AND APPLY THE LAW. YOU SAY YOUR METHODOLOGY IS LIMITED POWER AND STAY WITHIN YOUR LANE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU -- YOU SERVED ON THE DISTRICT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND SPENT. IF CONGRESS WRITES A LAW THAT DOES NOT ALLOW PRIVATE PARTIES TO SUE, DO YOU BELIEVE THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE IMPLIED CLAUSES OF ACTION? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU ELABORATE IF YOU SAY YES. WOULD SAY THAT AS A GENERAL MATTER, NO, SENATOR. OUR OBLIGATION, AS JUDGES, IS NOT TO CREATE POLICY. IF CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A STATUTE THAT ESTABLISHES A CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESTRICTS CLAUSES OF ACTION, AS A GENERAL MATTER, I DON'T THINK COURTS CAN IMPOSE ONE. NOW I AM SAYING GENERALLY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM NOT THINKING OF. I KNOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES AT TIMES DISCUSSED IMPLIED CAUSES OF ACTION. I THINK THE CHARGE OF THE JUDGE IS TO IMPOSE THE LAW AS WRITTEN. 
 I WOULD SAY THAT AS A GENERAL MATTER, NO, SENATOR. OUR OBLIGATION, AS JUDGES, IS NOT TO CREATE POLICY. IF CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A STATUTE THAT ESTABLISHES A CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESTRICTS CLAUSES OF ACTION, AS A GENERAL MATTER, I DON'T THINK COURTS CAN IMPO
THERE ARE 115 JUSTICES THAT SERVED BEFORE YOU. IF YOU ARE APPROVED BY THE SENATE. IS THERE ANY OF THEM NOW OR IN THE PAST THAT HAS A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLE ZERO? -- RESEMBLES YOUR OWN? HAVE NOT STUDIED THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES OF ALL THE PRIOR JUSTICES. I WILL SAY I COME TO THIS POSITION, THIS MOMENT AS A JUDGE WHO COMES FROM PRACTICE. THAT I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE AND MY METHODOLOGY HAS DEVELOPED IN THAT CONTEXT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER JUSTICES OTHER THAN JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR HAVE THAT SAME PERSPECTIVE BUT IT INFORMS ME, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE MY PROPER JUDICIAL ROLE. 
 I HAVE NOT STUDIED THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES OF ALL THE PRIOR JUSTICES. I WILL SAY I COME TO THIS POSITION, THIS MOMENT AS A JUDGE WHO COMES FROM PRACTICE. THAT I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE AND MY METHODOLOGY HAS DEVELOPED IN THAT CONTEXT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY O
WHAT ASPECT OF YOUR RECORD AS A JUDGE DO YOU BELIEVE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY? I THINK ALL OF MY RECORD IS IMPORTANT TO SOME DEGREE BECAUSE IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES I AM AN INDEPENDENT JURIST, THAT I AM RULING IN EVERY CASE CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY I DESCRIBED, THAT I AM IMPARTIAL. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN LOOK AT MY RECORD AND SAY IT IS POINTING IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. THAT IT IS SUPPORTING ONE VIEWPOINT OR ANOTHER. I AM DOING THE WORK AND HAVE DONE THE WORK FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS THAT JUDGES DO TO RULE IMPARTIALLY AND TO STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR PROPER JUDICIAL ROLE. 
 WELL, I THINK ALL OF MY RECORD IS IMPORTANT TO SOME DEGREE BECAUSE IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES I AM AN INDEPENDENT JURIST, THAT I AM RULING IN EVERY CASE CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY I DESCRIBED, THAT I AM IMPARTIAL. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN LOOK AT MY RE
 THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THAT OPINION AND MY ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO IT. AS YOU SAID, MAKE THE ROAD WAS A CASE INVOLVING A CHALLENGE TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL, WHICH WAS A WAY IN WHICH CONGRESS HAD GIVEN AUTHORITY TO HOMELAND, TO THE DE
THANK YOU, SENATOR GRASSLEY. SENATOR LAHEY.
YES, SENATOR. I THINK EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHETHER AS YOU SAY ON THE PROSECUTION SIDE OR DEFENSE, HAS EXPERIENCE, AN ASSET AS A JUDGE. YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND AS A DEFENSE COUNSEL OR YOU HAVE INTERACTED WITH DEFENDAN
IT IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT PART FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS?
IT ALSO GUARANTEES OUR CONSTITUTION IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT YOU WENT AROUND WITH SENATOR DOUG JONES, WHO IS HIGHLY RESPECTED IN THE SENATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. YOU GOT TO MEET OTHER SENATORS. YOU CAME TO SPEND TIME IN MY OFFICE. YOU NOTED IN YOUR PUBLIC REMARKS, THE WHITE HOUSE, WHEN YOUR NOMINATED, YOUR PARENTS WERE MARRIED 54 YEARS, BOTH PUBLIC SERVANTS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. THEY WERE PROUDLY WATCHING YOU BEING ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT. I MUST ADMIT, WATCHING THEM THE LAST COUPLE DAYS, THEY ARE PROBABLY WATCHING YOU HERE. YOUR YOUNGER BROTHER BECAME A POLICE OFFICER, DETECTIVE IN BALTIMORE BEFORE SERVING IN THE ARMY. TWO TOURS OF DUTY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. TWO UNCLES THAT SERVED AS POLICE OFFICERS. I AM NOT REALLY SURPRISED YOU UNDERSTAND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE HAS EXPRESSED STRONG SUPPORT FOR YOUR NOMINATION. IN FACT, IN THEIR LATER DATED FEBRUARY 22, THEY SAID YOU HAVE CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY THE LAW CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY ON A RANGE OF ISSUES. THEY WENT ON TO SAY "THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT YOU HAVE THE TEMPERAMENT, LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND FAMILY BACKGROUND TO EARN THIS APPOINTMENT." THEY ADDED "WE ARE ASSURED, REASSURED THAT SHOULD SHE BE CONFIRMED SHE WOULD APPROACH FUTURE CASES WITH AN OPEN MIND, TREATING ISSUES RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FAIRLY AND JUSTLY." I WOULD ASK THE LETTER FROM THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. 
NO OBJECTION.
NOW, THAT IS A STATEMENT FROM THE LARGEST LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION IN THE U.S. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SAY YOU ARE SOFT ON CRIME OR EVEN ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT? BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED YOUR DUTIES AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER?
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WOULD MAKE THREE OBSERVATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THOSE CRITIQUES. THE FIRST IS THAT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS HAD FAMILY MEMBERS ON PATROL AND IN THE LINE OF FIRE, I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. I KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE LOVED ONES WH
I KNOW IN OUR CONVERSATION I MENTIONED MY OWN EXPERIENCE AS A PROSECUTOR, I WANT THE BEST DEFENSE ATTORNEY ON THE OTHERS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THE TRIAL WENT ON, EVERYTHING WAS DONE PROPERLY. LET'S TALK ABOUT GUANTANAMO BAY. CONTROVERSIAL. WE HAVE HAD TWO PRESIDENTS, ONE REPUBLICAN, ONE DEMOCRATIC, WHO SAID THEY WISH IT COULD BE CLOSED. THE FACT IS INDIVIDUALS WERE DETAINED THERE. THE WHOLE WORLD WAS WATCHING THIS. I HEARD FROM PEOPLE I RESPECTED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT GUANTANAMO. THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION WE WANT OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST LAWYERS TO STEP INTO THE FRAY. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT BECOME ONBOARD FROM OUR CORE COMMITMENTS TO THE RULE OF LAW, BUT ALSO IN OUR COUNTRY AND OUTSIDE THEIR COUNTRY, PEOPLE CAN SEE WE ARE FOLLOWING THAT. YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. YOU TOOK ON THESE CASES. UNCHARTED LEGAL WATERS. WHAT PRINCIPLES DROVE YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN CASES IN SUCH A DIFFICULT TIME IN GUANTANAMO BAY?
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY. WHEN I FIRST STARTED WORKING ON THESE CASES, I WAS AN ASSISTANT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER. THE SUPREME COURT, 2004, ISSUED TWO OPINIONS THAT BEGAN THIS GROUP OF CASES ON THESE ISSUES. THIS WAS IN THE WAKE OF THE TR
I SIT HERE AND I THINK OF THE 20 SUPREME COURT NOMINEES I VOTED ON OVER THE YEARS, AND THE REMARKABLE PRAISE YOU GOT FROM THE FORMER REPUBLICAN HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN, WHOM MOST OF US KNOW WELL. HIS POLITICS MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM YOURS BUT HIS PRAISE FOR YOUR CHARACTER, INTEGRITY IS UNEQUIVOCAL. THAT IS POWERFUL PRAISE. I THINK IT GOES TO A REALLY FUNDAMENTAL POINT AND THAT IS THIS, ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME POLITICAL BELIEFS AND IDEOLOGIES AS A JUDICIAL NOMINEE TO RECOGNIZE THEIR INTEGRITY. WHEN I VOTED FOR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, I KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE AND I WOULD DISAGREE ON POLICIES AND PUT ABOUT ISSUES, BUT I VOTED BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE HAD WHAT IT TAKES TO SERVE AS AN IMPARTIAL, FAIR CHIEF DUSTERS WHO WOULD UPHOLD THE LAW. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO SPEAKER RYAN AND THOSE WHO HAVE ENDORSED YOU? WOULD SAY I CAN SERVE AS AN EVENHANDED JUSTICE IF I AM CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY. I HAVE A RECORD OVER THE PAST DECADE THAT IS PRECISELY HOW I TREATED ALL OF MY CASES. I HAVE BEEN SERVING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BOTH AS A TRIAL JUDGE AND AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE, AND WE SEE SOME OF THE MOST POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. MY RECORD DEMONSTRATES MY IMPARTIALITY. 
 I WOULD SAY I CAN SERVE AS AN EVENHANDED JUSTICE IF I AM CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY. I HAVE A RECORD OVER THE PAST DECADE THAT IS PRECISELY HOW I TREATED ALL OF MY CASES. I HAVE BEEN SERVING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BOTH AS A TRIAL JUDGE AND AS AN APPELL
I USE TO GO THERE AS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT AND SIT BACK HERE AND I CONTINUE TO WATCH IT. I SEE THE CHIEF OF THE APPELLATE COURT, AND I WAS PRIVILEGED TO SERVE AS MY CHIEF COUNSEL ON THIS COMMITTEE. I LEARNED FROM HER THEN AND I HAVE LEARNED FROM HER NOW, BUT I ALSO, AS A LAWYER, I HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT REVERSAL RATES. NO JUDGE HAS NOT HAD A REVERSE AT SOME POINT. BUT YOUR TIME IN THE D.C. DISTRICT COURT, LESS THAN 2% OF YOUR MORE THAN 550 CASES WERE REVERSED. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE D.C. COURT REVERSES AN AVERAGE OF 13% OF THE CASES, YOU HAVE A PRETTY GOOD RECORD. WHEN A JUDGE HAS BEEN REVERSED, WHAT DO THEY TAKE FROM THAT REVERSAL? WHAT DO THEY OR SHOULD THEY THINK ABOUT IT? YOU OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT IT VERY CAREFULLY. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT A PANEL OF JUDGES WHO HAVE REVIEWED WHAT YOU DETERMINED FOR SOME REASON HAS DECIDED DIFFERENTLY, AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN PANELS OF JUDGES DECIDED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING A NEW STATEMENT ABOUT THE LAW OR ESTABLISHING A STANDARD THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN THE CASE IN THE AREA, AND SO YOU LEARN, THIS IS A NEW STANDARD NOW THAT I HAVE TO APPLY. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU DISAGREE THAT PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE LAW WORKS, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PANELS, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT, JUDGES CAN HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND HAVE IN GOOD FAITH REACH FOR RESULT. OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU ARE ON THE TRIAL COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BINDING AND THEY TELL YOU, IN THIS CASE, NO, THE RESULT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND SO YOU LEARN. 
 WELL, YOU OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT IT VERY CAREFULLY. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT A PANEL OF JUDGES WHO HAVE REVIEWED WHAT YOU DETERMINED FOR SOME REASON HAS DECIDED DIFFERENTLY, AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN PANELS OF JUDGES DECIDED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING A
ANYTIME I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE CASES AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL, I DON'T THINK I EVER THOUGHT ABOUT WHO NOMINATED OR APPOINTED THE JUDGES AS BEFORE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT AND I BE A JUDGE AND THE LIMITATIONS ON MY OWN AUTHORITY. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WAS A POLICYMAKING BRANCH OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSIONERS DEVELOPED SENTENCING POLICY. CONGRESS DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE COMMISSION, AND SO THEY ARE DOING THE POLICY WORK, GATHERING DATA, MAKING REPRESENTATIONS. THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE WORK I DO AS A JUDGE. ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENTS, MAKING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS, THE BEST ARGUMENTS YOU CAN COME UP WITH IS A SERVICE TO THE COURT BUT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING THAN OPERATING AS A JUDGE, AND SO I THINK HAVING HAD THOSE VARIOUS EXPERIENCES, I AM NOW REALLY MINDFUL OF MY ROLE AND LIMITATIONS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. 
THE PRESIDENT REFER TO AS -- AND ALSO PART OF YOUR PREDECESSOR, JUSTICE BREYER, IN THAT REGARD. I THINK OVER THE YEARS HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS EVEN IN THE BODY OF A U.S. SENATE. I THINK SENATOR TILLIS, HE AND I WORKED ON IP ISSUES. SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I AND SENATOR GRAHAM AND I AND OTHER ISSUES, USUALLY ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM AND YOU WORK IN IT, YOU GET BETTER RESULTS. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR APPROACH TO BUILDING CONSENSUS ON THE LINK ISSUES LIKE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THAT ARE LESS LIKELY TO BREAK ALONG TRADITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL LINES? YOU, SENATOR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS ABLE TO DO WHEN I WORKED ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WAS WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAN I DID ABOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND COME TO CONSENSUS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AS YOU SAID, TO TRY AND FIND COMMON GROUND AND JUSTICE BREYER WAS SUCH A WONDERFUL ROLE MODEL FOR THAT KIND OF ABILITY AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SOMETHING I LEARNED FROM HIM AND SOMETHING I TRY TO MODEL IN MY WORK ON THE COMMISSION THAT I TRY TO MODEL IN MY WORK AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE AND I WOULD MODEL OR DO IF I WERE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT. 
 THANK YOU, SENATOR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS ABLE TO DO WHEN I WORKED ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WAS WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAN I DID ABOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND COME TO CONSENSUS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AS Y
THANK YOU SENATOR LAHEY, AND NOW SENATOR GRAHAM.
 IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND THE PEOPLE WHO INTRODUCED YOU TO THE COMMITTEE, THERE WAS VERY GLOWING PRAISE OF YOU AS A PERSON, A GOOD FRIEND. YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL FAMILY AND YOU SHOULD BE PROUD INTERFAITH MATTERS TO YOU WHAT FAITH ARE YOU, BY THE WAY?
SENATOR, I AM PROTESTANT. NONDENOMINATIONAL. 
COULD YOU FAIRLY JUDGE A CATHOLIC?
HOW IMPORTANT IS YOUR FAITH TO YOU? MY FAITH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS TEST UNDER ARTICLE SIX , AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SET ASIDE ONE'S PERSONAL VIEWS AND THE ROLE OF A JUDGE. 
 PERSONALLY MY FAITH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS TEST UNDER ARTICLE SIX , AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SET ASIDE ONE'S PERSONAL VIEWS AND THE ROLE OF A JUDGE. 
I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, AND I BELIEVE YOU CAN. ON A SCALE OF ONE TO 10, HOW FAITHFUL WOULD YOU SAY YOU ARE IN TERMS OF RELIGION? I GO TO CHURCH PROBABLY THREE TIMES OF YEAR SO THAT SPEAKS OF ME, BUT DO YOU ATTEND CHURCH REGULARLY?
I AM RELUCTANT TO TALK ABOUT MY FAITH IN THIS WAY IT, JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MY ABILITY TO SEPARATE OUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS. 
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF HE SENATOR APPEAR SAID YOUR FAITH AND DOGMA LIVES LOUDLY WITHIN YOU AND THAT IS A CONCERN ? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOME OF THE ON OUR SIDE SAID, YOU ARE INTO CHURCH -- TOO MUCH CHURCH FOR ME AND MY FEET IS DIFFERENT AND THEY WOULD SUGGEST IT WOULD AFFECT YOUR DECISION? WOULD YOU FIND THAT OFFENSIVE? -- I AM -- SEN. GRAHAM
 SENATOR -- I AM -- SEN. GRAHAM
HOW DO YOU KNOW HER?
SHE WAS A JUDGE ON THE COURT THAT I NOW SERVE. WE DIDN'T OVERLAP, AND I AM STRUGGLING TO REMEMBER IF I EVER MET HER, BUT SHE WAS A JUDGE ON THE CIRCUIT COURT. 
AND YOU WERE A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, IS THAT RIGHT?
I WAS BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER SHE HAD
THANK YOU. ARE THEY IN THE SAME BUILDING?
THEY ARE IN THE SAME BUILDING.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF HER? WHAT IS A REPUTATION?
I KNOW THAT SHE'S A VERY WELL RESPECTED JUDGE ON MY CIRCUIT.
OK, IN TERMS OF FAMILY, SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF SHARECROPPERS. SHE WAS RAISED IN ALABAMA UNDER JIM CROW. DESPITE THIS ADVERSITY, SHE PUT HERSELF THROUGH LAW SCHOOL AS A SINGLE WORKING MOTHER. THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE, ISN'T IT?
YES, SENATOR. 
YOUR BACKGROUND IS VERY IMPRESSIVE. YOU SEEM TO HAVE A GREAT FAMILY. IF FAMILY MATTERED, WE WOULD NOT HAVE DONE TO HER WHAT WAS DONE TO HER HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. DO REALIZE SHE WAS FILIBUSTERED FOR TWO YEARS WHEN SHE WAS APPOINTED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE? DIDN'T KNOW THAT. 
 I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. 
DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN FILIBUSTERED JANICE ROGERS BROWN?
I DID NOT KNOW THAT?
DID YOU KNOW THAT HE TOLD FAITH THE NATION THAT IF BUSH NOMINATES HER FOR THE SUPREME COURT, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY, DIFFICULT FIGHT AND SHE PROBABLY WOULD BE FILIBUSTERED? IS THAT IS TO YOU?
YES. 
NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?
SENATOR, I CAN'T SPEAK TO SOMETHING I JUST LEARNED TWO SECONDS AGO.
FAIR ENOUGH. YOU ARE IN THE BLACK LAW SCHOOL SOCIETY COME RIGHT?
THE BLACK LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION.
YOU ARE A MEMBER AT HARVARD?
YES.
THE MR. JEFFRIES THING, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT WHOLE DUSTUP?
ONLY IN PREPARATION FOR THIS, AND I THINK I WAS IN COLLEGE AT THE TIME. IT WAS MY SENIOR YEAR IN COLLEGE. 
SO YOU WERE IN THE GROUP WHEN HE WAS INVITED TO SPEAK? DON'T KNOW WHICH GROUP INVITED HIM TO SPEAK. I WAS OF BLACK STUDENT AT HARVARD, BOTH IN THE HARVARD UNDERGRADUATE BLACK STUDENTS ASSOCIATION AND THE HARVARD LAW STUDENT BLACK ASSOCIATION. 
 I DON'T KNOW WHICH GROUP INVITED HIM TO SPEAK. I WAS OF BLACK STUDENT AT HARVARD, BOTH IN THE HARVARD UNDERGRADUATE BLACK STUDENTS ASSOCIATION AND THE HARVARD LAW STUDENT BLACK ASSOCIATION. 
DO YUMA GOING TO A SPEECH GIVING -- GIVEN BY MR. JEFFRIES?
I DID NOT GO TO A SPEECH GIVEN BY MR. JEFFRIES.
ARE YOU NOW AWARE FROM REPORTS WHAT HIS VIEWS ARE?
JUST IN PREPARATION FOR THIS.
DO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE VIEWS?
I DO NOT.
HE HAS BEEN CALLED ANTI-SEMITIC, CALLED YOU A SKUNK WHO STEEP -- DISTINCT UP THE PLACE COULD YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, DO YOU?
I DO
SO IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO HOLD IT AGAINST YOU BECAUSE HE SPOKE AT AN EVENT?
YES.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE RIGHT ENTRY WITH -- RIGHT ANSWER WITH JUDGE ALITO, WHEN THEY MADE A BIG DEAL AND SOME GROUP HE WAS IN THAT HAD VIEWS THAT HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH AND TRY TO CALL HIM BASICALLY A RACIST AND FOUND OUT THAT SENATOR KENNEDY, GOD REST HIS SOUL, BEAT THE CREPE OUT OF THE GUY FOR BEING PART OF SOME SUPPER CLUB THAT WAS IN SOME ORGANIZATION THAT DIDN'T ADMIT WOMEN. I GUESS THE REASON I AM BRINGING ALL THIS UP IS IT GIVES ME A CHANCE TO REMIND THIS COMMITTEE AND AMERICA, THERE ARE TWO STANDARDS GOING ON HERE. IF YOU ARE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE OMEN, YOU ARE FAIR GAME TO HAVE YOUR LIFE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN, TO BE FILIBUSTERED, NO MATTER HOW QUALIFIED YOU ARE AND IF YOU EXPRESS YOUR FAITH AS A CONSERVATIVE, ALL OF THE SUDDEN YOU ARE A F-ING NUT. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU. IT PAUSED ME THAT IF A CONSERVATIVE WOMAN WANTS TO STAND OUT AND SAY I LOVE MY FAMILY AS MUCH AS YOU LOVE YOURS AND MY FAKE MEANS AS MUCH AS IT DOES TO YOU, YOU ARE SOME KIND OF WEIRDO. A GUY LIKE JUSTICE ALITO, WHO IS IN THE SAME TYPE OF SITUATION, BEING IN A GROUP THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY DO OR WHAT THEY MAY SAY AT A MEETING, THAT STUFF NEEDS TO STOP. OUR PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER RESPECT, AND I HOPE WHEN THIS IS OVER PEOPLE WILL SAY YOU ARE AT LEAST WELL TREATED, EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. LET'S TALK ABOUT GITMO. BEING A PUBLIC DEFENDER, DID YOU CONSIDER THAT REWARDING? , I DID, BECAUSE PUBLIC SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. IT IS AN IMPORTANT FAMILY VALUE. IT DOES SOMETHING THAT NOW I HAVE DEDICATED MY CAREER TO. 
 SENATOR, YES , I DID, BECAUSE PUBLIC SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. IT IS AN IMPORTANT FAMILY VALUE. IT DOES SOMETHING THAT NOW I HAVE DEDICATED MY CAREER TO. 
AND DO YOU THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE SYSTEM THAT EVERYBODY BE REPRESENTED?
ABSOLUTELY, IT IS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE.
YOU WILL GET NO COMPLAINT FROM ME. THAT WAS MY JOB IN THE AIR FORCE. I REPRESENTED ANYBODY WHO CAME IN THE DOOR, WHETHER I LIKED THEM OR NOT. I DID MY BEST PAIRED IS THAT WHAT YOU DID? -- I DID MY BEST. IS THAT WHAT YOU DID?
YES. 
SO EVERYBODY DESERVES REPRESENTATION WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT, NO PROBLEM WITH ME, YOU ARE JUST DOING YOUR JOB. THERE IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY THAT NEVER GETS MENTIONED WHEN I TALK ABOUT GITMO. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A SYSTEM THAT CAN KEEP TERRORISTS OFF THE BATTLEFIELD. THEY DESERVE A SYSTEM THAT UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING AT WAR AND A CRIME. DO YOU CONSIDER 9/11, YOU SET A TERRIBLE, TRAGIC EVENT, WOULD YOU SIT IT AN ACT OF WAR?
YES, SENATOR. 
I WOULD TOO. AS YOU RIGHTFULLY ARE PROUD OF YOUR SERVICE AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER AND YOU REPRESENTED GITMO DETAINEES, WHICH IS PART OF OUR SYSTEM, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT -- AND THE NATION TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING AT GITMO. WHAT IS THE CYNICISM -- THE RECIDIVISM RATE? I AM NOT AWARE. 
I AM NOT AWARE. 
31% -- HOW DOES THAT STRIKE YOU?
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT STRIKES ME.
IT STRIKES ME AS TERRIBLE.
THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
OF THE 229 DETAINEES RELEASED FROM GITMO, -- 729 RELEASED, 229 HAVE GONE BACK TO THE FIGHT. HERE ARE SOME OF THE NOTABLES. FORMER GITMO DETAINEE -- WAS NAMED THE INTERIM FENCE ADMINISTER OF AFGHANISTAN. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HIS JOB IS TODAY, BUT DURING THE TRANSITION, MADE HIM THE DEFENSE ADMINISTRATOR AND HE WAS IN GITMO. OF THE FIVE MEN WE RELEASED AS PART OF A PRISONER SWAP FOR SERGEANT BERG DALE, HERE IS WHERE THEY ARE AT. MOHAMMED WAS APPOINTED DEPUTY ADMINISTER OF DEFENSE, ONE APPOINTED AS ACTIVE ADMINISTER OF BORDER AFFAIRS. ONE ADMINISTERED AS ACTIVE -- ACTING INTELLIGENCE ADMINISTRATOR, ONE AN ACTIVE ADMINISTRATION OR, OMAR WAS APPOINTED AS NEW GOVERNOR OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PROVINCE. THESE FIVE PEOPLE WE HAD IN OUR CONTROL THAT ARE NOW HOPING THE TALIBAN RUN THE COUNTRY. WOULD YOU SAY OUR SYSTEM IN TERMS OF RELEASING PEOPLE NEEDS TO BE RE-LOOKED AT? WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT'S NOT A JOB FOR THE COURTS IN THIS WAY. 
 SENATOR, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT'S NOT A JOB FOR THE COURTS IN THIS WAY. 
AS AN AMERICAN, DOES THAT BOTHER YOU?
WELL, OBVIOUSLY, SENATOR, AND HE REPEATED CRIMINAL HAVEY OR OR REPEATED ATTACKS OR ACTS OF WAR BOTHER
IT BOTHERS ME, AND I WILL NOT HOLD IT AGAINST YOU THAT YOU RELEASED GITMO DETAINEES. 31% OF PEOPLE GOING BACK TO THE FIGHT TO KILL AMERICANS AND NOW RUNNING THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE GONE WRONG SOMEWHERE HERE DARBY STILL AT WORK? -- GONE WRONG SOMEWHERE. ARE WE STILL AT WAR? MILITARY FORCE IS STILL IN EFFECT. CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST PEOPLE IN THIS WAY. 
 THE AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY FORCE IS STILL IN EFFECT. CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST PEOPLE IN THIS WAY. 
WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT AL QAEDA , ISIS-TYPE ARE STILL AT WORK WITH US?
I THINK, YES, I THINK --
SO WE ARE STILL IN WAR AND SOME ELEMENTS OF RADICAL IS MOM -- ISLAM TO THIS DAY?
I THINK THAT IS DOCUMENTED, YES.
NOW, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ONE IS AN ENEMY COMBATANT UNDER OUR LAW?
WELL, I BELIEVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MAKES AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD RELATED TO ALL OF THIS.
SO IS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH FUNCTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON QUALIFIES AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT? UNDER CURRENT LAW? UNDER CURRENT LAW, I BELIEVE THAT DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE PERSON IS PUT INTO -- IS DETAINED, AND THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO BRING SOME SORT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THAT DETERMINATION. 
UNDER CURRENT LAW, I BELIEVE THAT DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE PERSON IS PUT INTO -- IS DETAINED, AND THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO BRING SOME SORT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THAT DETERMINATION. 
SO THE LAW IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DETERMINES IF YOU ARE AN ENEMY COMBATANT AND UNDER OUR LAW, YOU CAN APPEAL THAT DECISION TO A FEDERAL COURT THROUGH HABEAS, IS THAT CORRECT?
I BELIEVE IT IS CORRECT. 
CAN WE HOLD THEM AS LONG AS THEY ARE A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES?
I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINES.
DID YOU ARGUE THAT SHE NOT BE THE CASE BEFORE IN AN AMICUS BRIEF?
I HAD TO AMICUS BRIEFS THAT I WORKED ON OR THREE, TECHNICALLY, BUT TWO DIFFERENT CASES. 
WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER VISIT TOMORROW, SO GO BACK AND CHECK. I'M PRETTY SURE IN YOUR BRIEF THAT YOU ARE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SHOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HOLD AN ENEMY COMBATANT INDEFINITELY. YOU HAVE TO TRY THEM FOR SOME PROCESS OR RELEASE THEM. SENATOR, AS YOU WERE TALKING, MY CLIENT MADE THAT ARGUMENT AND ASKED ME TO DRAFT THEIR BRIEF. 
 YES, SENATOR, AS YOU WERE TALKING, MY CLIENT MADE THAT ARGUMENT AND ASKED ME TO DRAFT THEIR BRIEF. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ARGUMENT? SENATOR, MY RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO MAKE MY CLIENTS'ARGUMENT AND AS A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, WE DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. THE CASE BECAME MOOT. 
SENATOR, MY RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO MAKE MY CLIENTS'ARGUMENT AND AS A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, WE DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. THE CASE BECAME MOOT. 
DID YOU ORGANIZE AN EFFORT TO GET 20 JUDGES TO FILE A BRIEF TO THE SUPREME COURT ON THIS ISSUE?
NOT ON THAT ISSUE, NO.
ON ANOTHER ISSUE?
YES, SIR.
DID YOU ACTIVELY GO OUT AND NOMINATE 20 JUDGES ON ANOTHER ISSUE OF DETENTION?
NOT, TECHNICALLY.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT I MEAN IS I WAS AT WORSE -- I WAS AT MY LAW FIRM AND A SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP. ONE OF THE PARTNERS AT MORRISON AND FOERSTER WAS A FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE WHO WANTED TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT AND WHO SAID I HAVE FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES WHO ARE FRIENDS OF MINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO JOIN WITH ME TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT. SO I WORKED WITH HER AS A PARTNER AT MY FIRM WHO WAS A FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE. 
WHAT I MEAN IS I WAS AT WORSE -- I WAS AT MY LAW FIRM AND A SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP. ONE OF THE PARTNERS AT MORRISON AND FOERSTER WAS A FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE WHO WANTED TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT AND WHO SAID I HAVE FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES WHO ARE FRIENDS 
IT WAS HER IDEA TO GET FORMER JUDGES? AND YOU JUST IMPLEMENTATION? SO AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP IN A LAW FIRM THAT IS THE PRACTICE. 
SO AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP IN A LAW FIRM THAT IS THE PRACTICE. 
IT WASN'T HER IDEA, IT WAS 70 ELSE'S? -- IT WASN'T YOUR IDEA, IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE'S?
YES.
THERE ARE PEOPLE STILL HELD AT GITMO. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
YES.
WHAT SYSTEM IS IN PLACE REGARDING THEIR FUTURE? AM NOT AWARE OF THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN. IT IS A PERIODIC -- SEN. GRAHAM
 I AM NOT AWARE OF THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN. IT IS A PERIODIC -- SEN. GRAHAM
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU AS A WAY TO DEAL WITH THESE DETAINEES?
SENATOR, I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SPEAK TO THE POLICY ARE DISCRETION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND HOW THEY ARE GOING TO HANDLE DETAINEES. 
IN ONE OF THE BREEZE, YOU ARGUE THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WASN'T HAVE THAT OPTION, THAT IF YOU HAD HAD YOUR WAY, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COULD NOT DO PERIODIC REVIEWS ABOUT THE DANGER THE DETAINEE PRESENTS TO THE UNITED STATES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION OF TRYING THEM OR RELEASING THEM. IS THAT NOT ACCURATE? SENATOR, IT WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I WAS FILING AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, THE CATO INSTITUTE, AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT. 
 RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, IT WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I WAS FILING AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, THE CATO INSTITUTE, AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT. 
WHEN YOU SIGN ON TO A BRIEF, DOES IT NOT BECOME YOUR ARGUMENT?
IT DOES NOT, SENATOR. IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND YOU ARE PRESENTING A CLIENT -- 
IS THAT YOUR POSITION WHEN YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE? YOU SIGN ONTO THE REEF MAKING THE ARGUMENT BUT SAYING IT IS NOT YOUR POSITION. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT IF THAT IS NOT YOUR POSITION. IT IS VOLUNTARY, KNOWN IS MAKING YOU DO THIS. WOULD FREE TO THE SAME SORTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MADE IS THAT LAWYERS REPRESENT CLIENTS. 
 I WOULD FREE TO THE SAME SORTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MADE IS THAT LAWYERS REPRESENT CLIENTS. 
I GET THAT, I AM NOT HOLDING THE CLIENT'S VIEWS AGAINST YOU LIKE THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENTED AT GITMO, THEY DESERVE A VISITATION, BUT THIS IS AN AMICUS BRIEF, OR YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE TRY TO PERSUADE THE COURT TO CHANGE POLICY. THE POLICY I DESCRIBED IS A PERIODIC REVIEW. IF THE COURT HAD TAKEN THE POSITION ARGUED IN THE BRIEF THAT YOU SIGNED UPON, WE WOULD HAVE TO RELEASE THESE PEOPLE ARE TRY THEM, AND IN SOME OF THEM EVIDENCE WE CAN'T DISCLOSE BECAUSE IT IS CLASSIFIED IN YOUR PUTTING AMERICA IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION. IF YOU TRY TO DO THIS IN WORLD WAR II, THEY WOULD RUN YOU OUT OF TOWN. WE HOLD ENEMY COMBATANTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE A THREAT. THERE IS NO PASSAGE OF TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO LET THEM GO. MY QUESTION IS VERY SIMPLE -- DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA, DID YOU SUPPORT THEN THE IDEA THAT INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AN RESPECTFULLY SENATOR, WHEN YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND YOU HAVE CLIENTS WHO COME TO YOU AND THEY PAY ARE NOT, YOU REPRESENT THEIR POSITIONS BEFORE THE COURT. 
RESPECTFULLY SENATOR, WHEN YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND YOU HAVE CLIENTS WHO COME TO YOU AND THEY PAY ARE NOT, YOU REPRESENT THEIR POSITIONS BEFORE THE COURT. 
I'M THE HOLDING THAT AGAINST REPRESENTED A LEGAL POSITION I DISAGREE WITH. THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MADE YOU JOIN THIS CAUSE? YOU SAY THAT SOMEBODY HIRED YOU BUT DID YOU FEEL OK IN ADOPTING THAT CAUSE? WHEN YOU SIGNED ON TO THE BRIEF, WERE YOU NOT ADVOCATING THAT POSITION TO THE COURT? AS A JUDGE NOW, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS OR UNLAWFULNESS OF ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE, I NEED TO RECEIVE BRIEFS AND INFORMATION MAKING POSITIONS ON ALL SIDES. 
AS A JUDGE NOW, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS OR UNLAWFULNESS OF ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE, I NEED TO RECEIVE BRIEFS AND INFORMATION MAKING POSITIONS ON ALL SIDES. 
I UNDERSTAND WHAT A JUDGE IS ALL ABOUT. I'M ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION YOU TOOK AS A LAWYER REGARDING THE LAW. I AM BEYOND CONFUSED. I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR BRIEF. WHETHER I AGREE WITH IT IS NOT THE POINT. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE COMING FROM CREDIT IF THAT BRIEF HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO FIGHT THIS WAR. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO DIE IN JAIL AND NEVER GO TO TRIAL BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM IS SO SENSITIVE WE CAN'T DISCLOSE IT TO THE PUBLIC. WE ARE NOT CHARGING THEM WITH A CRIME, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THAT YOU ENGAGED IN HOSTILE ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THAT YOU ARE AN ENEMY COMBATANT AND YOU WILL NEVER BE RELEASED AS LONG AS YOU ARE A DANGER. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGHTING A CRIME AND A WAR. DID YOU EVER ACCUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF ACTING AS WAR CRIMINALS OR HOLDING THE DETAINEES? HOLDING THE DETAINEES BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WE WERE ACTING AS WAR CRIMINALS? SENATOR, I DON'T MEMBER THAT ACCUSATION, BUT I WILL SAY THAT -- 
SENATOR, I DON'T MEMBER THAT ACCUSATION, BUT I WILL SAY THAT -- 
DEEPLY THAT'S TRUE THAT AMERICA WAS ACTING AS WAR CRIMINALS AND HOLDING THESE DETAINEES? THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAME PEOPLE -- TO DETAIN PEOPLE WHO ARE DESIGNATED AS ENEMY COMBATANTS FOR THE DURATION OF THE HOSTILITIES. WHAT I WAS DOING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HABEAS PETITIONS AT THIS EARLY STAGE IN THE PROCESS WAS MAKING ALLEGATIONS TO PRESERVE ISSUES ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS. HABEAS PETITION IS LIKE A COMPLAINT. THE LAWYERS MAKE ALLEGATIONS. 
THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAME PEOPLE -- TO DETAIN PEOPLE WHO ARE DESIGNATED AS ENEMY COMBATANTS FOR THE DURATION OF THE HOSTILITIES. WHAT I WAS DOING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HABEAS PETITIONS AT THIS EARLY STAGE 
I'VE BEEN A LAWYER BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO CALL THE GOVERNMENT A WAR CRIMINAL AND HOLDING A TERRORIST. I THINK THAT'S TOO FAR, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CHOSE THOSE WORDS. BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NOMINATION PROCESS. HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY INTERACTION WITH THE GROUP CALLED DEMAND JUSTICE? NO. 
NO. 
HAVE YOU EVER HAD GROUP -- INTERACTION WITH A GROUP CALLED AMERICAN PROSPECT?
NO.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A GROUP CALLED R BELLA?
ARABELLA?
HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THEM?
NO.
DID YOU NOTICE THAT PEOPLE FROM THE LEFT OR CHEERING YOU WANT?
A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE CHEERING ME ON.
THAT'S TRUE. DID YOU NOTICE THE PEOPLE FROM THE LEFT WERE TRYING TO DESTROY MICHELLE CHILDS?
A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE SUPPORTING VARIOUS PEOPLE FOR THIS NOMINATION. 
SAY DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE CHILDS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA BECAUSE SHE WAS UNIONBUSTING UNRELIABLE REPUBLICAN IN DISGUISE? 
SENATOR, I AM SITTING JUDGE. I WAS FOCUSED ON MY CASES. I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 
WOULD IT BOTHER YOU IF THAT HAPPENED?
SENATOR, IS TROUBLESOME THAT PEOPLE ARE OR WERE DOING THINGS RELATED TO THE NOMINATION.
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AND PICK THE PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE, BUT ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IF YOU MISSED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ORGANIZED EFFORT -- PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF POLITICAL CAPITAL FOR KEEPING HIS PARTY UNITED. IF HE ANGERS PEOPLE, THAT COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR HIM DOWN THE LINE. JEFF HAUSER, REVOLVING DOOR PROJECT. I HAVE SO MANY QUOTES. IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE SOMEONE WITH A RECORD LIKE JUDGE CHILDS -- CHILDS EXPERIENCES NOTHING LIKE THAT DIVERSE EXPERIENCE THAT DIVIDE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHAMPIONED. PICKING HER CHILDS WOULD DEMORALIZE THE BASE, SIDE WITH CORPORATE AMERICA. THE FACT THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS VOUCHING FOR HER SHOULD GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE PAUSED. OUR REVOLUTION, JOSEPH -- BERNIE SANDERS PACKED DIRECTOR -- PACKET DIRECTOR. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A WAR ON JUDGE CHILDS?
I DID NOT. 
I'M NOT SAYING YOU DID. I AM SAYING -- WHAT IS YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY? I HAVE A METHODOLOGY THAT I USE IN MY CASES TO ENSURE THAT
I HAVE A METHODOLOGY THAT I USE IN MY CASES TO ENSURE THAT
SO YOU RULE IMPARTIALLY? TO RULE IMPARTIALLY AND RULE CONSISTENT WITH LIMITATIONS ON MY AUTHORITY AS A JUDGE. I METHODOLOGY -- MY METHODOLOGY HELPS ME TO DO THAT IN EVERY CASE. 
TO RULE IMPARTIALLY AND RULE CONSISTENT WITH LIMITATIONS ON MY AUTHORITY AS A JUDGE. I METHODOLOGY -- MY METHODOLOGY HELPS ME TO DO THAT IN EVERY CASE. 
SO YOU WOULD NOT SAY YOU ARE AN ACTIVIST JUDGE?
I WOULD NOT SAY THAT.
EVERY GROUP THAT WANTS TO PACK THE COURT THAT BELIEVES THIS COURT IS A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING NUTS WHO ARE GOING TO DESTROY AMERICA THAT CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTION TRASH ALL WANTED YOU PICKED. THIS IS ALL I CAN SAY. THAT SO MANY OF THESE LEFT-WING RADICAL GROUPS WHO WOULD DESTROY THE LAW AS WE KNOW IT DECLARED WAR ON MICHELLE CHILDS AND SUPPORTED YOU IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ME. THANK YOU. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR GRAHAM. CONGRESSMAN CLYBURN WAS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF MICHELLE CHILDS AND I BELIEVE HE IS SUPPORTING YOUR NOMINATION. MICHELLE CHILDS HAS BEEN NOMINATED PRESIDENT BIDEN TO BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND SHE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COMMITTEE IS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. ON THE ISSUE OF GUANTANAMO, THERE ARE FOUR -- CURRENTLY 39 DETAINEES REMAINING. THE ANNUAL BUDGET IS 549 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. EACH OF THESE DETAINEES IS BEING HELD AT THE EXPENSE OF $13 MILLION PER YEAR. IF THEY WERE TO BE INCARCERATED AT THE SUPER MAX FEDERAL PRISON IN COLORADO, THE AMOUNT WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY LESS. SINCE 9/11, NEARLY 1000 CONVICTED IN THE UNITED STATES ON TERRORISM CHARGES. SINCE 2009, THE RECIDIVISM RATE OF AUTONOMY DETAINEES -- GUANTANAMO DETAINEES -- 
IS 31%. SOMEBODY IS WRONG. IF WE CLOSE GITMO AND MOVE ONTO COLORADO, DO YOU SUPPORT DETENTION FOR THESE DETAINEES? THE ANSWER IS NO.
THE 31% YOU REFERRED TO GOES BACK TO 2003.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT GOES BACK TO? WE GOT THEM AND THEY WENT LOOSE AND THEY KILLED PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY RELEASED --
ADVOCATES TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM LIKE SHE WAS ADVOCATING WOULD DESTROY OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE AT WAR, NOT FIGHTING A CRIME. AS LONG AS THEY ARE DANGEROUS, I HOPE THEY'LL DIE IN JAIL THERE GOING TO GO BACK AND KILL AMERICANS. IT WON'T BOTHER ME ONE BIT IF THEY DIE IN PRISON. IF IT COST $500 MILLION TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL, KEEP THEM IN JAIL. LOOK AT THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT MADE UP OF FORMER DETAINEES AT GITMO. 
LET ME NOTE THAT LARRY THOMPSON AND OTHERS WERE ALSO PROMINENT CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS SIGNING A LETTER DEFENDING ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED GUANTANAMO BAY CHENEY'S. I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD ASSOCIATE THAT ACTIVITY AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES. WE ARE GOING TO RECOGNIZE SENATOR FEINSTEIN THEN TAKE A BREAK. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO AGREE WITH BOTH JUSTICE KAVANAUGH AND JUSTICE BARRETT ON THIS ISSUE. ROE AND CASEY ARE THE SETTLED LAW OF THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE A WOMAN'S PREGNANCY. THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED A FRAMEWORK THAT THE COURT H
LET ME ADD ONE TO THAT THEN WE WILL REMOVE ON. -- WE WILL MOVE ON. I AM PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN ROE V. WADE. IT WAS DECIDED NEARLY 50 YEARS AGO AND IT HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED OVER A DOZEN TIMES SINCE THEN. MY QUESTION IS THIS. DOES ROE V. WADE HAVE THE STATUS OF BEING A CASE THAT IS SUPER PRECEDENT AND WHAT OTHER SUPREME COURT CASES DO YOU BELIEVE HAVE THAT STATUS? ALL SUPREME COURT CASES ARE PRECEDENTIAL. THEY ARE BINDING AND THEIR RULINGS HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. ROE AND CASEY HAVE BEEN REAFFIRMED BY THE COURT AND HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON. RELIANCE IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THE COURT CONSIDERS WHEN IT SEEKS TO REVISIT OR WHEN IT IS ASKED TO REVISIT A PRECEDENT. IN ALL CASES, THE PRECEDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED PURSUANT TO THOSE FACTORS BECAUSE STARE DECISIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU -- 
ALL SUPREME COURT CASES ARE PRECEDENTIAL. THEY ARE BINDING AND THEIR RULINGS HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. ROE AND CASEY HAVE BEEN REAFFIRMED BY THE COURT AND HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON. RELIANCE IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THE COURT CONSIDERS WHEN IT SEEKS TO REVISIT OR WH
 THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS YOU NOTED, IN MY TIME AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY PRECEDENTS THAT WERE HANDED DOWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT. THE DISTRICT COURT IS BOUND BY THE LAW AS STATED BY THOSE OTHER TRIBUNALS AND I
THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS QUICKLY A LETTER THIS COMMITTEE RECEIVED IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOMINATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS. THE LETTER STATES  HAS SEVERAL FAMILY MEMBERS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WE BELIEVE THIS HAS GIVEN HER A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE CHALLENGES AND COMPLEXITIES CONFRONTING THE POLICING PROFESSION. DURING HER TIME AS A JUDGE, SHE HAS DISPLAYED HER DEDICATION TO ENSURING THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ARE SAFE AND THAT THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ARE SERVED. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS LETTER IN THE RECORD IF I MAY. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 THANK YOU, SENATOR. SOME OF MY EARLIEST MEMORIES IN ADDITION TO MY FATHER AT THE KITCHEN TABLE WITH HIS LAW BOOKS WERE OF MY UNCLES, TWO OF MY UNCLES WERE CAREER LAW ENFORCEMENT. ONE WAS A UNIFORM DETECTIVE, THE OTHER WAS A CITY OF MIAMI PATROL OFFICER F
I JOINED THIS COMMITTEE IN JANUARY 1993 AND A FEW MONTHS LATER, WE CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG TO THE SUPREME COURT. JUSTICE GINSBURG'S CONFIRMATION MADE HER ONLY THE SECOND WOMAN TO EVER SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT AFTER JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY SINCE THEN, THOUGH STILL NOT FAR ENOUGH. WOMEN NOW MAKE UP ABOUT 35% OF ACTIVE JUDGES ON THE FEDERAL DISTRICT BENCH AND 37% OF ACTIVE JUDGES ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURTS. , IF CONFIRMED, YOU WOULD BECOME THE SIXTH WOMAN TO EVER SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. YOU WOULD JOIN JUSTICES SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, AND BARRETT ON THE BENCH. THIS WOULD BE THE NEAREST WE HAVE EVER COME TO GENDER EQUITY ON THE SUPREME COURT. THERE WOULD BE FOR WOMEN -- FOUR WOMEN ON THE BENCH WITH NINE JUSTICES. I HAVE MY OPINIONS ABOUT WHY GENDER BALANCE IS IMPORTANT ON OUR NATIONS COURTS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR COUNTRY TO HAVE WOMEN SERVE IN MEANINGFUL -- IN MEANINGFUL NUMBERS ON THE FEDERAL BENCH? IN PARTICULAR, WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO HAVE FOUR WOMEN SERVING ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? YOU, SENATOR. I THINK IT IS EXTREME THE MEANINGFUL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVING DIVERSE MEMBERS OF THE COURT DOES IS IT PROVIDES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ROLE MODELS. SINCE I WAS NOMINATED TO THIS POSITION, I HAVE RECEIVED SO MANY NOTES AND LETTERS AND PHOTOS FROM LITTLE GIRLS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO TELL ME THEY ARE SO EXCITED FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE LAW AND WAYS -- IN WAYS. BECAUSE I AM A WOMAN, A BLACK WOMAN, ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN MEANINGFUL TO THEM. WE WANT TO THINK AS A COUNTRY AS A COUNTRY TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN DO THINGS LIKE SET ON THE SUPREME COURT. HAVING MEANINGFUL NUMBERS OF WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR I THINK MATTERS. I ALSO THINK THAT IT SUPPORTS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A DIVERSE SOCIETY. 
 THANK YOU, SENATOR. I THINK IT IS EXTREME THE MEANINGFUL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVING DIVERSE MEMBERS OF THE COURT DOES IS IT PROVIDES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ROLE MODELS. SINCE I WAS NOMINATED TO THIS POSITION, I HAVE RECEIVED SO MANY NOTES AND LETTER
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS OFTEN A HARD PLACE AND HOW YOU GO THROUGH THOSE HARD TIMES I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU GO THROUGH HARD TIMES BY HOLDING HER HEAD UP HIGH AND DOING WELL. I THANK YOU. 
THANK YOU. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. LET'S TAKE 15 MINUTES STARTING NOW. THEN, WE WILL RETURN TO MORE QUESTIONS. WE WILL HAVE A LUNCH BREAK LATER THIS AFTERNOON. [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] 
THERE WILL BE A LUNCH IN ABOUT AN HOUR FROM NOW. SENATOR CORNYN?
JUDGE, I WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR. WILL YOU NERD OUT WITH ME A LITTLE BIT?
I WILL TRY.
START WITH STARRY DECISIVE. -- STARRY DECISIVE -- STARE DECISIS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT EVEN UNDER AN APPROPRIATE STARRY DECISIVE'S ANALYSIS THAT DRED SCOTT AND PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON WERE APPROPRIATELY OVERRULED? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I HAVE NOT ENGAGED IN THE ACTUAL ANALYSIS, BUT I THINK IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED NOW THAT THE CASES THAT OVERRULED DRED SCOTT AND PLESSY WERE CORRECTLY DECIDED. 
THERE IS A MEANS BY WHICH THE COURTS CAN CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES BY OVERRULING PREVIOUS DECISIONS? JUDGE JACKSON:
IF THE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE SUPREME COURT USES TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION -- 
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A FEDERAL JUDGE TALK ABOUT SUPERDUPER OR SUPER PRECEDENT?
I I HAVE NOT.
I HAVE HEARD IT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHEN SOMEONE HAS A FAVORITE CASE OR OUTCOME THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE SUPREME COURT REVISIT. LET ME ASK A MINUTE, YOUR NOMINATION BY PRESIDENT BIDEN'S HISTORIC. I CONGRATULATE YOU AGAIN, I CONGRATULATED YOU PREVIOUSLY AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN LONG OVERDUE. ONE CLARENCE THOMAS THE SECOND AFRICAN-AMERICAN WHO WAS NOMINATED TO DO IT CONFIRMED THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOMINATED, DID YOU CELEBRATE THAT AS AN HISTORIC EVENT? JUDGE JACKSON:
I'M TRIED TO REMEMBER WHERE I WAS AT THE TIME. I BELIEVE I DID, YES. 
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STAYING IN YOUR LANE, I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH I WOULD LOVE TO GET YOUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WHERE YOU DEFERRED ANSWERING SAYING YOU WANT TO STAY IN YOUR LANE AND NOT BE SEEN AS A POLICYMAKER, WOULD YOU ACCRUE THREE THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SEPARATION OF POWERS IS WHO DECIDES? IN OTHER WORDS, SOME QUESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATELY DECIDED BY JUDGES WHO ARE ELECTED AND SERVED FOR LIFE, INSULATED FROM POLITICS. OTHER DECISIONS ARE APPROPRIATELY WITHIN -- LEFT UP TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BECAUSE WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE FOR US, AGAINST US. IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE POLICIES THAT WE ENACT LEGISLATION. WHO DECIDES IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE JUDICIARY AND BLUISH -- LEGISLATURE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
AS A GENERAL MATTER, I AGREE. IT RARELY COMES LIKE THAT IS AN ISSUE. IT IS USUALLY NOT A JUMP BALL BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE -- 
YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF EASY QUESTIONS. AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, YOU WON'T THIS AGREE WITH ME?   
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT THE COURTS ARE PROPERLY TASKED WITH RESOLVING LEGAL QUESTIONS. IN EVERY CASE. JUDGE JACKSON: -- 
CONGRESS CAN PASS BROAD POLICIES, COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION, CHANGING POLICY. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE VOTERS CAN ON ELECT US IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING.
THAT IS TRUE. 
DID YOU STUDY UNDER LAWRENCE TRIBE AT HARVARD?
I DID NOT.
JUSTICE BREYER WROTE A BOOK CALLED ACTIVE LIBERTY. LAWRENCE TRIBE WHO WAS FORMERLY A LAW PROFESSOR AT HARVARD WROTE A REVIEW OF THAT BOOK IN THE NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF BOOKS AND THE TITLE IS POLITICIANS IN ROBES. YOU FAMILIAR? JUDGE JACKSON:
I AM NOT. 
IN THE ARTICLE, PROFESSOR TRIBE ACCUSES JUSTICE BREYER OF ENGAGING IN WHAT HE CALLED THE NOBLE LIE. HE SAID HE TALKS ABOUT THE REALITY OF RESORTING TO FALSEHOODS TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH WHOSE REVELATION WOULD WREAK HAVOC OR AT LEAST DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. PROFESSOR TRIBE GOES ON AND CRITICIZING JUSTICE BREYER'S BOOK. HE SAYS IN HIS STUBBORN -- THAT THE COURT EVEN WITH ITS FAR RIGHT SUPER MAJORITY REMAINS -- REMAINS IN A POLITICAL BODY. HE PERPETUATES ALLY THAT IS ANYTHING -- HE PERPETUATES UP LIGHT THAT IS ANYTHING BUT NOBLE. WE TALK ABOUT NOT BEING SEEN AS POLITICAL. DO YOU AGREE WITH JUSTICE BREYER THAT OR WITH PROFESSOR TRIBE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I BELIEVE THAT JUDGES ARE NOT POLICYMAKERS. WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DECIDE ON THE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES THAT ARE PRESENTED BEFORE US AND WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK JUDGES EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE LAW AND NOT MAKE THE LAW. 
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE POLITICIANS?
YES.
LET ME TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT OVER MANY YEARS STARTING PERHAPS WITH DRED SCOTT THAT ADOPTS THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF VARIOUS LAWS. PERHAPS THE MOST RECENT DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT WAS A DRAMATIC DEPARTURE FROM PREVIOUS LAWS IN THE STATE AND IN THE NATION WAS THE OVERFILLED CASE -- OVERFILLED WHICH DEALT WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. IN THE OPINIONS, IT WAS NOTED THAT WE ARE AT 234 YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION HAD BEEN RATIFIED, 135 YEARS SINCE THE 14TH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN RATIFIED. THAT THE SUPREME COURT ARTICULATED A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WHICH IS A RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. YOU'RE FAMILIAR? JUDGE JACKSON:
I AM. 
AT THE TIME, IT WAS NOTED THAT 11 STATES HAD PASSED LAWS SANCTIONING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. ALSO AT THE SAME TIME THERE WERE 35 STATES WHO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND 32 OF THE STATES DECIDED TO MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT MARRIAGE IS NOT SIMPLY A GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION IT IS ALSO A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, MARRIAGES ARE OFTEN PERFORMED IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. 
YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT MANY OF THE MAJOR RELIGIONS I CAN THINK OF CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM EMBRACE
YOU SEE THAT WHEN THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A DRAMATIC PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE INVALIDITY OF STATE MARRIAGE LAWS THAT IT WILL SET IN CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE WHO ASCRIBE TO THE SUPREME COURTS EDICT AND THOSE THAT HAVE A BELIEF THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THESE ISSUES ARE BEING LITIGATED AS YOU KNOW AS PEOPLE RAISE ISSUES. I AM LIMITED ABOUT WHAT I CAN SAY ABOUT THEM. 
I AM JUST ASKING, ISN'T IT APPARENT THAT WHEN THE SUPREME COURT THAT WHEN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN THOSE STATES CAN PASS IN THE LAWS THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S EDICT, PARTICULARLY IN AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SINCERELY HELD BELIEFS, DOESN'T THAT CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE MAY BELIEVE IS A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AND FAITH IN WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS IS THE LAW OF THE LAND? HON. JUDGE JACKSON:
THAT IS THE NATURE OF A RIGHT THAT WHEN THERE IS A RIGHT IT MEANS THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION EVEN IF PEOPLE ARE REGULATING FOR TWO WENT TO -- PURSUANT TO THEIR RELIGIOUS HELD BELIEF. 
MARRIAGE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION CORRECT?
IT IS NOT.
AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
YES IT IS.
DO YOU SHARE MY OPINION THAT WHEN THE COURT TAKES ON THE ROLE OF I AND A FINE ARRIVED THAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND AMENDS THAT RIGHT THAT ANYTHING CONFLICTING WITH THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT IT CREATES A CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THOSE WHO HOLD THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF, LIKE THAT OF MARRIAGE, THAT THEY WILL BE VILIFIED AS UNWILLING TO ASCEND TO THIS NEW ORTHODOXY? JUDGE JACKSON: 
BECAUSE THERE ARE CASES ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS. 
I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO. JUSTICE ALITO WROTE, I ASSUME THOSE WHO CLING TO THE OLD POLICE WILL BE ABLE TO WHISPER THEIR THOUGHTS BUT IF THEY WERE PEOPLE'S VIEWS IN PUBLIC, THEY WILL RISK BEING LABELED BIGOTS AND TREATED AS SUCH BY GOVERNMENT, EMPLOYERS AND SCHOOLS. SO THE OBERGEFELL CASE WAS DECIDED UNDER DUE PROCESS. JUDGE JACKSON: 
I THINK IT WAS UNDER EQUAL AMENDMENTS AS WELL. 
THE COURT AMENDED ALSO SAID IT IS THE CONFLUENCE OF THE FIFTH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS . HISTORICALLY, IT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN WAYS THAT SEEM TO SANCTION EXPLICIT POLICYMAKING BY THE COURTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LOCHNER V. NEW YORK CASE. IT WAS A NEW DEAL CASE WHICH SET LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG VAGRANTS COULD WORK IN NEW YORK. HIS SET OF VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF FREE CONTRACT. IT WAS OVERRULED 30 YEARS LATER BUT IT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAS BEEN SAID THE DRED SCOTT THAT TREATED SLAVES AS CHATTEL PROPERTY WAS A PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. JUSTICE HUGO BLACK HAS CRITICIZED THE DOCTORS AND -- DOCTRINE OF DUE PROCESS AS THE ARBITRARY FIAT OF THE MAN OR MEN IN POWER OR THE COURT DECLARING THE LAW INVALID BECAUSE IT SHOCKED THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT. IT SUBVERTS THE LIBERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE OVERTURNING LAWS OVERTURNING LAWS PUT IN PLACE BY THE PEOPLE. FINALLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MY QUESTION, THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A LOOSE, FLEXIBLE AND UNCONTROLLED STANDARD FOR HOLDING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOULD AMOUNT TO A SHIFT IN POWER TO THE COURTS AND CONSTRAINED TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE BAD FOR THE COURTS AND WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY. JUSTICE JACKSON, IS THIS DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS JUST ANOTHER PART OF POLICYMAKING, WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT POLICYMAKING IS NOT IN YOUR LANE? WHY ISN'T SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ANOTHER WAY FOR JUDGES TO HIDE THEIR AGENDAS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
14TH AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. THEY HAVE INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN NOT JUST PROCEDURAL RIGHTS BUT ALSO THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN PERSONAL RIGHTS RELATED TO INTIMACY AND THE TOM THEY INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE RIGHT TO REAR ONCE CHILDREN. I BELIEVE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION. 
TREATING SLAVES AS CHATTEL PROPERTY?
I DON'T QUITE REMEMBER THE BASIS OF DRED SCOTT.
YOU CAN USE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS TO JUSTIFY ANY RESULT WHETHER IT IS CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL. IT IS A FORM OF ANALYSIS THAT ALLOWS THE COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OPINION FOR THOSE OF THE PEOPLE. WOULD YOU AGREE? JUDGE JACKSON:
THE COURT HAS IDENTIFIED STANDARDS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. 
WHO GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THAT? IF IT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE IS THE RIGHT OF THE COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS VIEWS FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THEY HAVE INTERPRETED THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THIS COMPONENT, THE UNENUMERATED RIGHT HAS SAID THAT THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT QUALIFY ARE IMPLICIT IN ORDERED LIBERTY OR DEEPLY ROOTED IN OUR HISTORY AND TRADITION. THOSE DEFINED THE NARROW SET OF ACTIVITIES. 
IN THE OBERGEFELL CASE, THEY SAID THE COURT OVERTURNED HALF OF THE STATES DIRECTIVES, THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS THE PRACTICE FOR MILLENNIA AND THE RECOGNITION THAT MARRIAGE WAS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT MARRIAGE OR LACK OF MARRIAGE, BUT WHEN THE COURT OVERRULES THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PEOPLE AS THEY DID IN 32 OF THE 35 STATES AND DECIDE TO RECOGNIZE ONLY TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. THAT IS AN ACT OF JUDICIAL POLICYMAKING IS THAT NOT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT AN APPLICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT. 
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DUE PROCESS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW, CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
CORRECT. 
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME IS HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE COURT'S FINDING A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT IS MENTIONED NOWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS THE PRODUCT OF COURT MADE BALL THAT WE ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO SALUTE SMARTLY AND FOLLOW BECAUSE NINE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNELECTED, WHO HAVE LIFETIME TENURE, THEY DECIDE THAT THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD SHOULD BE. WHAT OTHER UNENUMERATED RIGHTS YOU BELIEVE EXIST AND HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY ANTICIPATE WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE? FOR EXAMPLE, THE NINTH AMENDMENT SAYS THE ENUMERATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHER RIGHTS OBTAINED BY THE PEOPLE. WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THERE ARE OTHER UNIDENTIFIED RIGHTS THAT SOMEHOW, SOMEDAY SOME COURT SAYS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IN UNENUMERATED RIGHT AND WE, THE NINE PEOPLE DECIDED WE HAVE DISCOVERED A NEW UNENUMERATED RIGHT AND IT WILL BE THE NEW LAW OF THE LAND AND WE CAN PASS A LAW THAT CONFLICTS WITH THAT. WHAT OTHER UNENUMERATED RIGHTS ARE OUT THERE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I CAN'T SAY. A HYPOTHETICAL, THAT I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON. THE RIGHT THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED AS SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE ESTABLISHED IN ITS CASE LAW. 
THIS IS NOT A QUICK -- TRICK QUESTION. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY ORDINARY FOLKS WONDER WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE AND WHERE DOES THIS AUTHORITY COME FROM? THE AUTHORITY COMES FROM WE THE PEOPLE BUT WHEN THE COURTS DECIDE TO IDENTIFY AND UNENUMERATED RIGHT AND ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH IT, CAN'T YOU SEE HOW THEY MIGHT FEEL LIKE THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE OR A POLICYMAKING THAT YOU HAVE DISAVOWED BY SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE POLICY YOU WANT TO STAY IN YOUR LANE? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN? JUDGE JACKSON: 
ABSOLUTELY, I UNDERSTAND IT. 
I BELIEVE THE COURTS LEGITIMACY IS VERY IMPORTANT. THAT SHOULD BE AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL OF THE JUDGES BECAUSE WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICULARLY THE INSTITUTION OF OUR JUDICIARY. HOW DO YOU AS A JUDGE WHEN YOU ARE APPROACHING YOUR DECISIONS, HOW DO YOU TRY TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS A POLICYMAKER BY EMBRACING DOCTRINES LIKE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS WHICH GIVES JUDGES CARTE BLANCHE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT? JUDGE JACKSON:
I HAVE NOT HAD THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION BUT I DO HAVE A METHODOLOGY THAT IS DESIGNED TO AVOID MY POLICY PERSPECTIVES. WE ARE CONSTRAINED IN OUR SYSTEM IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. IN ALL CASES, I AM LOOKING FULLY AT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES. PRESUMABLY THERE WOULD BE ARGUMENTS MADE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. 
IF YOU FORGIVE ME, I THINK ONE REASON THE SUPREME COURT STIFFER IS THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS CAPACITY AS A TRIAL JUDGE, AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT YOU WILL BANK -- BE BOUND BY NOTHING. YOU WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTERS AND SO. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND THE ANSWER IN THE LOGBOOK. YOU WILL BE PRESENTED THAT THIS IS AN UNENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN THE VOTERS, WHATEVER THEY SAID IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE'VE FIVE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT THE LAW OF THE LAND SHOULD BE. EVEN IF THEIR BELIEFS FLOW FROM SINCERELY HELP THE LEAF LIKE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. YOU SEE WHY THIS IS A CONCERN? JUDGE JACKSON:
I SEE WHY THIS IS CONCERN AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND BY APPLYING PRECEDENT, THERE ARE NOW STANDARDS IN THE STARE DECISIS WORLD WHEN IT IS ASKED. 
THANK GOODNESS IT HAS BEEN ASKED TO REVISIT AS PRESIDENT OR WE WOULD BEAST WORKING WITH DRED SCOTT. HE AND OTHERS FREQUENTLY ASK OF THE SUPREME COURT DO YOU THINK BROWN VERSUS COURT OF EDUCATION IS SETTLED LAW AND SOME NOMINEES WILL NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. I TEND TO THINK NOMINEES TEND TO BE OVER COACHED AND TOLD THAT IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING CONFIRMED. BUT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE SETTLED AND I WISH WE HAD A MORE CANDID CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE POWER THAT LIFETIME JUDGES HAVE TO RULE AMERICA WHEN THEY DECIDED SOMETHING IS AN UNENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. AND THE MINUTE 48 SECONDS I HAVE TO ASK ABOUT A SPECIFIC CASE. YOU REMEMBER THE U.S. VERSUS BROWN. THIS WAS A GUILTY PLEA WHERE YOU ARE ASKED FOR PUNISHMENT. I WILL POINT YOU SAID I WILL STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS COURT HAS A LONG-STANDING POLICY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE CRIMINAL HISTORY GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO POINT ENHANCEMENT. JUDGE JACKSON:
I DON'T REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT. 
HOW IS THAT POLICY DISAGREEMENT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER DISAGREEMENTS? HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER DISAGREEMENTS? HON. 
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SENTENCING REALM HAS MADE THE GUIDELINE ADVISORY. IT USED TO BE MANDATORY, JUDGES USED TO HAVE TO CALCULATE THE GUIDELINES FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES AND APPLY ASCENDANCE WITHIN THAT RANGE. IN A CASE CALLED UNITED STATES VERSUS BOOKER, THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE ADVISORY NOW AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE APPLIED IN EVERY CASE. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THEM, BUT JUDGES HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO GIVE THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTES AND THE CASES OF SENTENCING. THEY MAKE CLEAR THAT JUDGES AND SENTENCING -- 
LET ME JUST CLOSE ON ONE OTHER QUESTION.
I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT.
I DON'T KNOW YOU WELL BUT I HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED BY HER INTERACTION. WHY WOULD YOU CALL SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEORGE BUSH WAR CRIMINALS AND ILLEGAL FILING? HON. 
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HABEAS PETITIONS? JUDGE JACKSON: YOU REFERRED -- 
WHY WOULD YOU REFER TO THEM AS WAR CRIMINALS?
I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU MEANT. I DID NOT ATTEND TO DISPARAGE THE PRESIDENT OR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
BEING A WAR CRIMINAL HAS HUGE RAMIFICATIONS. YOU COULD BE HAULED BEFORE A TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT A CASUAL COMMENT.
THANK YOU SENATOR CORNYN. IT IS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU AGAIN. I KNOW A GREAT MANY PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY PROUD THAT YOU ARE HERE TODAY. I DON'T KNOW THERE ARE MANY PROUDER THAN RUTH'S. YESTERDAY IN MY OPENING REMARKS I MENTIONED THE BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SAID ABOUT YOU, SHE HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT IN THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. SHE IS DEMONSTRATED JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. I SAW THE SAME QUALITIES IN HER AS I SAW IN RUTH BADER GINSBURG. SOME PEOPLE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INSPIRE, SHE IS VERY HARD-WORKING AND WELL-INFORMED. HE DOES NOT STOP THERE, HE GOES ON AT A LOCAL STATION, SHE HAS WORKED HARD AND I LITERALLY DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE MADE A BETTER CHOICE. I THINK SHE WILL BE A TERRIFIC ADDITION TO THE SUPREME COURT. SHE LISTENS TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY BUT MAKES UP HER OWN MIND. SHE HAS A WINNING PERSONALITY. SHE IS KIND TO THE PEOPLE SHE COMES IN CONTACT WITH AND SHE HAS A HUMILITY THAT I FIND ATTRACTIVE IN PEOPLE. JUDGE CELIAS WENT ON TO SAY SHE HAS THE SAME SORT OF DESIRE TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS AND PRAGMATIC STREAK THAT CHARACTERIZED JUSTICE BREYER'S WORK. SHE WILL BE QUITE BALANCED AND I HAVE NOT FOUND HER AN IDEOLOGUE. SHE UNDERSTANDS THE JOB OF WHAT BEING A JUSTICE IS AND WANTS TO DO AT THE RIGHT WAY. SHE WILL BEND HER TALENTS IN THAT DIRECTION. THE COUNTRY WILL APPRECIATE THAT AND WILL APPRECIATE THAT THIS WOMAN UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS POSITION AND GIVE 100% OF HER TALENTS EVERY DAY TO DO THAT JOB IN THE RIGHT WAY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER OATH OF OFFICE. CAN THAT BE ADDED TO THE RECORD? KATIE MULVANEY IN AN INTERVIEW HEARD THE JUDGE SAY, SHE IS A THOUGHTFUL PERSON AND WELL-QUALIFIED. I AM NOT ONLY HAPPY FOR HER BUT THE WHOLE COUNTRY. SHE LISTENS WELL, SHE GETS THE WHOLE PICTURE, HAS GREAT RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW. I THINK SHE HAS THE FULL PACKAGE. ANY REFLECTIONS ON JUDGE CELIA? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THAT WAS VERY MOVING. THANK YOU FOR READING HIS LOVELY REMARKS. IT IS EXACTLY WHO I KNOW HIM TO BE. ALWAYS ELOQUENT, ALWAYS INSIGHTFUL AND I AM SO FLATTERED BY HIS ADMIRATION BECAUSE HE IS SOMEONE I HAVE ADMIRED MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE. HE TAUGHT ME HOW TO LOOK AT ISSUES VERY CAREFULLY. HOW TO WRITE IN A LOT OF WAYS BECAUSE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH HE IS SO FASTIDIOUS WITH HIS OPINIONS AND HE HAS BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY BRAWL MODEL. 
I HAVE. 
AND WITH ANY LUCK YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO SERVE AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN APPELLATE COURT AND TRIAL COURT IS THEIR ROLE IN FACT-FINDING. IT IS MY BELIEF FROM MY TIME AS A PRACTICING LAWYER THAT THE ROLE OF FACT-FINDING BELONGS AT THE TRIAL. THAT IS WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SIFTING THROUGH IT AND IN TERMS OF JURIES IS THE IS A FACTFINDER. THEN THE CASE GOES UP ON APPEAL AND IT COMES UP ON THE RECORD, RECORD OF FACT IN THE CASE AND IN MY VIEW THAT RECORD OF FACT COMES UP TO THE APPELLATE COURTS IT IS ACTUALLY CONSTRAINT ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO GO WANDERING OFF. THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON THE ACTUAL RECORD THAT WAS USED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. YOU, HAVING LIVED IN BOTH OF THOSE HOUSES, THE TRIAL COURT HOUSE AND THE APPELLATE HOUSE, TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT CHANGE MEANT TO YOU AS HE WENT FROM BEING A TRIAL JUDGE TO AN APPELLATE JUDGE? JUDGE JACKSON:
THANK YOU SENATOR. IT IS A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. AS YOU MENTIONED AT THE TRIAL COURT, YOU ARE ON THE GROUND LEVEL. PARTIES TO FILE THE CASE. YOU HAVE ALL OF THE ISSUES AT THE TRIAL LEVEL BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE THE COMPLAINT, IF IT IS A CIVIL CASE AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF LITIGATION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE. IN CIVIL CASES YOU WILL HAVE A. OF DISCOVERY THAT IT IS REALLY ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. SOMETIMES THERE IS EVEN A TRIAL AND THAT TOO IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE JURY WILL BE CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHAT HAPPENED, WHO IS GUILTY IF IT'S A CRIMINAL CASE OR WHO IS LIABLE IF IT IS A CIVIL CASE AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE EVEN QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE THE FACTS. AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL, AS YOU SAID, THERE IS ALREADY A RECORD IN THE COURT IS LOOKING PRIMARILY AT THE LAW, THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE ISSUE BASED ON THE RECORD. AT THE APPELLATE RECORD THERE ARE STANDARDS OF REVIEW THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL APPLIES WHEN IT DECIDES HOW TO DO REVIEW, WHETHER TO REVERSE OR AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT. I HAVE BEEN VERY MINDFUL, ESPECIALLY AS A TRIAL JUDGE OF THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. 
WHEN I WAS PROPER LAWYERS FOR APPELLATE COURTS I WOULD OFTEN SAY PLEASE DON'T QUARREL WITH THE FACTS AND LESS YOU HAVE A KNOCKDOWN CASE BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO GET THE APPELLATE COURT TO RELITIGATE THE FACTS YOU ARE UP AGAINST THE HARSHEST STANDARD OF REVIEW. OUTSIDE OF THAT NARROW APPELLATE COURT, IF THE DISTRICT COURT GOT IT WRONG, ARE THERE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS PROPER FOR APPELLATE COURTS TO DO THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT FACT-FINDING OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE THEY ARE REVIEWING? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY. THERE MAY BE, IN MY EXPERIENCE THE FACT-FINDING IS DONE AT THE TRIAL LEVEL. THE COURT OF APPEAL ONLY LOOKS AT THE FACTS UNDER STANDARDS OF CLEAR ERROR SO THEREFORE THE RECORD IS ESTABLISHED I THE TIME YOU GET TO COURT OF APPEALS. 
I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE JUDICIARY THAT THEY DO NOT GET TO GO AND DO FREE RANGE, FACT-FINDING THEY HAVE TO BE TETHERED OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE RELATED TO THE CASE REQUIREMENT.   
THAT IS CORRECT. 
IN THAT REGARD, SIMPLE MAJORITIES ARE SOMETHING AMERICANS HAVE PRIVATE -- PRIDED THEMSELVES FOR A LONG TIME. AT EVERY COLONY SET UP SIMPLE MAJORITIES. IT WAS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IT BECAUSE THE REVOLUTION IN THE DOCUMENTS AROUND THE FOUNDING AND THE CREATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ALL REFLECT THE PASSIONATE BELIEF IN THE JURY. WHICH YOU KNOW IS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE TRIAL COURT IS BECOMING A RARER AND RARER CREATURE. HOW DO WE KEEP THOSE CIVIL JURY ALIVE? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT CIVIL JURY THAN JUST THE FACT-FINDING APPENDAGE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHETHER IT WAS SEEN BY THE FOUNDERS OR THE LAW WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AS A PART OF THE RESPONSIBLE SELF-GOVERNANCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. JUDGE JACKSON:
YES SENATOR. IT IS PART OF OUR THE READY. A MECHANISM BY WHICH CITIZENS CAN PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNANCE. THEY CAN BE CALLED UPON BY THE COURT TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC VISION OF THE FOUNDERS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. 
BLACKSTONE WAS ONE OF THE LEGAL EXPERTS, THE EARLY LAWYERS OF THE UNITED STATES RELIED ON. AND BLACKSTONE DESCRIBED THE JURY AS HAVING A ROLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POWER AND CLOUT OF BIG AND POWERFUL INTERESTS COULD BE PROTECTED AGAINST. THAT IT WAS A REFUGE FROM THE POWER OF WHAT HE CALLED THE POWER OF WEALTHY CITIZENS. THERE WAS LONG EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT OF CORRUPTION WHETHER IT WAS ACHIEVING EXECUTIVE OR WHETHER IT WAS CONTROLLING THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. THE JURY IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT STICK AROUND. THEY ARE THERE FOR ONE CASE AND THEN THEY DISAPPEAR. IF IN THAT ONE CASE, TAMPERING WITH THE JURY IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. SO THE JURY LIVES IN A PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT FROM THE POLITICAL POWER AND THE DANGER OF CORRUPTION THAT THE ELECTED BRANCHES OFTEN SUFFER AND DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CIVIL JURY IN THAT REGARD AS THE BASTION WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO WHERE THEY WILL GET A SQUARE DEAL WITH CITIZENS IS STAN TOTO -- STAND TOE TO TO WITH LITTLE DANGER OF THE FIX BEING PUT IN? JUDGE JACKSON:
THE JURY SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN THAT MANNER. THE CITIZENS ARE BROUGHT IN FROM THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE PICKED JURIES WE ASK AS JUDGES DO YOU HAVE ANY CONNECTIONS? 
THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO EXCLUDE SOMEONE FROM THE JURY. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW ME AND IF YOU DO YOU WILL HAVE TO LET ME KNOW AND BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE IDEA AS YOU INDICATED IS TO GET PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE CASE AND CAN HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LAWYERS AND MAKE A DECISION THAT IS UNCONNECTED TO ANY PERSONAL INTEREST THEY MAY HAVE. 
PROTECTING THE JURY AGAINST THE DANGERS OF BIAS OR CORRUPTION.
YES SENATOR.
WITH ANY LUCK YOU WILL BE ON THE SUPREME COURT BEFORE LONG AND I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER ALL OF THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT HAS BEEN ON THE CAMPAIGN TO DEPRECATE AND DIMINISH THE CIVIL JURY BY INCLUDING CORPORATIONS TO BUILD INTO THEIR STANDARD CONTRACTS, BURIED WAY DOWN IN THE FINE PRINT THAT FOLKS OFTEN DON'T READ, THEY WILL NEVER FIND SO MUCH A STRIKE IT OUT OF THE CONTRACT. THEY BUILD INTO THAT THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY. THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A JURY. I CANNOT THINK OF ANOTHER RIGHT THE CORD PAYS LESS ATTENTION TO OR SETS MORE READILY UNDER THE BUS. IF YOU READ MANDATORY ARBITRATION CASES THERE IS RARELY MENTIONED OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THE JURY TO ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO TAKE ON THE CONTRACTS THAT THE CUSTOMER HAS NO CHANCE TO NEGOTIATE, TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT THAT WAS AT THE HEART OF OUR FOUNDING WITHOUT A SQUEAK OF OBJECTION OR EVEN NOTICE. I THINK IT HAS CREATED A DRAMATIC SHIFT IN POWER TOWARDS THE CORPORATIONS AND I THINK IT IS HIS -- HAS HARMED INNUMERABLE EMPLOYEES. I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH SUCH CLARITY ABOUT THE ROLE IN HISTORY OF THE SIMPLE MAJORITY NOT JUST AS A FACT-FINDING ADJUNCT BUT AS PART OF ARC CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION. 
LET ME JUST SAY A POSITIVE WORD TO FOLLOW-UP. THIS COMMITTEE HAS PASSED LEGISLATION WHICH CASES AND SEXUAL-HARASSMENT PROVIDE COMPLAINANTS A CHANCE THAT A JURY TRIAL. IT IS THE CHOICE OF THE COMPLAINANT THE VENUE THEY WILL SEEK. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO RETURN FOR THE SENATOR FROM UTAH. [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] 
I WILL LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN TERMS OF RESEARCH THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN DURING THE BREAK. JUDGE JACKSON, SENATOR CORNYN SAID YOU CALLED FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD ONESELF -- DONALD RUMSFELD, A WAR CRIMINAL. YOU SEEMED SURPRISED. HE SURVIVED -- FILED SEVERAL HABEAS POSITIONS NAMING FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH AND FORMER SECRETARY RUMSFELD IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, YOU ARE ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE CALLING HIMSELF CIVILIANS. THERE'S -- YOUR FILING WAS A PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ADVOCATE FOR YOUR CLIENTS. THEY RAISED A DOZEN CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. ONE OF THEM WAS AN ALLEGATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED TORTURE FOR THE INDIVIDUALS, WHICH CONSTITUTED WAR CRIMES UNDER THE STATUTE. THE ALIEN TORTURE STATUTE ALLOWS -- APPARENTLY, WHAT SENATOR CORNYN WAS REFERENCING -- THERE WAS NO TIME WHERE YOU CALLED PRESIDENT BUSH OR SECRETARY RUMSFELD A "WAR CRIMINAL".
THAT WAS CORRECT. 
WE NOW RECOGNIZE SENATOR LEE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE LAW DETERMINES THE OUTCOME OF A CASE. 
ANYTIME YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CASE ANYWHERE LOOKING AT THE OUTCOMES FOR ORDINARY AMERICANS AND LOOKING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DECIDING THE CASE AND LOOKING WITHIN THE CASE BEYOND WHAT THE LAW SAYS, YOU WOULD BE STEPPING INTO A PROVINCE OF A DIFFERENT BRANCH. 
I BELIEVE SO. THE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY PARTICULAR RIGHTS GOING DIRECTLY FROM THE NINTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH, THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE SOME RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT ENUMERATED. 
IT IS -- IT'S VERY EXISTENCE SUGGESTS THAT. IT OPENS UP QUESTIONS ON HOW THAT WOULD BE RESOLVE, AND LED TO CONSIDERABLE DEBATE AMONG SCHOLARS AND JURORS AS TO WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THIS IS ENFORCEABLE BY THE COURTS. HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT DECIDING THAT? HOW WOULD YOUR WRISTS GO ABOUT --JURISTS GO ABOUT DECIDING THE QUESTION APPROPRIATELY? WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO SAY WE WOULD ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT ACED ON CONTEMPORANEOUS -- BASED ON CONTEMPORANEOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT OR WOULD IT BE OPEN ENDED TO PROTECT RIGHTS TO -- THAT WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT TODAY?  : 
THE SUPREME COURT VERY CLEARLY DETERMINED THAT IN ORDER TO INTERPRET PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE LOOK TO THE FOUNDING AND WE ASCERTAIN BASED ON WHAT THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF THE WORD OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE AT THE TIME -- AND SOMETIMES THAT YIELDS A PARTICULAR ANSWER. OTHER TIMES, YOU MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT PRACTICES HISTORICALLY FROM THAT TIME. THAT WOULD BE THE WAY IN WHICH YOU WOULD GO AND BOUT -- GO ABOUT INTERPRETING THE NINTH AMENDMENT? 
COULD IT BE DECIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF, OR NOT BASED ON ANY HISTORICAL PRESIDENT OR BASED ON WHAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THEMSELVES DEEM APPROPRIATE AT THE MOMENT? HON. :
I DON'T THINK SO. 
WHY IS THAT?
THE WEIGHT IN WHICH --WAY IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION IS IN REFERENCE TO THE MEANING OF THE TEXT AT THE TIME. IT IS ONE OF THE STRENGTHS, AS I MENTIONED, IN TERMS OF MY OWN WAY IN HANDLING THE LAW, ONE OF THE CONSTRAINTS IS THAT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE TEXT AND WHAT IT MEANT TO THOSE WHO DRAFTED IT. 
ON FEBRUARY 1 OF THIS YEAR, PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE WAS LOOKING FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, RIGHT AFTER JUSTICE BREYER ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD BE STEPPING DOWN AND BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED WE -- WHO WOULD NOMINATE, THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR A NOMINEE THAT WOULD QUOTE " BEST --" DO YOU SHARE THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN DESCRIBED IN THAT STATEMENT?
I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THAT STATEMENT BUT I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT ENUMERATED RIGHTS OR UNENUMERATED RIGHTS WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
DID PRESIDENT BIDEN ASK YOU EITHER ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY MORE BROADLY, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT NINTH AMENDMENT OR SQ -- ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR APPROACH TO THE NINTH AMENDMENT? HON. :
HE DID NOT. 
IN A PRIMARY ELECTION DEBATE THAT HE HAD AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN NEVADA IN 2007, HE SAID, QUOTE, " I WOULD NOT APPOINT ANYONE THAT DID NOT UNDERSTAND SECTION NINE OF THE -- FIVE OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT -- THAT IS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK THEM. " --I ASSUME HIS REFERENCE TO THE LIVERY -- LIBERTY BECAUSE, I ASSUME HE IS TALKING ABOUT DUE PROCESS OF THE 13 AMENDMENT. THE PRESIDENT BIDEN SQ WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIS ANALYSIS OF THE -- 14TH AMENDMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHT TO POLICY?
HE DID NOT. 
WHEN WE LOOK AT ANY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ONE OF THE MANY REASONS IT IS HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING, IN ADDITION TO THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT YOU DESCRIBED, IT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATED IT AND IT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO VOTED WITHIN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE TEXT TO BE AMENDED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THOSE WHO VOTED TO RATIFY IT. WE HAVE GOT A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT HE REFERRED TO, THAT HAD AN UNDERSTANDING THAT INCLUDED CERTAIN -- OUT KNOTS FOR GOVERNMENT --THOU SHALL NOTS OR GOVERNMENT. AMONG ANYTHING ELSE, IT MIGHT DO. RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO TREAT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY ON THE BASIS OF RACE. CONSISTENT OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, WHEN IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT TO TREAT A PERSON DIFFERENTLY ON THE BASIS OF RACE? HON. :
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE TO GENERALLY PROHIBIT CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND IT SAID -- SAYS THAT THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE TO BE RIGOROUSLY SCRUTINIZED. THEY -- STRICT SCRUTINY, WHICH IS A STANDARD THAT APPLIES, THAT LOOKS AT THE CRUXES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MEANS OF WHICH GOVERNMENT ACHIEVES ANY AND RELATED TO SUCH CLASSIFICATION. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COMPELLING INTEREST IN MAKING THAT CLASSIFICATION AND THE MEANS WHICH IT SELECTS WOULD HAVE TO BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE THAT INTEREST. 
THOSE COMPELLING INTERESTS CAN BE FOR LIGHTER, TRANSIENT REASONS. IT CAN'T BE SOMETHING LIKE, WE FEEL LIKE IT. :
CORRECT.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS, NUMBER ONE, IT IS BETTER FOR ANYONE TO TREE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY ON THE BASIS OF RACE. IT IS ESPECIALLY BAD WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT EXACTLY EQUALLY BARGAINING POWER WILL WE DEAL WITH THE RELATION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS WITH GOVERNMENT. IT IS UNFAIR FOR THIS COMMISSION -- GOVERNMENTS HAVE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND ARMIES AND THE MEANS FOR ENFORCING THERE WILL IN THEIR LOSS AND THAT --THEIR WILLS AND THEIR LAWS. WHEN IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO TREAT A EMPLOYEE OR PROSPECT OF AN EMPLOYEE DIFFERENTLY BY RACE? 
IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE. 
BY VERY -- NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES. :
THE STATUE ITSELF HAS RESTRICTIONS ON WHO IT IMPLIES. ON EMPLOYERS.
SOME EXCLUSIONS IN TERMS OF RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS -- IT ALLOWS RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS WITHIN CERTAIN SPIRITS IN ORDER TO ABLE TO PROTECT -- THAT RELIGIOUS EMPLOYER'S DISCRETION TO OPERATE WITHIN THE RULES OF ITS FAITH. BY DOING THAT, IT MAKES THAT MUCH CLEAR, BY MAKING THAT DISTINCTION, THAT IS CLEAR THAT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND EMPLOYMENT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE LAW SMILES UPON, NOR SHOULD IT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, THE FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN'T FORESEE AND COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INVENTION OF RADIOS, TELEVISION, AIRPLANES, INTERNET, TELEPHONE NETWORKS, AND YES -- YET ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT BY STATE LAW. WHY IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL? HON. :
SENATOR, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS INITIALLY INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE VERY BROAD TO ALLOW FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY IN THIS COUNTRY. OVER TIME, THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT THERE IS LIMITED AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. THE STATE OF THE LAW IS SUCH THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS ONLY PERMITTED TO REGULATE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE CONGRESS, INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ACTIVITIES THAT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD CATEGORY, THE SUPREME COURT MADE THAT NON-ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED BY COMMERCE CLAUSE AUTHORITY AND IN THE ACA CASE, IT IS ALSO NOT COVERED AND NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
MOST OF THE ITEMS THAT I IDENTIFIED IN MY QUESTION WOULD FALL OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. WE ARE DEALING WITH AIRWAVES, WATERWAYS, NETWORKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THINGS THAT DEPEND FOR THEIR EXISTENCE FOR THEIR EFFECTIVENESS ON THEIR OPERATION INTERSTATE SUCH THAT NO ONE COULD EFFECTIVELY REGULATE THEM UNLESS THAT WAS FEDERAL. THOSE FIT UNDER THE CATEGORY OF CHANNELS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES. THE THIRD ITEM THE EFFECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS THERE MUCH OF A LIMITING PRINCIPLE THERE? YOU REFERRED TO LOPEZ AND MORRISON -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE CASES THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED SINCE ITS RULING IN 1937 WHICH ESSENTIALLY CREATED THE MODERN SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS CASE. THE STANDARD. THE THREE INSTANCES IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT IDENTIFIED AS OUTSIDE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AUTHORITY, SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS HAD ENACTED. ARE THESE MEANINGFUL CONSTRAINTS IN YOUR VIEW OR ARE THE EXAMPLES OF CONGRESS GETTING RECKLESS AND SLOPPY IN THE WAY IT DRAFTED THINGS? SOME HAVE ARGUED FOR INSTANCE THAT AS LONG AS CONGRESS DOESN'T GET RECKLESS AND SLOPPY, IT CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. JUDGE JACKSON:
THESE CASES COME THROUGH THE COURTS, SO I WILL BE GENERAL. THE FACT THAT CONGRESS IS LIMITED IN ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS ESTABLISHED LAW. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND THOSE LIMITS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED DO CARVE OUT CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITY THE CONGRESS IS NOT PERMITTED, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO REGULATE. NON-ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS A CATEGORY. 
THE SUPREME COURT IS ALSO -- HAS ESTABLISHED RULES FOR THINGS THE STATES MAY NOT DO. THE SO-CALLED DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ACKNOWLEDGES THE POWER OF CONGRESS THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF CONGRESS AS REGULATING COMMERCE BUT THERE IS NO FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION -- IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING ADOPTED BY THE COURTS. IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S JUDICIAL POWER OR DOES THAT AMOUNT TO DEFECTOR LEGISLATION ON THE PART OF THE COURTS? -- DEFECT OUT LEGISLATION ON THE PART OF THE COURTS? HON. JUDGE JACKSON:
THE SUPREME COURT HAS COMMITTED -- THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE IS A PRINCIPLE THAT SUPPORTS THE INTERSTATE NATURE AND REGULATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO STATES ARE NOT PERMITTED UNDER THAT DOCTRINE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER STATES TO PREFERENCE THEIR OWN COMMERCE IN A WAY THAT INTERFERES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
I WANT TO TURN BACK TO A LINE OF INQUIRY YOU HAD WITH SENATOR DURBIN EARLIER TODAY WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR SENTENCING IN THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER THERE. IF I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WERE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT YOUR CONCERN WAS THAT THE LAWS IN THIS AREA DIDN'T ADEQUATELY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TRANSFER OF THESE MATERIALS BY ELECTRONIC MEANS TO BE TRANSMITTED, RECEIVED, AND STORED THROUGH COMPUTERS. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING IS THAT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION BACK WHEN I WAS PART OF IT AND EVEN SINCE TASKED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND LOOK AT THE DATA AND INFORMATION ABOUT CASES HAS LOOKED AT THE OPERATION OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY GUIDELINE, NOT SO MUCH THE STATUTE, BUT THE GUIDELINE WHICH CONGRESS HAS TASKED THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH DEVELOPING. THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY GUIDELINES THAT CONGRESS AND LEGISLATION HAS REQUIRED. IT CERTAIN ENHANCEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GUIDELINE AND SOME OF THOSE ENHANCEMENTS, THE DATA IS NOW REVEALING DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT THIS HORRIBLE OFFENSE IS NOW COMMITTED. 
THE FACT THAT IT IS EASIER TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE SHOULDN'T DIMINISH THE SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT? GIVEN THE MORE WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS AND CERTAIN WEAPONS, THAT WOULDN'T ARGUE FOR A LOWER SENTENCE WHEN CERTAIN THINGS BECOME EASIER AND OTHER CRIMINAL CONTEXT. WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT? JUDGE JACKSON:
THE SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE GUIDELINES ARE DESIGNED TO HELP COURTS DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CULPABILITY. CONGRESS WILL SAY THIS IS AN OFFENSE WHATEVER IT IS AND THE MAXIMUM PENALTY IS X AND IN MOST CASES, THE RANGE IS BETWEEN ZERO AND SOMETHING LIKE 20 YEARS. THAT CONGRESS GIVES WHEN IT ESTABLISHES A PENALTY. THE POINT OF THE GUIDELINES IS TO HELP JUDGES FIGURE OUT WHERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 20 YEARS OF PARTICULAR DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SENTENCED. THE GUIDELINES HAVE GRADATIONS IN THEM THAT RELATE TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. THE COMMISSION DOES DATA GATHERING AND RESEARCH TO FIGURE OUT HOW CRIMES ARE COMMITTED AND WHAT GRADATIONS SHOULD MATTER IN TERMS OF THE RANGE OF CULPABILITY BECAUSE THE PROBLEM OF NOT DOING THAT OR OF GETTING IT WRONG IS THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS AND DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES AMONG OFFENDERS ON THE SCALE. 
IN THESE CASES, ALL 10 OF THE CASES THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED WHERE YOU HAVE SENTENCED SOMEONE FOR A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTION, IN ALL 10 OF THOSE CASES, YOU DEPARTED FROM THE GUIDELINES AND DEPARTED DOWNWARD. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND DEPARTING FROM THOSE IN EVERY CASE YOU HAVE. IS IT A DEPARTURE SUPPOSED TO BE GROUNDED IN FINDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE THE HEARTLAND OF CASES IN THAT RANGE? CASES OF THAT SORT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
YES, AND AS I SAID BEFORE, THESE ARE HORRIBLE CASES THAT INVOLVE TERRIBLE CRIMES. THE COURT IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS'S FACTORS FOR SENTENCING. THE GUIDELINES ARE ONE FACTOR. THE COURT IS TOLD THAT YOU LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES, BUT YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE, THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER, THERE ARE A SERIES OF FACTORS. IN THE CASES, YOU ARE ALSO GETTING RECOMMENDATIONS AND IN MOST OF THE CASES, IN MOST OF THE CASES IF NOT ALL OF THE CASES, THE GOVERNMENT IS ASKING FOR A SENTENCE BELOW THE GUIDELINES BECAUSE THE GUIDELINE SYSTEM IS NOT DOING THE WORK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
 
SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT PROVIDES A DEGREE OF IMMUNITY FOR TECH COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE SPACE OF BEING ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IT IMMUNIZES THEM FROM CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY AGAINST THEM. WOULD IT BE WITHIN CONGRESS'S AUTHORITY TO CONDITION THE RECEIPT AND AVAILABILITY OF SECTION 230 IMMUNITY ON THOSE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS OPERATING AS A PUBLIC FORUM THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF OR THE VIEWPOINT OF THOSE POSTING ON THEM. WOULD THAT BE WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY? JUDGE JACKSON: I CAN'T COMMENT ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, BUT THE CRITERIA THAT YOU IDENTIFY, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT I THINK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING TO REGULATE ALONG VIEWPOINT LINES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GENERALLY IMPERMISSIBLE. 
THANK YOU.
Amy Klobuchar, D-MN
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND SENATOR GRASSLEY, WELCOME JUDGE. WELCOME TO YOUR FAMILY. BEFORE I START, I WANTED TO GIVE IT SOMETHING -- SENATOR LEE WAS TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE DORMANT, -- DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. I APPRECIATE HOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THESE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. A FORMER PROSECUTOR CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT LOOKING AT THESE CASES AS A MOTHER AND A JUDGE. WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU AT ALL THAT OTHER JUDGES INCLUDING A NUMBER OF THEM SUPPORTED BY OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE GIVEN OUT SIMILAR SENTENCES IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES? JUDGE JACKSON:
NO, IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME BECAUSE THESE CASES ARE HORRIFIC. THERE'S A LOT OF DISPARITY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE GUIDELINES ARE OPERATING IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. IN EVERY CASE, THAT I HANDLED INVOLVING THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES, I LOOKED AT THE LAW AND THE FACTS. I MADE SURE THAT THE VICTIMS, THE CHILDREN'S PERSPECTIVES WERE REPRESENTED. I ALSO IMPOSED PRISON TERMS AND SIGNIFICANT SUPERVISION AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THESE DEFENDANTS. 
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT IS CRUCIAL. AS HAS BEEN SAID HERE EARLIER, THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THAT IS THE KEY TO OUR LEGITIMACY AND OUR DATA -- EMMA CRADDICK SYSTEM. -- DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. I AM HONORED TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION IN PART BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT MEANS SO MUCH TO SO MANY PEOPLE. IT MEANS A LOT TO ME. I AM HERE STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS WHO NEVER HAD ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS KIND OF OPPORTUNITY. FROM MY GRANDPARENTS, WHO HAD JUST GRADESCHOOL EDUCATION BUT INSTILLED IN MY PARENTS THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING. MY PARENTS WHO I HAVE MENTIONED HERE MANY TIMES ALREADY WHO WERE THE FIRST IN THEIR FAMILIES TO GO TO COLLEGE. THIS NOMINATION AGAINST THAT BACKDROP IS SIGNIFICANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND I HOPE THAT IT WILL BRING CONFIDENCE, HELP INSPIRE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR COURTS ARE LIKE THEM. THAT OUR JUDGES ARE LIKE THEM. DOING THE WORK, BEING PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. 
ALONG THOSE LINES, YOU ARE A WONDERFUL MENTOR. -- YOUR WONDERFUL MENTOR, JUSTICE BREYER, HE SAID WE CAN MAINTAIN PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE COURTS BY HELPING ENSURE THE CONSTITUTION REMAINS WORKABLE. SPECIFICALLY THE COURT CAN AND SHOULD INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE DAY. AS YOU KNOW, ARTICLE TWO SECTION TWO DOESN'T REFER TO THE AIR FORCE BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE AN AIR FORCE. ARE THERE THINGS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION THAT AS WE HAVE GONE ALONG THAT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEET THE MOMENTS OF OUR TIME. WHAT DO YOU THINK JUSTICE BREYER MEANS WHEN HE SAYS THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A WEIGHT THAT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE OF TODAY AND THAT INJUSTICE CAN BE BOTH PRAGMATIC AND RESPECT HISTORY? HON. JUDGE JACKSON:
I DO AND I THINK THE JUSTICES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT. SOME OF THE RECENT OPINIONS HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH MODERN TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGIES THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RILEY CASE, CARPENTER. THESE WERE FOURTH AMENDMENT DECISIONS IN WHICH THE COURT WAS ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR THE POLICE TO SEARCH SOMEONE'S CELL PHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT OR FOR THE POLICE TO USE GPS LOCATION DATA TO DETERMINE WHERE SOMEONE HAD BEEN WITHOUT A WARRANT. OBVIOUSLY, THOSE TECHNOLOGIES DID NOT EXIST. WHAT THE COURT DID, WAS A LOOKED BACK AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING AND IT DETERMINED WHAT THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY WERE RELATED TO THE TERM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WHICH IS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND HAVING ASSESSED WHAT THAT MEANT BACK THEN, THEY COULD USE AS PRINCIPLES TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT A CELL PHONE IS LIKE SOMEONE'S HOME THESE DAYS WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND THE THINGS THAT ARE STORED THERE AND THE COURT DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE POLICE OFFICERS NEEDED A WARRANT AND THEY DID SO WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANT IN HISTORY. 
YOU ARE VIEWED AS A JUDGE AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY THAT RIGHTS LENGTHY OPINIONS. YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULD SPELL THINGS OUT AND YOU BELIEVE IN BEING TRANSPARENT. IS THAT FAIR? JUDGE JACKSON:
THAT IS. 
I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS TO MEET A BIT THE OPPOSITE. SOME HAVE TERMED THE SHADOW DOCKET. IT INCLUDES DECISIONS THAT THE COURT MAKES ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS THAT ARE USUALLY UNSIGNED AND ISSUED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT OR FULL BRIEFING. WE HAVE SEEN THE COURT INCREASINGLY DECIDING CASES IN THIS WAY OFTEN OVER THE DISSENT OF THREE OR FOUR OF THE JUSTICES. LAST TERM, THE COURT GRANTED 20 REQUESTS. 10 YEARS AGO IN THE OCTOBER TERM OF 2011, THE COURT GRANTED ONLY SIX REQUESTS IN AN ENTIRE YEAR. WHEN DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO GRANT EMERGENCY RELIEF DOCKET, WHEN ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT THIS? THE DECISIONS HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON PEOPLE'S LIVES. LAST FALL AND A ONE PARAGRAPH DECISION, THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT REFUSED TO STOP THE TEXAS LOT THAT SEVERELY RESTRICTS WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION. EVEN CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS OBJECTED TO THE COURT'S DECISION TO ALLOW THE LOT TO TAKE EFFECT ALLOWING THE SCHEME NOT ONLY UNUSUAL BUT UNPRECEDENTED. AS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN TRANSPARENCY, COULD YOU TALK IN GENERAL ABOUT WHEN YOU THINK THE SHADOW DOCKET SHOULD BE USED WHEN EMERGENCY RELIEF SHOULD BE GIVEN AND HOW IF IT IS OVERUSED IT COULD UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT? JUDGE JACKSON:
THERE IS A BALANCE THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER. ON THE ONE HAND, IT HAS ALWAYS HAD AN EMERGENCY DOCKET. THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, THE ABILITY TO GET ANSWERS TO THE PARTIES AT ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR SYSTEM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE INTEREST IN ALLOWING ISSUES TO PERCOLATE, ALLOWING OTHER COURTS TO RULE ON THINGS BEFORE THEY COME TO THE COURT. I AM NOT PRIVY AT THE MOMENT TO THE JUSTICES VIEWS AND WHY AND HOW THEY ARE USING THE EMERGENCY DOCKET IN THESE CASES. IF I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE CONFIRMED, I WOULD LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES. IT'S AN INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT SET OF ISSUES. 
I THINK ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE DAY BEFORE WISCONSIN'S PRIMARY ELECTION IN 2020, AS THE FIRST BEGINNINGS OF THE HEALTH ORDERS CAME OUT WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE PANDEMIC, THE COURT ISSUED A DECISION HALTING A DISTRICT COURT ORDER ALLOWING VOTERS EXTRA TIME TO CAST THEIR ABSENTEE BALLOTS SO THEY COULD AVOID WAITING IN LINE TO VOTE. BACK THEN, PEOPLE GOT COVID ELECTION WORKERS AND THE LIKE BECAUSE OF IT. I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THIS POINT, BUT SOME OF THIS IS THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE THAT DON'T REFLECT SOME OF THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THAT YOU HAVE MADE IN MANY OF YOUR DECISIONS AS A JUDGE. SPEAKING OF VOTING, ONE QUESTION. SINCE THE SUPREME COURT VETTED THE SECTION FIVE PRECLEARANCE REGIME OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN ITS DECISION IN MANY VOTING RIGHTS CASES. JUSTICE GINSBURG DISSENTED SAYING THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN OUR SYSTEM. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS FUNDAMENTAL? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE BASIS OF OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RIGHT UPON WHICH ALL OTHER RIGHTS ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUNDED. BECAUSE IN A DEMOCRACY, THERE IS ONE PERSON ONE VOTE AND THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THE ANTITRUST LAWS PROTECT COMPETITION AND AS YOU SAID, THEREFORE PROTECT CONSUMERS AND COMPETITORS AND THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. THE SHERMAN ACT AND CLAYTON ACT ARE BROAD IN THEIR STATEMENTS AND PROTECTIONS. IF I WERE CONFIRMED, I WOULD USE MY METHODOLOGY TO LOOK AT THE PRECEDENTS IN THESE AREAS TO ENSURE THAT ANY LEGISLATION I WAS CONSIDERING IS INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE TEXT CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSES INTENT. IN THE AREA OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. 
VERY GOOD. JUST TO PLAY IT OUT A LITTLE BIT, SINCE THE 1980'S, THE COURT IN CASES LIKE AMERICAN EXPRESS HAVE REALLY MADE IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND PROTECT COMPETITION. DURING THE SAME TIME, I KNOW MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES KNOW, WE SEEN A RISE IN CONSOLIDATION, MARKET POWER NOT ONLY WITH TECH COMPANIES, BUT ALSO ACROSS OUR ECONOMY, IN EVERYTHING FROM PHARMA. WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT CONGRESSIONAL SHOULD PLAY IN THE COURTS INTERPRETATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS? I SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH CASES WHERE JUSTICES HAVE SUBSTITUTED THEIR OWN IDEOLOGIES FOR THE INTENT OF CONGRESS ORIGINALLY PASSING THE LOSS YOU'RE DRIVING WITH JUSTIC WANTS. WE ARE DEALING WITH SPECTACULAR JUDICIARIES THAT OUR LIQUOR SYSTEM KNOWS. HE ADDED AS. WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD PLAY IN THE COURT INTERPRETATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAW?   
I INTERPRETED A NUMBER OF STATUTES IN MY NEAR DECADE ON THE BENCH. IN EVERY CASE, PROTECT OF THE STATUTE IS WHAT THE COURT LOOKS AT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED. THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS I SAID, COURTS ARE NOT POLICYMAKERS. AND JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE IMPORTING THEIR OWN POLICY PREFERENCES. JUDGES ARE RESTRAINED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME IN ORDER TO AFFECT THE WILL OF CONGRESS IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPORTATION -- INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. 
I WILL TURN TO ANOTHER TOPIC. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 1964 CASE. WE HAVE RECENTLY WITNESSED, AS YOU KNOW UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK ON JOURNALISTS AND JOURNALISM, WHETHER IT IS A VIOLENCE OVERSEAS, RECENTLY LOSING SADLY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS JUST IN THE LAST MONTH IN UKRAINE, OR THREATS AND INTIMIDATION IS AT HOME. THIS IS CONCERNING TO ME, GIVEN THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. MY DAD WAS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER. THE ISSUE HIT HOME FOR ME. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR VIEW ON THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS IN OUR DEMOCRACY?   BROWN: 
THANK YOU. JOURNALISTS, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT IS ABOUT THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR A DEMOCRATIC FORMAL GOVERNMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THIS MONTH, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE COURTS DETERMINATION IN PROTECTING THE PRESS FROM LIABILITY IN NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN AND ITS PROGENY. 
AS YOU KNOW, THE RULING WAS UNANIMOUS RULING IN FIRST -- SUPPORT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. ONE NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON PUBLIC OFFICIALS, -- WHETHER THE STATEMENT WAS FALSE. THE COURT IN SULLIVAN BASED HIS DECISION ON OUR COUNTRY "PROFOUND NATIONAL COMMITMENT --. IT RECOGNIZED THAT ERRONEOUS STATEMENT IS INEVITABLE ENTER DEBATE". THEY MUST HAVE THE BREATHING SPACE THAT THEY NEED TO SURVIVE. DO YOU AGREE THAT THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE JUST AS RELEVANT TODAY AS THEY WERE WHEN THE SUPREME COURT FIRST DECIDED ON NEW YORK TIMES D SULLIVAN.   
IT IS THE BINDING SUPREME -- BINDING OF THE SUPREME COURT. THE COURT DETERMINED ARE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE PRESS. 
THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO READ THE CASE WHICH THE 11TH CIRCUIT OF NEW YORK TIMES THE SULLIVAN JUSTICE EACH DEFENDED FROM THE DECISION NOT TO GRANT. THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER IS HOLDING IN SULLIVAN. HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH A CASE AS SUCH LIMITS OR OVERTURN THE CASE?   
THANK YOU. ANYTIME THE COURT IS ASKED TO REVISIT A PRESI PRECEDENT THERE IS A CRITERIA THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO OVERRULE A PRECEDENT. NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN IS A PRESI PRECEDENTS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. OF COURSE, THE COURT SHOULD MAINTAIN. IT PRECEDENTS FOR PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY IN THE LAW. IF THE COURT IS ASKED TO REVISIT A R A PRECEDENTS, IT CRITERIA WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WHETHER IT IS WRONG OR RIGIDLY WRONG, THE COURT HAS SAID, WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN RELIANCE ON THAT PRECEDENTS. WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE PRECEDENTS OR RELIED ON THE PRECEDENTS, OR HAVE SHIFTED SO IT IS NO LONGER FIRM FOOTING. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WORKABLE. SOMETIME THE SUPREME COURT WILL ISSUE A RULING AND DETERMINE LATER THAT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY DOING WHAT THE COURT INTENDED. AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE NEW FACTS, OR A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, THOSE VARIOUS CRITERIA ON WHAT THE COURT LOOKS AT AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO OVERTURN A R PRECEDENTS I WILL WOULD LOOK, I WILL LOOK AT AS THE SUPREME COURT. 
YOU ACTUALLY ANSWERED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. AND I THINK AS YOU KNOW, HOW YOU TALK MORE BROADLY ABOUT THIS MOVING OFF OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION. THROUGHOUT THE COURTS HISTORY, THE COURT HAS RELIED ON IT TO MAINTAIN STABILITY IN THE LAW AND POSSIBILITY AND IMPARTIALITY AS THE FORMAL JUSTICE, I KNOW SENATOR JUST READ A BOOK ABOUT HIM. I KNOW JUSTICE HARRY BLACKMUN. WHO JUSTICE BRIAR SUCCEEDED ON THE COURT. HE SAID WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY SHOULD SERVE AS A MODEL FOR FUTURE JUSTICES, AND A WARNING TO ALL WHO HAVE TRIED TO TURN THIS COURT ENTER YET APOLITICAL BRANCH. WHAT ROLE DO YOU INTO A POLITICAL BRANCH.   
I THINK IT PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE AS A DOCTRINE THAT KEEPS SHIPS FROM HAPPENING IN THE COURT, THAT AS HE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE STABILITY IN THE LAW, RULE OF LAW PURPOSES SO THAT PEOPLE CAN ORDER THEMSELVES, PREDICT. PREDICT THEIR LIVES GIVEN WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY SAID. IF THERE WERE MASSIVE SHIFTS, EVERY TIME A NEW JUSTICE CAME ON, OR EVERY TIME NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AROSE, THERE WOULD BE A CONCERN THAT PUBLIC CONFIDENCE WOULD BE ERODED. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DOCTRINE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED, AND IT IS ONE THAT FURTHERS THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. 
THANK YOU. THAT IS A GOOD WAY TO END THE JUDGE. I DO SEE SENATOR CRUZ WAITING. BY COINCIDENCE, IT LOOKS LIKE HE HAS THINGS HE IS PUTTING UP ON THE CHART. BY COINCIDENCE, I HAVE, WAS GOING TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR THE JUDGE THAT YOU CLERKED FOR SENATOR CRUZ. I KNOW YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO HIM . HE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A LETTER ON YOUR BEHALF. JUDGE JACKSON. HE SAID IN THIS LETTER, HE IS AN APPOINTEE OF GEORGE H W BUSH, SIMILAR TO THE JUDGE WHO INTRODUCED YOU YESTERDAY. I HAVE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED BY THE SUPPORT YOU HAD BY RETIRED JUDGES, OBVIOUSLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CURRENT JUDGES, BOTH APPOINTED BY DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN. AS WELL AS THE BIPARTISAN VOTES YOU HAVE GOTTEN FROM THE U.S. AND SENATE. IN THIS LETTER, THE FORMAL JUDGE SAID THAT YOU ARE EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THEN HE ACTUALLY SAYS REPUBLICANS AND IMMIGRANTS ALIKE SHOULD GIVE THEIR STUDIED ADVICE , AND THEN THEIR CONSENT TO THE PRESIDENT NOMINATION. HE ASKS REPUBLICANS TO VOTE TO CONFIRM JUDGE JACKSON. THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD SEGUE, SENATOR CRUZ, TO YOUR QUESTION. I ASKED CHAIRMAN, THAT THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR OUR FORMAL JUDGE WHO EMPLOYED SENATOR CRUZ AS A TRUSTED LAW OF THE ADMITTED TO THE RECORD. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE JACKSON.
JUSTICE THIS MORNING IN NASHVILLE ILLINOIS.
HE WAS A LAWYER AT THE MAYO CLINIC AS WE KNOW AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME. A LAWYER IN MINNESOTA WHEN HE WAS DRUNK IN THE SUPREME COURT.
MINNESOTA.
THANK YOU.
YOU AND I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER LONG TIME.
WE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL TOGETHER, WE WERE A YEAR APART.
HAPPILY SO, I HOPE.
WE WERE NOT IN ORDER. WE DISCUSSED HOW HE AND I AND OTHER SENATORS FOR TWO DIFFERENT YEARS PARTICIPATING IN READING ALOUD. THE GIT WAS ONE OF THE APPLIQU AND DVOCEES. 
WHERE HE SAID MOST CRITICALLY, I HAVE A DREAM, I HAVE FOUR LITTLE CHILDREN WILL LIVE IN A NATION THAT THEY WILL NOT JUDGE BY THE CROWN COLOR OF THEIR SKIN, BUT THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER. DO YOU AGREE WHAT WHAT HE SAID?   
I DO. 
AS WE WERE DISCUSSED AT COMMITTEE REFERENCE IN MY OFFICE A SPEECH THAT YOU GAVE IN 2020. AFTER MY DISCUSSION I PULLED A COPY OF MY SPEECH -- YOUR SPEECH AND READ THE SPEECH. THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF THESE CHECKOUT WERE POWERFUL. LET ME SAY, YOUR OPENING REMARKS YESTERDAY WERE POWERFUL AND INSPIRATION AS WELL. I THINK YOUR FAMILY AND THE JOURNEY YOU HAVE TAKEN TO BECOME A FEDERAL JUDGE, APPEALS JUDGE, DEMONSTRATES OPPORTUNITY THIS NATION OFFERS ALL OF US. AS I READ YOUR SPEECH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, THERE WAS A PORTION THAT SURPRISED ME. IN PARTICULAR IN THAT SPEECH YOU REFERENCE THE WORK OF ACCLAIMED INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST NICOLE. THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE SPEECH. PROVOCATIVE PIECES THAT AMERICA WAS BORN. THE PROVOCATIVE PIECES THAT AMERICA THAT WAS BORN IN 1776 WAS NOT THE PERFECT UNIT THAT IT REPORTED TO BE. INDEED, MR. HANNAH JONES AND HER 1619 PROJECTS DESCRIBES REVISING HISTORY. ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS THE COLONISTS DECIDED TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE WAS BECAUSE OF WANTED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. THAT CLAIM IS HIGHLY CONTESTED TO HISTORICAL CLAIM. DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. HANNAH JONES WAS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY?  BROWN: 
THANK YOU. WHEN I GAVE THAT SPEECH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, I WAS ASKED TO SPEAK ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY. EVERY YEAR THEY HAVE A MARGIN SPEAKER. I GAVE A SPEECH ABOUT BLACK WOMEN IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVE MEANT. MOST OF THE SPEECH, IF NOT ALL THE SUITE IS FOCUSED ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN, THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. SOME OF THE MORE RECENT AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN WHO HAVE MADE CLAIMS, WHO HAVE DONE THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY. ONE WAS OF A JOURNALIST, AS YOU SAY WHO MADE THAT STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I STUDIED, IT DOES NOT COME UP IN MY WORK WOULD I WAS MENTIONING IT BECAUSE IT WAS AT LEAST AT THAT TIME, SOMETHING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT AND WELL KNOWN. TO THE STUDENTS I WAS SPEAKING WITH AT THE LAW SCHOOL. 
SO YOU ARE AWARE SINCE THE PROJECT CAME OUT, IT HAS BEEN GROWLY REFUTEDN GROWLY REFUTED. UNDLY REFUTED. IN DEED IT WAS SO THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES QUIETLY ALTERED THE DIGITAL VERSION TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO 1619 AS THE YEAR OF AMERICA'S TRUE FOUNDING AND THE MOMENTS AMERICA BEGAN. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? 
I WAS NOT. 
LET ME ASK YOU RELATED TO THE 6019 PROJECT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS INACCURATE ANDHE 1619 PROJECT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS MISLEADING. ARTICLE RACE. ORIGINATED IN YOU AND I MODERATE AT THE HIGHEST THAT LAW SCHOOL. IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, WHAT DOES CRITICAL RACE THEORY MEAN?  BROWN: 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS, IT IS A ACADEMIC THEORY THAT IS ABOUT THE WAYS IN WHICH RACE INTERACTS WITH VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS. IT DOES NOT COME UP IN MY WORK AS A JUDGE APPEARED IT IS NEVER SOMETHING THAT I STUDIED OR RELIED ON. AND WILL NOT BE SOMETHING THAT I RELIED ON IF I WAS ON THE SUPREME COURT. 
SENATOR, I DO NOT THINK SO. I HAVE NEVER STUDIED CRITICAL RACE THEORY. I NEVER USED IT. IT DOES NOT COME UP IN THE WORK THAT I DO AS A JUDGE. 
WITH RESPECT TO MY FIND THAT A CURIOUS STATEMENT BECAUSE HE GAVE A SPEECH IN APRIL OF 2015 -- YOU GAVE A SPEECH IN APRIL 2015 WHICH ARE DESCRIBED THE JOB YOU DO AS A JUDGE. YOU SAID SENTENCING IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT BOUNCED TOGETHER VARIOUS TYPES OF LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, CRITICAL RACE THEORY. YOU DESCRIBED IN A SPEECH TO A LAW SCHOOL WHAT YOU ARE DEALING AS CRITICAL RACE THEORY. I WOULD ASK, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT WHEN HE MADE THE SPEECH.  
WITH RESPECT, THE QUOTE THAT YOU ARE MENTIONING THERE WAS ABOUT SENTENCING POLICY. IT WAS NOT ABOUT SENTENCING. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY DETERMINATIONS OF BODIES LIKE THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHEN THEY LOOK AT A LAUNDRY LIST OF VARIOUS ACADEMIC SUBJECTS, AS THINGS CONSIDER WHAT THE POLICY SHOULD BE. 
LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, WHAT DID YOU MEAN? THAT WAS A RESPONSIBILITY OF YOURS.  BROWN: 
THAT FLIGHT DOES NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE LAUNDRY LIST OF DIFFERENT ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE BUT I SAID RELATE TO SENTENCING POLICY. NONE OF THAT RELATES TO WHAT I DO AS A JUDGE. 
LET ME ASK YOUR DIFFERENT QUESTION. AS CRITICAL RACE THEORY TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS, IS IT CALLED TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS K-12?   
I DO NOT BELIEVE
AS YOU MAY RECALL IN THE HEARINGS OF JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SHE SERVED AS A BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND A RELIGIOUS PRIMARY SCHOOL. THE BOARD SPOKE HEAVILY ON THE VIEWS OF THE SCHOOL. IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE TO THIS COMMITTEE, YOU SAID YOU WERE SIMILARLY ONBOARD. YOU HAVE BEEN A BOARD MEMBER SINCE 2019, YOU ARE CURRENTLY STILL A BOARD MEMBER. IS THAT CORRECT? 
THAT IS CORRECT.   
IN REGARDS TO THE DAY SCHOOL, YOU PUBLICLY SAID "SINCE BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY'S, YEARS AGO, PATRICK AND I HAVE WITNESSED THE TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF EIGHT RIGOROUS PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION THAT IS DEDICATED OF FOSTERING CRITICAL THINKING, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE. WHEN YOU REFER TO SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE SCHOOLS NATION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN OF THAT?  
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL PASSED A HAS A SPECIAL HISTORY THAT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU CONSIDER MY SERVICE ON THE BOARD. THE SCHOOL WAS FOUNDED IN 1945 IN WASHINGTON DC AT A TIME IN WHICH BY LAW, THERE WERE RACIAL SEGREGATION IN THIS COMMUNITY. BLACK STUDENTS WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, TO GO TO SCHOOLS WITH WHITE STUDENTS. GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THREE WHITE FAMILIES, JEWISH FAMILIES GOT TOGETHER WITH THREE BLACK FAMILIES AND SAID THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LAW REQUIRES US TO SEPARATE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LAW IS SET UP TO MAKE SURE THAT BLACK CHILDREN ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE, WE ARE GOING TO FORM A PRIVATE SCHOOL SO THAT OUR CHILDREN CAN GO TO SCHOOL TOGETHER. THE IDEA OF EQUALITY, JUSTICE IS AT THE CORE OF THE GEORGETOWN
ALL OF US AGREE THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BECAUSE OF RACE. WHEN YOU JUST TESTIFIED A MINUTE AGO, YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY WAS TALL, I FIND THAT STATEMENT A LITTLE HARD TO RECONCILE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOLS CURRICULUM, IT IS FIELD AND OVERFLOWING WITH CRITICAL RACE THEORY. AMONG THE BOOKS THAT ARE EITHER ASSIGNED OR RECOMMENDED, THEY INCLUDE CRITICAL RACE THEORY AN INTRODUCTION. THEY INCLUDE THE END OF POLICING, AND ADVOCACY IN ABOLISHING THE POLICE. THEY INCLUDE STACKS OF BOOKS. I WILL TELL YOU THE ONES THAT WERE MOST STUNNING. THEY INCLUDE A BOOK CALLED ANTIRACIST BABY. THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK THAT I FIND REALLY REMARKABLE. ONE PORTION OF THE BOOK SAYS BABIES ARE TAUGHT TO BE RACIST OR ANTIRACIST, THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY. ANOTHER PORTION OF THE BOOK, THEY RECOMMEND THE BABIES CONSENT WHEN BEING RACIST. THIS IS A BOOK THAT IS TAUGHT AT GEORGETOWN DAYS GOAL FROM STUDENTS FROM PRE-K TO SEVENTH GRADE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS BOOK THAT IS BEING TAUGHT WITH KIDS THAT BABIES ARE RACIST? 
 SENATOR. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY CHILD SHOULD BE MADE TO FEEL AS THOUGH THEY ARE RACIST, OR THOUGH THEY ARE NOT VALUED, OR THEY THEY ARE LESS THAN, THAT THEY ARE VICTIMS, THEY ARE OPPRESSORS. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY OF THAT. BUT I WILL SAY, IS THAT WHEN YOU ASKED ME WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS T -- TOP INAUGHT IN SCHOOL, IT IS TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE ASKING THE QUESTION, I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO BE ADDRESSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS. GEORGETOWN-BASED SCHOOL, JUST LIKE THE DAY SCHOOL IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL. 
SO YOU AGREE CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS TAUGHT AT GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL?
I DON'T KNOW. THE BOARD DOES NOT CONTROL THE CURRICULUM, THE BOARD IS NOT FOCUSED ON THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE DO AS BOARD MEMBERS. I AM NOT SURE. 
THE BOARD IS CHAIRED BY PROFESSOR, YOUR COLLEGE ROOMMATE WHO INTRODUCED YOU YESTERDAY. THE TWO OF YOU SERVED ON THE BOARD TOGETHER. ANOTHER BOOK IS ON THE SUMMER READING IS A BOOK THAT I READ THE ENTIRE TF. IT IS A ASTONISHING OF. IT ASKED THE QUESTION, CAN WE SEND WHITE PEOPLE BACK TO EUROPE? THAT IS ON NUMBER THREE. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO KIDS. ON PAGE 115, A SAYS THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO PRETEND TO NOT SEAT RACIST IS THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD NOT SEE COLOR. IT IS CALLED COLORBLINDNESS. SKIPPING AHEAD, HERE'S WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS, IT IS RIDICULOUS. SKIPPING AHEAD, SO TO PRETEND NOT TO SEE COLOR IS PRETTY CONVENIENT IF YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY WANT TO STEP OUT RACISM IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS BOOK ARGUES FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT DR. KING SPOKE ABOUT AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THESE IDEAS BEING TAUGHT TO CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS FOUR IN RESPECT TO THE FIRST BOOK, IN THE RESPECT TO THE SECOND BOOK.
I HAVE NOT REVIEWED ANY OF THOSE BOOKS, ANY OF THOSE IDEAS. THEY DO NOT COME UP AS MY WORK AS A JUDGE. WHICH I AM RESPECTABLE HERE TO ADDRESS. IN MY WORK AS A JUDGE, WHICH IS EVIDENCE FROM MY NEAREST DECADE ON THE BENCH. 
LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR WORK AS A JUDGE. AS WAS NOTED IN THE FIRST SLIDE, YOU DISCUSSED SENTENCING AS BEING RELATED TO CRITICAL RACE THEORY. EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN SOME BACK AND FORTH AS DEMOCRATIC SENATORS HAVE TRIED TO ADDRESS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. AS I LISTEN TO YOUR TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO IS COMPASSIONATE, I BELIEVE YOU CARE FOR CHILDREN, OBVIOUSLY YOUR CHILDREN AND OTHER CHILDREN. I ALSO SEE A RECORD OF ACTIVISM AND ADVOCACY THAT CONCERNS SEXUAL PREDATORS, THE STEMS BACK DECADES AND IS CONCERNING. YOU WROTE YOUR NOTE ON --. YOUR MAJOR WORK. IN IT, YOU ARE ARGUING AND I QUOTE, LEGISLATION TO RELEASE SEX OFFENDERS BY REQUIRING UNDER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. NOTIFY COMMUNITY AND THEIR PRESENCE, UNDERGO DNA TESTING AND SUBMIT FOR A DEFINITE TERM. OTHERS REJECT THEM AS A PUNITIVE ENACTMENTS THAT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN SANCTIONED FOR THEIR CRIMES. UNDER EXISTING DOCTRINE, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEX OFFENDER STATUES DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTERIZATIONS. YOU GO ON TO EXPLAIN THAT THEY ARE VIEWED AS A PUNITIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IF THEY ARE VIEWED AS PREVENTATIVE, THEY ARE NOT. DROP THE COURSE OF YOUR NOTES, YOU ARGUED THAT THEY SHOULD BE VIEWED AS PUNITIVE, AND THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YOU GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES. YOU SAY THE REQUIREMENT MAY OR MAY NOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YOU WRITE DOUBTS ABOUT IT THEN RAISE SIGNIFICANT DOUBTS ABOUT COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION. WE HEAVILY SUGGEST THAT CIVIL COMMITMENT FIRST SEXUAL PREDATORS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED?   
THOSE ARE NOT THE SENTIMENTS THAT I EXPRESSED IN MY LAW SCHOOL NOTE. MY LAW SCHOOL NOTE WAS ABOUT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAWS, WHICH AT THE TIME WERE RELATIVELY NEW. AS YOU KNOW FROM OUR TIME IN LAW SCHOOL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS DO COME THEY LOOK FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW AND TRY TO ANALYZE THEM. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES FOR GOOD -- A GOOD LAW SCHOOL NOTE. MY NOTE WHICH CAME OUT IN 1996, SHORTLY AFTER, THERE WERE NEW LAWS. THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING IS IT WAS NOT THAT THE LOSS WERE BAD, THAT THE LAWS WERE WRONG, I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS SOMETHING THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN TERMS OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LOSS. I DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS WAS HOW THEY ARE CHARACTERIZED. SOME COURTS WOULD LOOK AT THOSE LAWS AND CALL THEM PREVENTATIVE, THAT HAS A CERTAIN SET OF CONSEQUENCES, SOME WILL CALL THEM PUNITIVE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION, WHETHER THEY WERE PUNITIVE OR PREVENTATIVE. 
WELL, YOUR NOTE ARGUED THAT THEY WERE PUNITIVE. I WOULD NOTE THAT VIEW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE BENCH THAT ADVOCATED THAT. THE SUPREME COURT IN 1997 DECIDED A CASE CALLED KANSAS VERSUS HENDRIX, WHICH UPHELD KANSAS COMMITMENT STATUTE. THIS HAS BEEN A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN CLOSE TO THE SUPREME COURT. I WOULD NOT BEYOND THAT, THAT IN TERMS OF THE PREVALENCE OF THE STATUTES, ALL 50 STATES IN D.C. HAVE REGISTERED REQUIREMENTS. 47 STATES HAVE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. ALL 50 STATES HAVE DNA OR LEAD BANKS FOR -- BLOOD BANKS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, RELYING ON VERY MUCH THE SAME SORT OF REASONING YOU ADVOCATE IN YOUR NOTE. AT THE TIME, I WAS JOURNAL OF TEXAS. I PERSONALLY ARGUE THAT APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS. THEY UPHELD OUR STATUTE. THE BEAUTY ADVOCATED IN LAW SCHOOL -- REVIEWS YOU ADVOCATE IN LAW SCHOOL PREVAILED. CIVIL LAWS WILL BE STRUCK DOWN RELEASING SEXUAL PREDATORS. UNDER THE ARGUMENT COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION AND DNA LED BANK, LOSS COULD BE STRUCK DOWN AS WELL. IS THAT AN OUTCOME THAT SHOULD CONCERN PEOPLE?  BROWN: 
MY NOTE WAS NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE STRIKING DOWN OF THOSE LAWS. MY NOTE WAS TRYING TO IDENTIFY CRITERIA THAT I THOUGHT COULD BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY LAWS ARE PUNITIVE OR PREVENTATIVE. 
I WAS LOOKING AT DIFFERENT KINDS OF LAWS ARE NOT ALL OF THEM THAT I SAY WERE PUNITIVE. 
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT CIVIL COMMITMENT LAWS. SEX OFFENDERS ARE CURRENTLY DETAINED IN CIVIL COMMITMENT PROGRAMS. THE DEAL YOU HAVE, THOUGH SEX OFFENDERS WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT AN OUTCOME THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNING?  BROWN: 
IN LAW SCHOOL WHEN I WAS WRITING A NOTE, I WAS LOOKING AT A BRAND-NEW SET OF LAWS THAT HAVE REVIEWS LI BIN AND ACTED I ANY BEEN AND ACTED IN ANY OTHER SET, THEY WERE NEW. THEREFORE, NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT THEREFORE, THERE ARE ONES THAT CARE WITH THEM CERTAIN RIGHTS, VERSUS YOU KNOW, PREVENTATIVE. 
OK. SO YOU APPOINTED THAT THESE WERE VIEWS IN LAW SCHOOL. I WILL RECOGNIZE IT. WE HAVE VIEWS AS STUDENTS, TIME AND MATURITY CHANGES. WHAT TROUBLES ME IS NOT A LAW SCHOOL VIEW, IT IS ONE THAT CONTINUES. WHEN HEWHEN YOU ARE VICE CHAIR, YOU EX EXPRESSED SIGNIFICANT TERMS. YOU SAID, YES I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT WHICH WE CAN MORE SERIOUS OFFENDERS. YOU TALKED ABOUT GOING FROM CINGULAR, TWO WANT TO WANT TO GROUP EXPERIENCE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WERE SOME NATURAL PROGRESSION FROM ONE STAGE TO ANOTHER, SUCH THAT YOU CAN SAY THAT THE LEAST SERIOUS OFFENDERS ARE IN THE SINGULAR EXPERIENCE STAGE. MY THOUGHT IS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT OTHER PEOPLE WILL HAVE LATER IN THE DAY COME I WAS SURPRISED SOME OF THE TESTIMONY WAS RESPECTED IN THE OFFENDERS. AND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GET INVOLVED WITH THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY WHO MAY NOT BE PEDOPHILES, WHO MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY INTERESTED IN SHOUT PORNOGRAPHY, BUT HAVE OTHER MOTIVATIONS WITH RESPECT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY. THERE ARE LOTS OF REASONS THAT MIGHT PEOPLE MIGHT ENGAGE IN THIS. I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOU CAN SAY THAT THERE IS, COULD BE A LESS SERIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDER, WHO IS ENGAGING IN THE TYPE OF CONDUCT IN THE GROUP EXPERIENCE LEVEL. BECAUSE OF THEIR MOTIVATION IS THE CHALLENGE OR TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY. THEY ARE VERY SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGICAL THEY ARE NOT THAT INTERESTED IN THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PIECE OF IT. I FIND THAT PRETTY REMARKABLE ARGUMENT. THE PEOPLE IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE CHILD PART, THEY ARE NOT PEDOPHILES, THEY ARE JUST INTERESTED IN TECHNOLOGY. I WANT TO PROVIDE THE WHOLE QUOTE. THE WHITE HOUSE SAID PORTIONS OF THIS ARE USED OUT OF CONTEXT. THIS IS YOUR ENTIRE QUOTE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT ? THERE ARE SOME MEANINGFUL POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, BUT ARE NOT IN FACT PEDOPHILES, OR GETTING SATISFACTION FROM IT?   
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A QUESTION THAT I WAS ASKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HEARING ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. HE PROVIDED THE ENTIRE QUOTE. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH I WAS ASKING THAT OF SOMEONE, NOT TAKING THAT POSITION. THE POSITION THAT I TAKE, IN ALL OF MY SENTENCING INVOLVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS, IS TO ENSURE THAT DESPITE THE ATTITUDE AND A VIEW OF MANY OF THE OFFENDERS THAT CAME BEFORE ME WHEN I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE, THAT THEY WERE JUST LOOKERS, THEY WERE NOT HARMING ANYONE, THEY WERE CURATING THEIR COLLECTIONS AND THEY NEVER TOUCHED A CHILD. I MADE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE CAUSING SIGNIFICANT HARM. 
THE CHARGE DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT CONGRESS IS TOLD JUDGES TO CONSIDER, INCLUDING THE PROBATION OFFICE IS IN THESE CASES. 
THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE WOULD WELCOME THEM. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THOSE. HON.  BROWN: 
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY, IS THAT, I TAKE THESE CASES VERY SERIOUSLY AS A MOTHER. AS SOMEONE WHO AS A GIANT HAVE TWO -- AS SOMEONE WHO AS A JUDGE, WHO HAS TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN THESE CASES. BASED ON CONGRESS IS REQUIREMENT , TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, NOT ONLY THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, NOT ONLY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARTIES, BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE THE STORIES OF THE VICTIMS. ALSO THINGS LIKE, THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE AND HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT. CONGRESS IS THE BODY THAT TELLS SENTENCING JUDGES WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT. AND CONGRESS HAS SAID, THAT A JUDGE IS NOT PLAYING A NUMBERS GAME. THE JUDGE IS LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT FACTORS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION IN EVERY CASE BASED ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS. AND IN EVERY CASE, I DID MY DUTY TO HOLD THE DEFENDANTS ACCOUNTABLE IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME. 
100% OF THE CASES WAS THE EVIDENCE LEFT THAT THE PROSECUTORS ASKED FOR?  
THE EVIDENCE IN THESE CASES ARE EGREGIOUS. THEY ARE AMONG THE WORST THAT I HAVE SEEN, AND YET AS CONGRESS DIRECTS, JUDGES JUST DO NOT CALCULATE THE GUIDELINES IN STOCK. THEY HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANT, BECAUSE THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF CONGRESS. JUDGES HAVE TO CONSIDER THINGS LIKE THE VICTIMS. WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THE VICTIMS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE HEARD, IT WAS ABOUT MY SENTENCING PRACTICES. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IN 2012, THE SENTENCING COMMISSION ON A UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN BASIS ISSUED A REPORT RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO NONPRODUCTION CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO DEMAND BECAUSE OF WIDESPREAD CONCERN AMONG JUDGES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. FOR EXAMPLE, 70% OF SURVEYED JUDGES AT THE GUIDELINE RANGE IS TOO HIGH. 71% SAID THE MANDATORY MINIMUMS WERE TOO HIGH. THE REPORT WAS SUPPORTED BY EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION. I BELIEVE IN QUESTION, THE SENATOR IN TEXAS WAS REFERRING TO WAS PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE BOOKS I ENTERED THE ENTERED BE ENTERED IN THE COLLECTION.
LIKE A TAKE -- I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO GIVE YOU A FEE MINISTER ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES JUST RAISED -- TO GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT JUST WERE RAISED. 
ACCORDING TO MY RESEARCH, THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. LET ME BRIEFLY ASK YOU ABOUT THREE SPECIFIC SENTENCING CASES. YOU SENTENCED CHARLES TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON, EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED.  BROWN: I DO. YOU SENTENCED HIM TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON, EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED. 
I DO, SENATOR.
YOU SENTENCED HIM TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON, EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED. 
I DO
YOU SENTENCED HIM EXACTLY WHAT THE PROSECUTOR REQUESTED.
I DO.
IN THESE THREE CASES IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT, PROSECUTION REQUESTED BELOW GUIDELINE SENTENCES. WITH THAT SEEM SURPRISING TO YOU AT ALL? HON. 
IT WOULD NOT. 
IS THAT BECAUSE OVERWHELMINGLY NATIONWIDE IN 70% OF CASES AND IN YOUR DISTRICT 80% OF CASES DEPARTURES FROM THE GUIDELINES ARE THE NORM?   BROWN:
THAT IS CORRECT, SENATOR
TO THE EXTENT, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME EFFORT TO TRY TO CHARACTERIZE YOU AS BEING SOFT ON CRIME, OR SOMEHOW UNCONCERNED ABOUT CHILD SAFETY. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE ANOTHER MOMENT AND GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT. AS A PARENT, AS A MEMBER OF A FAMILY THAT HAS HAD SEVERAL MEMBERS WHO SERVED, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR UNCLES, IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, COULD YOU SHARE A BIT ABOUT HAVING LOVED ONES WHO SERVED A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. IN ONE CASE, A DUCTED DETECTIVE ON A UNIT. HOW IT HAS HAS YOUR JUSTICE AND MERCY IN ENSURING THAT WE HOLD AND ACCOUNT THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES TO CHILDREN?  
THANK YOU. AS A MOTHER, THESE CASES INVOLVING SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ARE HARROWING. WHAT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT TRIAL JUDGES WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE CASES, ARE PRESENTED WITH THE EVIDENCE. OR PRESCRIPTIONS, GRAPHIC -- DESCRIPTIONS, GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS. YOU ARE SEEING THE WORST OF HUMANITY WHEN THERE ARE VICTIM STATEMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW THEIR LIVES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AS CHILDREN. HOW THE PEOPLE WHO THEY TRUSTED TO TAKE CARE OF THEM WERE ABUSING THEM THE LATEST WAY. AND THEN, PUTTING THE PICTURES ON THE INTERNET FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. I SOMETIMES STILL HAVE NIGHTMARES ABOUT THE MAIN WITNESS, THE WOMAN I MENTIONED EARLIER WHO CANNOT LEAVE HER HOUSE BECAUSE OF THIS KIND OF FEAR. THE VULNERABILITY, THE ISOLATION . THESE CRIMES ARE HORRIBLE. SO, I TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY JUST AS I DID ALL OF THE CRIMES. BUT ESPECIALLY CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. 
THANK YOU. IT MEANS THE WORLD TO ME TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF GEORGE GRIFFITH. HIS COMING HERE YESTERDAY AND TESTIFYING ON MY BEHALF WAS GRATIFYING. I HAVE TRIED IN EVERY RESPECT TO FOLLOW MY METHODOLOGY THAT ENABLES ME TO AND RULE IMPARTIALLY IN EVERY CASE, UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS OF MY OWN JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THEREBY REACH DECISIONS WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR. MY RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT I AM NOT PROCEEDING FROM ANY SORT OF PRECONCEIVED NOTION ABOUT HOW A CASE COMES OUT. I AM NOT RULING WITH ANY SORT OF IDEOLOGY. I AM DOING WHAT IMPARTIAL AND FAIR JUDGES DO, WHICH IS TO DECIDE IN EVERY CASE BASED ONLY ON FACT AND THE LAW OF THAT CASE. I AM VERY PLEASED THAT JUDGE GRIFFITH HAS SEEN THAT IN THE YEARS THAT HE SUPERVISED ME EFFECTIVELY AS A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE WHEN I WAS A DISTRICT JUDGE. I THINK IT IS WONDERFUL THAT HE WAS ABLE TO COME HERE AND TESTIFY TO THAT. 
, NO SENATOR. 
I HAVE NOT.
NO, SENATOR. 
WOULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN TO US BRIEFLY WHAT SORT OF FACTORS YOU DO IN FACT CONSIDER IN YOUR ANALYSIS? -- FACTORS YOU DO CONSIDER IN YOUR ANALYSIS? JUDGE JACKSON:
WHEN I ANALYZE A CASE, I AM LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE PARTIES RAISE IN THE CASE. I'M LOOKING AT THE RECORD WHICH IS THE FACTS OF THE CASE. DEVELOPED, IF I'M ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEVELOPED BELOW. AND AO EUPBL LOOKING AT THE -- I'M LOOKING AT THE LAW. I'M LOOKING AT ANY STATUTES. I'M LOOKING AT THE TEXT AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THESE, IF THEY'RE APPLICABLE AND ANY PRECEDENCE RELATED TO THE CASE AT ISSUE. THOSE ARE THE INPUTS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A JUDGE TO CONSIDER AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT I USE IN MY DECISION MAKING. 
I APPRECIATE YOU LAYING THAT OUT. I'LL DIG INTO TWO CASES THAT I THINK ARE PROBATIVE HERE. I AGREE WITH THE WIDE RANGE OF SUPPORTERS WE'VE HEARD FROM THAT YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED AND EVEN AN IMPARTIAL JUDICIARY APPROACH IN YOUR RECORD. BUT THIS IS TRUE NOT JUST IN THE HUNDREDS OF SORT OF RUN OF THE MILL CASES THAT ARE CONSIDERED BY A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BUT IN SEVERAL THAT HAVE BEEN HIGHLY CHARGED, REALLY QUITE POLITICAL IN TERMS OF THEIR CONSEQUENCES. I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR OPINION IN THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. DO YOU RECALL THAT CASE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DO, SENATOR. 
IT WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. THE DISPUTE WAS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO QUICKLY CONSTRUCT A PHYSICAL BORDER WALL BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO. I'M SURE I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU OR ANYONE HERE THAT AT THE TIME DEMOCRATS WERE JUST ABOUT UNANIMOUS IN THINKING THAT PHYSICALLY BUILDING A WALL FROM COAST-TO-COAST WAS NOT THE WISEST USE OF RESOURCES TO SECURE THE BORDER. THERE WERE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. AND WITH REPUBLICANS PRETTY MUCH UNANIMOUSLY WILLING TO DEFEND. SO IT WAS A POLICY MATTER WITH SOME SHARP DIVISIONS AND SOME POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES. YOU ULTIMATELY RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL AND AGAINST AN ATTEMPT BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS TO HALT ITS CONSTRUCTION THROUGH LEGAL CASE, THROUGH A LEGAL CASE. CAN YOU DISCUSS WHAT YOU RECALL JUST BRIEFLY OF THE CLAIMS PRESENTED AND HOW YOU CAME TO A DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? 
SENATOR, THE CLAIMS IN THAT CASE, WHICH AS YOU SAY WERE BROUGHT BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION, RELATED TO IT'S AD PHEUFB PROCEDURES ACT WHICH IS SOMETHING -- IT'S AD PHEUFB PROCEDURES ACT WHICH ISING -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT WHICH IS SOMETHING WE OFTEN SEE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENCY COULD WAIVE CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL. WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION TO DO SO WAS LAWFUL. AND I LOOKED AT THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES AND I ENDED UP, I BELIEVE, DISMISSING THAT CASE ON THRESHOLD GROUNDS BEFORE GETTING TO THAT POINT IN THE ANALYSIS. BUT CONSIST EBT WITH WHAT YOU SAID --IST KENT -- CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SAID, I WAS GUIDED BY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. AND WHAT IT REQUIRED. AND NOT BY ANYTHING ELSE. 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
THAT IS CORRECT.
FOR THOSE OF US UP HERE, THERE WAS A LOT SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT ABOUT IT. IT WAS A HIGHLY CHARGED PARTISAN AND POLITICAL ISSUE. YOU LOOKED AT THE STATUTE, YOU FOUND PERSUASIVE PRECEDENT, YOU APPLIED IT, YOU WENT ON TO THE NEXT CASE. LET ME ASK ABOUT ANOTHER DECISION. IN A CASE ADDRESSING ANOTHER VERY POLITICALLY CHARGED ISSUE. AND SPECIFICALLY THIS INVOLVES THE EMAILS OF FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OR THE R.N.C. IS OPPOSING YOUR NOMINATION, PUBLICLY ACCUSING YOU OF BEING A PARTISAN, OF BEING A PARTISAN DEMOCRAT. THEY ARGUE YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE AN IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. BUT IRONICALLY BACK IN 2016 YOU PRESIDED OVER A CASE BROUGHT BY THE R.N.C. AGAINST USAID RELATED TO THEN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CLINTON AND YOU RULED IN FAVOR OF THE R.N.C. BOTH THE SUBSTANCE AND TIMING OF THE CASE ARE REALLY QUITE STRIKING.
I DID. 
THE R.N.C. MADE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS FOR CERTAIN EMAILS INVOLVING THE FORMER SECRETARY AND DESPITE WHAT THE R.N.C. WOULD HAVE US NOW BELIEVE, IN THIS CASE YOU REINFORCED YOUR REPUTATION FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW, NOT A PARTISAN AGENDA. BECAUSE YOU ORDERED USAID TO PRODUCE THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SECRETARY CLINTON. DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU ISSUED THAT DECISION? THAT ORDER? 
I ACTUALLY DON'T. 
I'LL TELL YOU. IT WAS JUST BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION. SO IF THERE WAS A MOMENT WHEN THE R.N.C. HAD A POLITICAL OBJECTIVE, IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE CONVENTION AND YOU ACTUALLY ISSUED A RULING THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO EMAIL PRODUCTION FROM THE USAID ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO YOU, THE STATUTE AT ISSUE AND THE EVIDENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
THAT IS CORRECT. 
YOUR HONOR, I'M FRANKLY REALLY STRUCK AT THE FACT THAT FOR ALL THE BACK AND FORTH IN SENATE HEARINGS AND ACADEMIC CIRCLES, YOU'VE SHOWN WHAT THE EXPERIENCE OF NEARLY A DECADE OVERWHELMINGLY SPENT ON THE DISTRICT COURT HAS PRODUCED. A METHODOLOGY, AN APPROACH THAT LOOKS AT THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATUTE, THE FACTS, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, AND REACHES A RESULT. WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTISAN ISSUE AT STAKE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A JUDICIARY JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS ALWAYS ALL THAT MEANINGFUL. THE JUDGE FOR WHOM I CLERKED ON THE THIRD CIRCUIT SPENT YEARS AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE. WHEN ID ASK HER, WHAT'S YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SAID, I JUST CALL BALLS AND STRIKES. I'M A JUDGE FOR RULES IN THE CASE BEFORE ME, IN EXACTLY THE SAME FRAME THAT YOU OFFERED. A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF CONSTRAIN A JUDGE. WHAT CONSTRAINS A JUDGE IS A JUDGE WHO IS WILLING TO BE CONSTRAINED. WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS A LIMITED ONE. SO THE REAL QUESTION I THINK A PRESIDENT SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN THEY MAKE A NOMINATION, THE QUESTION THAT WE AS SENATORS NEED THE ANSWER TO IN ORDER TO PERFORM OUR FUNCTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT, AND THE QUESTION THAT I THINK RESONATES BEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS HEARING AND THIS NOMINATION AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT THE COUNTRY AND THEIR LIVES, IS WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE WILL YOU BE? WE WANT TO KNOW IF YOU'LL BE FAIR, WE WANT TO KNOW IF YOU'LL BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION. AND TO THE RULE OF LAW. YOU'VE BEEN A JUDGE ALMOST 10 YEARS AND YOU'VE WRITTEN MORE THAN 570 OPINIONS. I SAY YOUR RECORD AS A JUDGE IS THE BEST ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE YOU WILL BE. HOW WOULD YOU SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT YOUR APPROACH TO JUDGING ON THE DISTRICT COURT RELATES TO THE WAY YOU ARE NOW JUDGING ON THE CIRCUIT COURT AND WHAT APPROACH DO YOU THINK YOU WILL BRING WITH YOU IF CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT?
THANK YOU, SENATOR. MY APPROACH ALL THE WAY THROUGH IS ONE THAT I BELIEVE IS REQUIRED BY MY DUTIES, BY MY OATH, AS A JUDGE. WE RULE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, WE ARE INDEPENDENT AS JUDGES IN OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. WE UNDERSTAND AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, AT THE COURT OF APPEALS LEVEL, AND AT THE SUPREME COURT THAT JUDGES ARE RESTRAINED, ARE CONSTRAINED IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR POWER UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME. MY METHODOLOGY IS DESIGNED TO HELP ME, TO MAKE DECISIONS WITHIN THOSE CONFINES AT EVERY LEVEL. IT'S NO DIFFERENT NOW THAT I'M ON THE COURT OF APPEALS THAN WHEN I WAS ON THE DISTRICT COURT, WITH RESPECT TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTRAINTS ON MY AUTHORITY, AND MY RESPONSIBILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL IN MY RULINGS. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT AT THE SUPREME COURT. 
THANK YOU. THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED A LETTER ABOUT YOUR NOMINATION FROM NINE SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING BOTH SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. THE LETTER SAID, AND I QUOTE, JUDGE JACKSON'S HIGHLY QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION AS A CAREER AND RECORD DEMONSTRATE HER HISTORIC CONFIRMATION AS THE SUPREME COURT'S FIRST BLACK WOMAN AND THE SIXTH WOMAN OVERALL, WILL REPRESENT MONUMENTAL PROGRESS TOWARD A NATION IT IS CHARGED TO SERVICE AND THAT VALUES ALL OF ITS CITIZENS EQUALLY. 
THE ORGANIZATIONS ALSO NOTED, JUDGE JACKSON'S RULINGS HAVE THE GENERAL CONSENSUS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE BREAK AT THIS POINT. I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO OVER THERE AND WE CAN RETURN QUICKLY. SO WHY DON'T WE DECLARE THIS BREAK TIME FOR 20 MINUTES. 4:05 BACK IN THE ROOM.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA, SENATOR SASSE.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUDGE, WELCOME BACK. BY MY QUICK EYE BALLING ACCOUNT OF THIS, YOU ARE 51% DONE AS OF THIS MOMENT. WHICH FEELS MORE LIKE A CURSE THAN A BLESSING BUT I MEANT IT AS A GOOD THING. I THINK I'M NUMBER 12 OF 22. YOU'RE JUST PAST HALFWAY DOWN ON THE DOWNHILL. THANK YOU AS WELL FOR SPENDING TIME WITH ME IN MY OFFICE AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY. AND TOMORROW. WHAT YOU'VE SAID IN PUBLIC MATCH WHAT IS YOU'VE SAID IN PRIVATE. AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A TESTAMENT TO YOUR CHARACTER. THAT ALSO CAN BE HELPFUL TO REBUILDING PUBLIC TRUST. THANK YOU FOR THE WAYS YOU'VE ENGAGED THUS FAR. JUDGE, YOU ARE LIKELY TO GO ON TO SERVE A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT. WHICH MEANS THAT THIS IS VERY LIKELY THE LAST JOB INTERVIEW YOU EVER HAVE.  
AND THE MOST PUBLIC, SENATOR. 
THE PROCESSES ARE A LOT LIKE A PROBGING TO EXAM -- PROCTOLOGY EXAM. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO YOU EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW YOU VIEW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE'S JOB AND THE LIMITS AND BOUNDS ON THAT JOB. SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO A TOPIC THAT WE DISCUSSED A FEW TIMES WHICH IS HOW YOU APPROACH CASES. YOU'VE TOLD THIS COMMITTEE AND YOU'VE TOLD ME IN PRIVATE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY YET. BUT THAT YOU THINK OF YOURSELF AS SOMETHING MORE OF A JUDICIAL METHODOLOGY. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTANDS THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTANDS THAT ARGUMENT AND THAT DISTINCTION A BIT MORE AS WELL. EARLIER TODAY YOU SAID THAT YOU, QUOTE, DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A LIVING CONSTITUTION AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU'RE CONSTRAINED TO INTERPRET THE TEXT AND THAT I THINK YOU SAID SOMETIMES THAT'S ENOUGH TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. SO I THINK I HEARD YOU PAY PARTIAL TRIBUTE TO THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGINALISM BUT YOU'VE NOT ADOPTED IT OREM BRAILLESSED IT AS A PHILOSOPHY -- OR EMBRACED IT AS A PHILOSOPHY THAT APPLIES TO YOU. MAYBE ONE OF THE PLACES WE CAN TEASE THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IS TRYING TO DIG INTO WHOSE JURISPRUDENCE YOU MOST ADMIRE. WE'VE HEARD MANY NOMINEES BEFORE, LIKE SENATOR GRASSLEY, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO THE FARMING AND RANCHING PEOPLE WHERE I COME FROM KNOW THAT John Neely Kennedy IS SUPER SMART, A LAWYER WHO KIND OF PRETENDS TO BE AN AW, SHUCKS, KIND OF GUY AS HE PICKS YOUR POCKET. 
DO I GET EQUAL TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN?
HE ALWAYS GETS UNEQUAL TIME. HE ALWAYS GETS BONUS TIME. BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTANDS WHO YOU MOST IDENTIFY WITH AND PAST NOMINEES BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE MOLD OF PARTICULAR JUSTICES THEY THOUGHT THEY FOLLOWED IN. SO IF YOU HAD TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO YOUR CLOSEST TO -- YOU'RE CLOSEST TO, WHO IS THAT JUSTICE? OR WHO ARE THOSE JUSTICES?  
BUT WHEN YOU SAID YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATUTE. SOMETIMES COURTS HAVE TO SAY, PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS STATUTE, WHETHER THEY MEANT TO OR NOT HAVE DONE SOMETHING WE THE JUDICIARY DECIDES, SPEAKING IN THE VOICE OF YOU, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND DECIDES THAT SOMETHING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRES AN INTERPRETERRIVE FRAMEWORK FOR HOW YOU GET THERE, RIGHT? SO WE TALKED IN MY OFFICE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUDGES KAGEN, BRIER AND SOTOMAYOR'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES AND YOU TOLD ME YOU NEEDED TIME TO STUDY THAT ISSUE FURTHER. ASSUMING THAT YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT THAT A BIT MORE, I GUESS I'D ASK YOU AGAIN, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE OF THEIR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES?  
WITH RESPECT, SENATOR, I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY HAD TIME WITH ALL OF MY MEETINGS WITH SENATORS AND THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, AS YOU SEE FROM THE VARIOUS OPINIONS THAT THEY HAVE ISSUED. I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE I WOULD NECESSARILY FOLLOW BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE CASE. I THINK THEIR DIFFERENCES INDICATE THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT PROVISIONS. THEY ARE USING THE VARIOUS TOOLS THAT JUDGES USE AND THAT I HAVE USED IN MY CASES. THE IDEA OF STRIKING DOWN A STATUTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DAUNTING AND SHOULD BE DAUNTING. I THINK FOR ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE. AND WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL ROLE AND THE FACT THAT THE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THAT AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
SO I GUESS I'M SURPRISED, AFTER NINE YEARS ON THE BENCH, THAT -- YOU'RE SUPER SMART. NOBODY DISPUTES THAT. AND HAVING WORKED FOR JUSTICE BREYER AND KNOWING OF SOME OF THE FIGHTS, SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS HE AND JUSTICE KAGEN HAD, IT JUST SEEMS SURPRISING THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AT LEAST SPECULATE, NOT SPECULATE, BUT REFLECT A LITTLE BIT ON THE NATURE OF THOSE DISAGREEMENTS. BECAUSE TO SAY IT DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR CASE, THAT'S FINE. BUT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT FILL PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO THE TEXT. MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO GET AT IT. I THINK JUSTICE BREYER, AGAIN, FOR WHOM YOU CLERKED, AND JUSTICE SCALIA, USED TO TRAVEL TOGETHER AND HAVE LIVELY DEBATES CIRCUIT CONVERSATIONS. CAN YOU TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT JUSTICE BREYER, SCALIA ROAD SHOW LOOKED LIKE? WHAT WERE THEY ARGUING ABOUT?  
WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE ARGUING OR AT LEAST PRESENTING TWO DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AS TO HOW THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. AND I WOULD SAY, JUST AN ASIDE BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THEIR POSITIONS, THAT WHILE I HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH FOR NINE-PLUS YEARS, THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN THAT SENSE DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN. IT COMES UP TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR SURE. BUT IT DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN IN THE LOWER COURTS. WHAT JUSTICE SCALIA AND JUSTICE BREYER, I BELIEVE, WERE DEBATING WAS JUSTICE SCALIA'S NOTION OF ORIGINALISM MEANING THAT THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS THEY WERE WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS, IN THE FOUNDING A ER -- ERA. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO ESSENTIALLY TO ESTABLISH PRINCIPLES THAT MODERN JUSTICES COULD NOW APPLY BASED ON THEIR OWN VIEW OF THE NEEDS OF SOCIETY. AND THAT JUSTICE BREYER'S POSITION WAS MORE TOWARD THAT LATTER VIEW, THAT THE IDEA OF THE CONSTITUTION NEEDING TO BE INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH MODERN SENSIBILITIES ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THAT THE DOCUMENT REFLECTS. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT APPEARS NOW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS TAKEN JUSTICE SCALIA'S VIEW THAT THE PREVAILING INTERPRETERRIVE FRAME -- INTERPRETIVE FRAME FOR INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW VERY CLEARLY LOOKING BACK THROUGH HISTORY. SO WE SEE THAT EVEN IN THE HELLER CASE WHERE THE JUSTICES, EVEN THE JUSTICES IN DISSENT, WERE ALL ANALYZING THE ISSUES IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH A HISTORICAL LENS. WHAT WAS MEANT AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING SO. THAT IS NOW THE WAY IN WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IS DONE. 
DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH THAT POSITION? 
I IDENTIFY WITH THE POSITION IN SO FAR AS THAT'S HOW THE TEXT IS INTERPRETED OF THE CONSTITUTION. I AM A STRONG BELIEVER, AS I SAID, IN PRECEDENT, IN STAR DESIGHS, IN PREDICTABILITY, IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THE WAY THAT THE LAW NOW INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION IS THROUGH THIS HISTORICAL FRAME. 
ARE THERE NON-ORIGINALIST WAYS AND WHAT WOULD THEY BE? JUDGE JACKSON:
ONE COULD IMAGINE THAT RATHER THAN REFERENCING HISTORY AT ALL, THE COURT WOULD LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION AND SAYS NO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND WOULD JUST ACT. IN LIGHT OF MODERN SENSIBILITIES. IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE REASONABLE TODAY OR WHAT THE COURT THINK WOULD BE REASONABLE TODAY, WE WOULD APPLY THAT, THAT MODERN UNDERSTANDING TO THE CELL PHONE SITUATION. THE DANGER I THINK JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD SAY IS THAT THAT IS A KIND OF FRAMING THAT PERMITS JUDGES TO MAKE A DETERMINATION BASED ON THEIR OWN VIEWS RATHER THAN HEWING THEMSELVES, AS SENATOR LEE SAID BEFORE INJUSTICE ERROR WAITED OUT, HEWING THEMSELVES TO THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. DOES -- SEN. SASSE: DOES BREYER HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW? JUDGE JACKSON: MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LIVING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT IT IS CLOSER TO LOOKING AT THE NEEDS OF MODERN SOCIETY. BUT I AM NOT WELL-VERSED IN IT, IN PART BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOW SO CLEARLY TAKEN THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THE ORIGINALIST PERSPECTIVE IN ITS INTERPRETATION. 
WHAT ARE SOME OTHER AREAS OF LIFE WHERE THE ORIGINAL MEANING SEEMS TO BE TO AN TO HAVE CENTURIES AWAY WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAS NOT RECEIVED? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I'M RELUCTANT TO SPELL OUT DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES BUT I WILL SAY THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION, THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY CLEAR ON THEIR FACE WITHOUT ANY QUESTION OF WHAT WAS INTENDED. THE AGE, THE REQUIRED AGE OF SENATORS, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE OF THE PRESIDENT, ALL YOU NEED IS THE TEXT IN THERE YOU ARE. THERE ARE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT ARE BROADER THAN THAT AND THEREFORE SOME INTERPRETIVE FRAME IS NECESSARY. EVERY QUESTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT GETS THAT INVOLVES NEW TECHNOLOGY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT RELATES TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, WILL REQUIRE SOME KIND OF ANALOGY, I THINK. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO, TO ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. 
YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THE JUSTICE BREYER CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH AS PRAGMATIC. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? JUDGE JACKSON:
I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE, HIS APPROACH, TO BE ABOUT ENSURING THAT THE RULES THAT FOLLOW FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S DETERMINATIONS ARE ONES THAT MAKE SENSE AND ARE WORKABLE. 
HE SAID RECENTLY, EXPLAINING HIS APPROACH TO INTERPRETING A STATUTE, YOU WON'T GO OUTSIDE TO WORDS, BUT IT OFTEN DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE ANSWER. YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY, ITS PURPOSES, THE CONSEQUENCES, YOU TRY TO EVALUATE THEM FROM THAT, THE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT A REASONABLE LEGISLATURE RUNNING THE STATUTE BOUGHT THESE WORDS WERE THERE TO ACHIEVE. DO YOU ALIGN YOURSELF WITH THAT POSITION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
IN THE BROAD SENSE THAT WHAT IT IS THAT THE COURT IS TASKED WITH, WHEN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS BEING UNDERTAKEN, IS TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE TEXT IS THE PRIMARY AND IN MOST CASES SOUL INDICATION OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED. AS OPPOSED TO THE COURT SAYING I SEE THIS STATUTE BUT I AM, YOU KNOW, UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HOW IT IS GOING TO TURN OUT OR WHAT IT MEANS SO I'M GOING TO IMPORT MY OWN POLICY PERSPECTIVE, INSTEAD THEY ARE CONSTRAINED TO SAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT I THINK THE RIGHT POLICY OBJECTIVES SHOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO THIS LAW, MY PURPOSE, MY REQUIREMENT, IS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED. 
WITH RESPECT TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT, WHEN A CONGRESS OF 535 OFTEN DISTRACTED PEOPLE PASS SOMETHING BY A TWO TO ONE VOTE AND IT IS A PART OF A LARGE PIECE OF LEGISLATION, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE INTENT IS WHEN IT IS 535 PEOPLE DOING SOMETHING THAT HAS MANY DIFFERENT PURPOSES FOR WHY SOMEONE MIGHT VOTE YES? JUDGE JACKSON:
YOU LOOK AT THE TEXT, THE WAY THAT STATUTE ARE INTERPRETED IS BASED ON WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAYS. THERE ARE TIMES IN WHICH THERE ARE STATUTES IN WHICH CONGRESS INCLUDES A PURPOSE STATEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE PROVISION. IF THAT ISN'T CLEAR, YOU LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE. YOU LOOK AT THE STATUTE LIKE THE WORD THAT APPEARS IN THE SECTION YOU ARE INTERPRETING THAT SHOULD BE DEFINED THE SAME WAY IT IS IN ANOTHER SECTION. THE SAME WORD COULD BE USED, CONGRESS PROBABLY INTENDED FOR IT TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING. THERE ARE TOOLS IN THE LAW THAT EXIST TO HELP COURTS INTERPRET THE TEXT, BUT THE GOAL IS TO INTERPRET THE TEXT AS A MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING AND REFLECTING WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED. IT IS OF COURSE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. IF CONGRESS DECIDES THE COURT HAS GOTTEN IT WRONG, AS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES, CONGRESS COMES BACK TO CLARIFY AND TELL THE COURT KNOW. THIS IS WHAT IT MEANT. 
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IS A DOCTRINE THAT OFTEN ALLOWS COURTS TO CREATE NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. WHAT IS THE TEST FOR DETERMINING A NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THE GLOCK SPURRED CASE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT ARE RECOGNIZED OR THAT ARE INCLUDED IN SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ARE THOSE THAT ARE DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE NATION -- NATIONAL HISTORY AND TRADITION. PRIOR TO THAT THEY HAD DEFINED IT AS THE RIGHTS THAT ARE IMPLICIT IN THE ORDERED CONCEPT OF LIBERTY OR THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY. THERE ARE STANDARDS FOR THE COURTS TO USE TO IDENTIFY THESE TYPES OF RIGHTS. 
DID THE SUPREME COURT USE THIS TEST IN LOW OR CASEY? -- IN THE OR CASEY -- IN ROW OR CASEY? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COURT USE THAT FORMULATION. BUT I KNOW THAT AFTER CASEY, THE COURT HAD DETERMINED NOT SO MUCH THAT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE A WOMAN'S PREGNANCY IS FUNDAMENTAL . THE RIGHT EXISTS AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE FRAMEWORK IN CASEY THAT ALLOWS FOR REGULATION , SO LONG AS THERE IS NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT PRE-VIABILITY. 
I THINK THAT SOME OF WHAT WE ARE WRESTLING HERE WITH IS HOW PARTICULARLY THE CONCEPT OF DEEPLY ROOTED GOES AND HOW IT IS BOUND TO WHAT THE JUDICIARY CAN DO. I WANT TO THANK YOU, WE ARE NEARLY AT TIME. I WANT TO THINK SOME MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID AND THINK MORE ABOUT DISCUSSION TOMORROW. IT STILL APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE IS A VERY BASIC DIFFERENCE STILL BETWEEN A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND JUDICIAL METHODOLOGY AND HOW YOU GO ABOUT APPLYING THAT IN DETERMINING THE LAW AND MAKING A DETERMINATION ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY OR NOT. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T CLAIMED A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AT ALL, THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGINALISM HERE, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST NODDED TO IT IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING TODAY IS IN ITSELF A PRETTY GREAT TESTIMONY TO HOW MUCH OF SCALIA AND BORK'S WORK HAS MOVED THE LEGAL FIELD. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE TIME YOU ARE TAKING WITH US AND I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING WITH YOU AGAIN TOMORROW. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND PERSEVERANCE AND THANK YOU FOR THAT EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY. WE ALL AS AMERICANS FEEL EXCITEMENT AND PRIDE IN REALLY MAKING HISTORY HERE. THE OLD SAYING IS THAT A PICTURE IS WORTH 1000 WORDS. AS I LOOK AT YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR DAUGHTERS, WHAT I SEE IS AMERICA, THE BEST OF AMERICA. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL FEEL THAT EXCITEMENT AND PRIDE IN THIS MOMENT. AND THE EXTRAORDINARY JOURNEY THAT HAS BROUGHT YOU HERE. YOU WILL MAKE THE COURT LOOK MORE LIKE AMERICA, BUT ALSO THINK MORE LIKE AMERICA. IN THE OPTICALS AND CHALLENGES YOU HAVE OVERCOME TO BE HERE, WE DON'T KNOW ALL OF THEM, BUT YOU WILL PROVIDE A VERY PORK TINT PERSPECTIVE, A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE COURT NEEDS MORE THAN EVER AT THIS MOMENT IN ITS HISTORY. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BOOK SMART. THERE ARE NOT AS MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE PERSON SMART. YOU ARE BOTH. THAT KIND OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS WHAT THE COURTS NEED. NOT JUST OUR SUPREME COURT. SO, I WANT TO REALLY BEGIN BY ASKING YOU, AS A ROLE MODEL FOR OTHERS, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT TO THE YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS OF AMERICA. PARTICULARLY BLACK WOMEN, GIRLS, ABOUT THOSE CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES YOU OVERCAME TO BE HERE. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I AM HUMBLED AND HONORED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY AND TO BE THE FIRST AND ONLY BLACK WOMAN TO SERVE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF GENERATIONS PAST WHO NEVER HAD ANYTHING CLOSE TO THIS OPPORTUNITY. WHO WERE THE FIRST AND ONLY IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT FIELDS. MY PARENTS, AS I SAID, WERE THE FIRST IN THEIR FAMILIES TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO TO COLLEGE. I HAVE BEEN THE FIRST AND THE ONLY IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF MY LIFE. SO, I WOULD SAY THAT I AGREE WITH YOU, THIS IS A MOMENT THAT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUD. 
YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A PROSECUTOR. A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN. I WAS FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS IN THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MY STATE FOR 20 YEARS. I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE MOST MEANINGFUL CASES IN MY CAREER WAS AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. I WAS ASKED BY THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND OF THE NAACP TO REPRESENT A BLACK MAN ON DEATH ROW IN YOUR HOME STATE OF FLORIDA. HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER AND RAPE. HAD BEEN ON DEATH ROW FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. I TOOK THE CASE BECAUSE I WAS ASKED TO DO IT AND EVENTUALLY SOMEWHAT TO MY SURPRISE FOUND IN FACT HE HAD NEVER DONE THE CRIME OF WHICH HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND EVENTUALLY WE WON HIS FREEDOM. BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE COULD -- CONCEALED EVIDENCE, A VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND HE WAS A FREE MAN AS A RESULT. YOUR HUSBAND AS A SURGEON SAVES LIVES. LAWYERS DON'T DO IT OFTEN. BUT I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE, ADVOCATE, AND COUNSEL. IN THAT CASE HE HAD BEEN DENIED IT WHEN HE ORIGINALLY WENT TO TRIAL. ONLY AFTER YEARS IN STATES AND FEDERAL COURT WAS THE TRUTH VINDICATED. SO, I WANT YOU TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR DEFENDANTS TO BE REPRESENTED BY ZEALOUS, AGGRESSIVE AND ENERGETIC ADVOCATES WHO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE COURT, PUT ON THE EVIDENCE AND PRESENT THE BEST POSSIBLE CASE FOR A DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF A CRIME. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE IDEA IS ONE THAT IS ROOTED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GOVERNMENT OVERREACH IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES FROM GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE PROVISIONS ABOUT LIMITED GOVERNMENT. THERE ARE MANY PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ARE LIMITING GOVERNMENT ACTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY BECAUSE THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD HOW IMPORTANT LIBERTY IS TO OUR SOCIETY. SO, THERE IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. THESE PROVISIONS ARE CRUCIAL AND IT IS ZEALOUS DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT ENSURES THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTING THESE RIGHTS. ENSURING THAT THESE RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED AND THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING DO PROCESS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THAT IS TO ALL OF OUR BENEFIT. IT HELPS EVERYONE IN AMERICA WHEN WE ENSURE THAT LIBERTY CANNOT BE DENIED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. DEFENSE COUNSEL, AS I SAID, ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS. THEY ARE NOT CONDONING THE CRITICAL BEHAVIOR. THEY ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES. AS A JUDGE, I NOW SEE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MY DECISIONS AFTER HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES. THAT'S CRUCIAL. WE HAVE AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, MEANING JUDGES ARE PRESENTED WITH ARGUMENTS FROM THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE IN ONLY WHEN I AM ABLE TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES CAN I MAKE A JUST, FAIR DETERMINATION. FAIRNESS IS A HALLMARK OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL THEME AND IT IS WHAT MAKES IT THE BEST CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. 
..
SO, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY, I KNOW A NUMBER OF US ON THE COMMITTEE BELIEVE IN MORE TRANSPARENCY AND VISIBILITY BEING IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON IN THE COURTROOM. I KNOW THAT YOU VIEW TRANSPARENCY AS A GOOD THING. YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT CAMERAS IN THE COURT ROOM. I'M A SUPPORTER OF THE SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT. AS WELL AS THE CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM ACT. I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE COURT, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL ACTUALLY BACK THESE PROPOSALS. THEIR SUPPORT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT. TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TRANSPARENCY AND MORE VISIBILITY? JUDGE JACKSON:
WELL, SENATOR. ONE OF THE REASONS, AS I SAID, THAT I WRITE SUCH LONG OPINIONS IS GOOD BECAUSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW EXACTLY THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE CONSIDERED, THE FACTS I HAVE REVIEWED, AND IN PRETTY FINE DETAIL, THE COURSE OF MY REASONING. I HAVE DONE THIS IN 570 OPINIONS . I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, AS YOU SAY, FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BOUND BY THE LAW AND WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE COURTS TO KNOW WHAT THE COURT'S VIEWS ARE. WITH RESPECT TO CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IS SOMETHING PROCEEDING THROUGH CONGRESS AND IF I WAS CONFIRMED I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO UNDERSTAND THE POSITIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE REGARDING THE ISSUE. 
I APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS IMPORTANT TO TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT'S VISIBILITY AS TO THEIR OWN DECISIONS, WHICH I THINK IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY THE SHADOW DOCKET. I WANT FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE BEEN DECIDED, OR AT LEAST ISSUES RESOLVED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT, WITHOUT BRIEFS, WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC EXPLANATION. A CONTROVERSIAL TRAVEL BAN HAS GONE INTO EFFECT. THE FIRST FEDERAL EXECUTION IN 17 YEARS WAS PERMITTED. STATEWIDE COVID RESTRICTIONS WERE ENABLED. THE COLLECTION OF DATA IN THE 2020 UNITED STATES CENSUS. THE ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RESTRICTIONS IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, AS WELL AS DECISIONS RELATING TO IMMIGRATION AND BLOCKING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FROM ENFORCING A FEDERAL MORATORIUM ON THE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF COVID-19 EPIDEMIC, AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPEN, FULL, FAIR PROCEEDING WITH A RECORD OF THE COURT REASONS FOR MAKING THESE DECISIONS. SO, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL URGE YOUR COLLEAGUES, WHEN YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOMS, TO DO LESS ON THE SHADOW DOCKET. I HOPE THAT PERHAPS IF THEY DON'T, CONGRESS WILL TAKE SOME ACTION. FINALLY, I WANT TO ASK, SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY IS CONCERNED, ABOUT CODES OF ETHICS . YOU HAVE FOLLOW THE CODE OF ETHICS AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, CORRECT?  
I HAVE. 
DOES THAT APPLY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT DOES NOT.
CORRECT. MY HOPE IS THAT YOU WILL PERHAPS URGE YOUR COLLEAGUES AS WELL TO SUPPORT A CODE OF ETHICS. THEY HAVEN'T DONE SO YET, BUT I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION IN THE CONGRESS TO SET FORTH A CODE OF ETHICS BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD SUPPORT IT. SENATOR DURBIN AND OTHERS OF US HAVE SUPPORTED THAT KIND OF MEASURE AS WELL. I WOULD JUST ASK YOU IF YOU WILL RAISE IT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES IF CONFIRMED. JUDGE JACKSON: 
CERTAINLY IF CONGRESS IS TAKING ANYTHING UP THAT REQUIRES REVIEW, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY CONSIDERATE. AND EVEN IF NOT, I WOULD CONSIDER TALKING TO THEM ABOUT IT. 
THANK YOU. THE REASON I RAISE THESE POINTS IS I RESPECT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. I HAVE ARGUED FOR CASES BEFORE. I WAS A LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE BLACKMUN, WHO BY THE WAY WAS FROM MINNESOTA. IN FACT, HE WAS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE MINNESOTA TWINS WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED BECAUSE HE WAS THOUGHT TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN BURGER, ALSO FROM MINNESOTA. HE IS VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE IN HIS VIEWS. AS IT HAPPENED, JUSTICE BLACKMUN BECAME ONE OF THE MOST PROGRESSIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT OVER THE YEARS THAT HE SERVED. HE HAD A CAPACITY FOR GROWTH. AND FOR LEARNING AND LISTENING. WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAVE AND I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANYBODY WHO SERVES ON THE COURT. I DO THINK THAT THE COURT CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY IS A RESULT OF DIVISION WITHIN THE COURT, POLARIZATION AND POLITICIZATION THAT HAS DRAWN LINES. THE PROCESS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN RECENT YEARS IN CONFIRMATION. SO, I REALLY THINK THAT CONSENSUSBUILDING, BUILDING BRIDGES WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE IMMENSELY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE PRESIDENT CHOSE YOU, HAVING TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT. THAT YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF PERSUASIVE AND FORCEFUL INTELLECT. BUT ALSO THE PERSONAL CHARM AND WARM DEPTH THAT WILL ENABLE YOU TO DO IT. MAYBE YOU CAN TELL THE COMMITTEE ABOUT HOW YOU WORK ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, OR YOURS -- YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THAT KIND OF CONSENSUSBUILDING. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. CONSENSUSBUILDING IS SOMETHING THAT JUSTICE BREYER WAS PARTICULARLY GOOD AT IN TERMS OF HIS PERSONALITY IN THE TIMES I CLERKED FOR HIM, I WITNESSED THE WAY THAT HE CONTINUALLY REACHED OUT TO COLLEAGUES, CONTINUALLY SEEK COMMON GROUND. IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE TO BE ABLE TO EMULATE IF I WERE TO BE CONFIRMED. WHEN I WORKED ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION IS A SEVEN-MEMBER BODY OF WORKING ON SENTENCING POLICY, AT TIMES A PRETTY CONTENTIOUS EFFORT. BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS COMMISSIONERS. WORKING ON POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO APPROPRIATE SENTENCING. BY STATUTE, THE COMMISSION IS A BIPARTISAN GROUP. AND DURING MY FOUR YEARS AS A COMMISSIONER, I WAS ABLE TO WORK WELL WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO FIND COMMON GROUND AND WORK ON ISSUES, TO COME TOGETHER AND IN THE VAST MAJORITY, I HEARD A STATISTIC THAT IT WAS LIKE 95% OR 97% OF THE VOTES THE COMMISSION TOOK WERE UNANIMOUS. THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF A LOT OF EFFORT AND INTENTION ON THE PARTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED TO SEE IF WE COULD WORK TOGETHER. THAT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THING THAT I WOULD HOPE TO DO IF I WAS CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT. 
YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY THE CHALLENGES OF APPLYING THE LAW TO EVOLVING AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES . OBVIOUSLY THE INTERNET RAISES EXACTLY THOSE QUESTIONS. CONGRESS PASSED THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT IN 1986, WHEN THE INTERNET WAS BARELY RECOGNIZABLE, NASCENT, JUST STARTING. AND NOW OUR NATION FACES A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. IT IS PARTLY AGGRAVATED BY THE PANDEMIC, THE ISOLATION AND ANXIETY THAT RESULTED FROM IT, BUT ALSO BY THE INTERNET AND BY THE PLATFORMS THAT DRIVE TOXIC CONTENT AT CHILDREN. AS A RESULT OF THESE BLACK BOX ALGORITHMS THAT NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS. LITERALLY NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THEM BECAUSE THE TECH PLATFORMS WANT TO KEEP THEM SECRET. WE ARE TRYING TO UPDATE AND UPGRADE THE LAW TO GIVE PARENTS TOOLS TO HAVE GREATER VISIBILITY AS TO WHAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE DOING AND GIVE PARENTS AND CHILDREN TOOLS TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST SOME OF THE BULLYING, THE EATING DISORDER CONTENT, EVEN SUICIDAL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE STUFF THAT THEY ARE DRIVEN TO SEE. SENATOR BLACKBURN AND I HAVE INTRODUCED THE BIPARTISAN MEASURE FOR THE KIDS ONLINE INTRODUCED THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT THAT WILL PROVIDE A MORE MODERN SOLUTION TO A MORE MODERN PROBLEM, TO UPDATE THE LAW TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN OUR ONGOING AND AGGRAVATING MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY. DO YOU AGREE THAT IT HELPS THE SUPREME COURT, AND JUDGES IN GENERAL, TO DO THEIR JOB WHEN CONGRESS UPDATES OUR STATUTES TO ACCOUNT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE? JUDGE JACKSON:
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE ROLE OF THE COURT IS TO INTERPRET STATUTES WHEN THERE ARE DISPUTES RELATED TO THE STATUTES. AND, IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH STATUTES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED, I DON'T THINK IT'S SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE DISPUTES ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE STATUTES, ABOUT HOW IT APPLIES, AND SO, TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESS UNDERTAKES TO MAKE AMENDMENTS AND MAKE THE CHANGES, I THINK IT HELPS COURTS. MAYBE THERE WILL BE FEWER DISPUTES OR EASIER DISPUTES TO RESOLVE. 
EASIER DISPUTES TO RESOLVE IN THE SENSE THAT -- AND I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN, A JUDGE WILL SAY, WHAT CONGRESS MEANT TO DO IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION BECAUSE THIS LAW WAS WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN NONE OF THIS STUFF NOW EXISTED. I'M SURE YOU'VE FACED THAT SITUATION. I THINK IT'S TRUE THAT SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE DANGERS TO CHILDREN AS A RESULT OF THE TOXIC CONTENT THAT THEY OFTEN FIND, AND OFTEN SEEMINGLY ARE ADDICTED TO USE AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE IS THIS MODEL OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND BIG TECH PLATFORMS. JUDGE JACKSON:
YES, I HAVE FACED THIS SITUATION. ONE OF MY CASES BEING ALLIANCE OF ARTISTS RECORDING COMPANIES VERSUS GENERAL MOTORS IS A CASE THAT I ENDED UP WRITING A COUPLE OF OPINIONS ABOUT. IT INVOLVED A STATUTE OF CONGRESS RELATED TO DIGITAL RECORDING AUDIO DEVICES, AND WHETHER OR NOT ROYALTIES WERE REQUIRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THOSE KINDS OF DEVICES. IT WAS ENACTED AT A TIME IN WHICH RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WAS AT A DIFFERENT STAGE THAN IT IS NOW. DISPUTES AROSE THAT CAME BEFORE ME REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT TO APPLY THE ROYALTY REQUIREMENT IN THAT STATUTE TO MODERN RECORDING DEVICES. IN PARTICULAR, THE RECORDING DEVICES THAT ARE NOW IN AUTOMOBILES WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR CD AND PUT IT IN YOUR OWN CAR AND RECORD ONTO THE HARD DRIVE OF YOUR CAR, IS THAT THE SAME THING AS PUTTING YOUR CD AND ONE OF THOSE MACHINES THAT RECORD FROM CD TO CD AND YOU GIVE THE SECOND RECORDING TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS? THAT WAS WHAT THE STATUTE WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT TO COVER. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER RECORDING TO YOUR OWN CAR'S HARD DRIVE COUNTED. IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING INTERPRETIVE EXERCISE, BUT IT WAS THE KIND OF THING IN WHICH I WAS FOCUSED ON TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT, BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE AND THE DEFINITIONS OF THE STATUTE, WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED THIS STATUTE TO COVER. 
ABSOLUTELY, SENATOR. AS A LAW SCHOOL STUDENT, I WAS TRYING TO DO WHAT LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS DO, WHICH IS ANALYZE A NEW SET OF LEGAL PROVISIONS. PLEASE LAWS WERE NEW, AND I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS WHAT CRITERIA COURTS COULD USE TO LOOK AT THEM. I WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THEM AT ALL.
EXACTLY. ONE OF THOSE STATUTES WAS IN CONNECTICUT. IT WAS CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND, DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IT WENT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I DEFENDED IT THERE. IT WAS UPHELD 9-0. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOUR ARTICLE WAS CITED, BUT I WOULD PUT THIS LOG REVIEW ARTICLE VERY MUCH IN THE CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT. AND I WOULD CALL IT PROTECTION, NOT PUNISHMENT OR PREVENTION. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT I MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT. I ASK THAT THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE PUT IN THE RECORD. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
BY THE WAY, IT TOOK ME TWO OR THREE TIMES TO GET THROUGH IT.
[LAUGHTER]
NO DISRESPECT TO YOU OR THE HARVARD LOG REVIEW. THE ISSUE OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, YOU MENTIONED, I THINK, THAT IN YOUR DECISIONS ON THE SENTENCING CASES INVOLVING CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, I AGREE IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC, ABHORRENT, IT'S THE REASON SENATOR GRAHAM AND I HAVE SPONSORED A MEASURE THAT ADDRESSES IT, BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU IMPOSE THE SENTENCE THAT MATCHED THE RECOMMENDATION BY EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR THE PROBATION OFFICE IN MOST OF THE CASES WHERE YOU DID THAT SENTENCING. IS THAT RIGHT? DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
YES, SENATOR. LOOKING BACK AT THE RECORDS CONCERNING MY CASES, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH I HAD 14 CASES THAT INVOLVED EITHER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, INTERNET -- INTERSTATE TRAVEL TO MEET UP WITH THE CHILD FOR SEX, SEX CRIMES RELATED TO CHILDREN. IN 10 OF THOSE 14 CASES I IMPOSED A SENTENCE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH OR GREATER THAN A WHAT EITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PROSECUTION REQUESTED. 
WITH PROBATION.
EXCUSE ME, THE GOVERNMENT OR PROBATION OFFICE.
LET ME JUST ASK YOU, THE PROBATION OFFICE IS AN INDEPENDENT ARM OF THE COURT THAT INVESTIGATES THE DEFENDANT, LOOKS AT THE CRIME, THE DEFENDANTS BACKGROUND, HIS FAMILY SITUATION, ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS INVOLVED IN SENTENCING, INCLUDING THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. AND THEN, INDEPENDENTLY AND IMPARTIALLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, PRESUMABLY TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL FACTS, IS THAT ROUGHLY A CORRECT DESCRIPTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THAT IS CORRECT, SENATOR. THE PROBATION OFFICE WORKS WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEMS. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE PARTIES AND THEY INVESTIGATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASES CONCERNING WHAT THE PROBATION OFFICE THINKS IS AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. 
LET ME JUST FINISH BY SAYING. MUCH OF AMERICA IS WATCHING THESE PROCEEDINGS ON A SPLIT SCREEN. I ON ONE HAND THEY ARE LITERALLY SEEING THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN UKRAINE. RUSSIA'S BRUTAL, BARBARIC ASSAULT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, BASIC FREEDOMS THAT WE OFTEN TAKE FOR GRANTED HERE. ANNUAL WE ARE EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS RIGHT HERE. YOU ARE A TEACHING LESSON. THIS PROCEEDING IS A TEACHING LESSON ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY. THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE ARE FIGHTING FOR IT. THEY ARE DYING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND STREETS IN THEIR HOMES. THEY ARE HUDDLED IN BASEMENTS. THERE ARE MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE RESISTING, VALIANTLY AND BRAVING AGAINST A HUGE MILITARY FORCE THAT RUSSIA HAS UNLEASHED, AND A REIGN OF TERROR FOR -- FROM THE SKY. SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN THE IDEAL OF FREEDOM AND LAW THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO PRESERVE HERE. ON THIS SIDE OF THAT SPLIT SCREEN, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO OUR BEST TO HONOR THE NORMS AND THE RULES THAT YOU'VE SOUGHT TO UPHOLD THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE, AND I'M PROUD AND EXCITED TO BE HERE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I LOOK FORWARD, AS I HOPE MANY OF US DO, TO A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY OF SUPPORT OF YOUR CANDIDACY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. WE HAVE SEVERAL CONSIDERATIONS, REMAINING SENATORS FOR QUESTIONS. THE ENDURANCE OF OUR WITNESS, JUDGE JACKSON, VOTES ON THE FLOOR REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. HERE IS WHERE WE STAND. WE WILL HAVE SENATOR HAWLEY. THEN WE WILL TAKE A 20 MINUTE BREAK, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE THINK THERE WILL BE SOME VOTES ON THE FLOOR. WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THOSE AND GET BACK IN 20 MINUTES. WE WILL RETURN TO THAT BREAK TO SENATORS BOOKER, THEN WE WILL TAKE A 30 MINUTE BREAK OR SO FOR DINNER. THEN IT WILL BE SENATOR KENNEDY AND TENNIS. AND THEN WE WILL START OFF TOMORROW WITH TWO SENATORS ALL OFF IN BLACKBURN. SO WE SHOULD FINISH IN THE 10:00 HOUR THIS EVENING, GOD WILLING. AT THIS POINT, I RECOGNIZE SENATOR HAWLEY. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE, NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. I WANT TO START WHERE SENATOR BLUMENTHAL LEFT OFF. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THESE CASES THAT I MENTIONED YESTERDAY. YOU KNOW WHICH ONES I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. THE SEVEN CASES, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES IN WHICH YOU HAD DISCRETION THAT CAME BEFORE YOU. YOU HAD DISCRETION TO SENTENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN THE SEVEN CASES. NOT EVERY CASE YOU HAVE DISCRETION, SOMETIMES ALL REQUIRES YOU TO IMPOSE A CERTAIN SENTENCE. BUT YOU HAD DISCRETION ON EACH OF THESE SEVEN AND YOU CHOSE TO DEPART FROM THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES, AND ALSO FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S RECOMMENDATION. SENATOR LEE ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. SENATOR CRUZ ASK YOU ABOUT IT. HE HAD THE CHART WITH THE SEVEN CASES. BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THOSE, I WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON ONE OR TWO THINGS. SENATOR COONS SUGGESTED THAT IN ONE OR THREE CASES YOU IMPOSE SENTENCES WITHIN THE GUIDELINES ARE AT THE SAME LEVEL THE PROSECUTION, BUT IN NICKERSON YOU DO NOT HAVE DISCRETION. THE LAW ABOUNDS YOU. IN THE OTHERS WEREN'T A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE. ANOTHER THING TO CLARIFY, AS FOR THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROBATION OFFICE, THE PROBATION OFFICE DOESN'T ISSUE NATIONAL GUIDELINES, THEY DON'T ISSUE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THEY ARE PUBLIC OR RECOMMENDED TO ALL JUDGES. THE PROBATION OFFICE PROVIDES VICE TO JUDGES CASE-BY-CASE, USUALLY IN PRIVATE. USUALLY NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC. IS THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
NOT EXACTLY, SENATOR. THE PROBATION OFFICE IN CRIMINAL CASES IS A SIGNED -- IS ASSIGNED BY THE COURT TO WORK WITH RESPECT TO THE EVALUATION OF CASES, IN EVERY CASE CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS' REQUIREMENTS, THE PROBATION OFFICE PREPARES A PRESENTENCE REPORT IN WHICH THEY REVIEW ALL OF THE STATUTORY FACTORS CONCERNING SENTENCING. CONGRESS HAS A STATUTE FOR SENTENCING. IT REQUIRES JUDGES TO CONSIDER THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE, THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT, THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO PROMOTE VARIOUS PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. THERE ARE MANY PURPOSES LISTED IN THE STATUTE. AND THE PROBATION OFFICE IS THE ARM OF THE COURT THAT DOES FACTUAL INVESTIGATIONS IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, UNLESS THERE ARE CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH YOU CAN WAIVE IT, BUT THE BACKGROUND IS THE PROBATION OFFICES ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTS RELATED TO A PARTICULAR SENTENCE AND A PARTICULAR CRIME. THE PROBATION OFFICE REPORTS. WHEN A COURT SENTENCES, IT BECOMES THE FINDING THE FACT OF THE CORE. SO THE PROBATION OFFICE APPEARS JUST LIKE THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE, THE PROBATION OFFICE AS WRITTEN A REPORT AND THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT BASED ON THEIR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CRIME AND DEFENDANT IN SENTENCE. 
UNDERSTOOD, SO THEY GIVE THE COURT COUNCIL. UNDERSTOOD. HOWEVER, THEY DON'T ISSUE GUIDELINES. THEY ARE NOT UNIFORM. IT IS A CASE-BY-CASE AND COREY, AS YOU SAID. THE REPORT GOES TO THE JUDGE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PRESENTENCING REPORT -- I'M SORRY, THE PROBATION REPORTS ARE NOT PUBLIC. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM IF THEY ARE. BUT IT'S NOT AS IF THERE IS ONE SET OF GUIDELINES WITH FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND PROBATION GUIDELINES. THE PROBATION OFFICE IS GIVING ADVICE TO THE JUDGE AND IT VARIES CASE-BY-CASE. JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. 
SENATOR, I DON'T HAVE THE RECORD OF THAT ENTIRE CASE IN FRONT OF ME. WHAT I RECALL, IN RESPECT TO THAT CASE, IS THAT UNLIKE THE MANY OTHER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS THAT I HAVE SEEN AS A JUDGE AND THAT I WAS AWARE OF IN MY WORK ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT HAD JUST GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND SOME OF, PERHAPS NOT ALL, WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE RECORDS, BUT SOME OF THE MATERIALS HE WAS LOOKING AT WERE OLDER TEENAGERS, WERE OLDER VICTIMS. AND THE POINT, SENATOR, IS THAT, YOU SAID BEFORE THE PROBATION OFFICE IS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY DO SO ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS REQUIRES. THIS IS NOT DONE AT THE LEVEL OF -- 
YOU ARE AT DISCRETION JUDGE. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THAT IS IT DISCRETIONARY ACT OF A JUDGE BUT IT'S NOT A NUMBERS GAME, I UNDERSTAND THAT CONGRESS WANTED THE GUIDELINES TO BE MANDATORY, THE SUPREME COURT, IN 2005 DETERMINED THAT THEY COULDN'T BE AN OPINION BY JUSTICE SCALIA DETERMINED THAT THEY CAN IT BE, AND CONGRESS SINCE THEN HAS NOT COME BACK TO AMEND THEM OR TO CHANGE THEM OR TO MAKE THEM MANDATORY AGAIN. SO THERE IS DISCRETION AT SENTENCING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SENTENCING STATUTES, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE JUDGES, NOT ONLY THE DISCRETION TO MAKE THE DECISION, BUT REQUIRE JUDGES TO DO SO ON AN INDIVIDUALIZED BASIS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, NOT ONLY THE GUIDELINES, BUT ALSO VARIOUS FACTORS, INCLUDING THE AGE OF THE DEFENDANT, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANT, THE TERRIBLE NATURE OF THE CRIME, THE HARM TO THE VICTIMS, ALL OF THESE FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROBATION OFFICE ASSISTS THE COURTS IN DETERMINING WHAT SENTENCE IS SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY. AND I APPRECIATE, SENATOR, THAT YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THESE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF STATISTICS, THAT YOU ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT I TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY OR I HAVE SOME REASON TO HANDLE THEM IN EITHER A DIFFERENT WAY THAN MY PEERS OR A DIFFERENT WAY THAN OTHER CASES. I ASSURE YOU THAT I DO NOT. THAT, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE GREATER BODY OF NOT ONLY MY MORE THAN 100 SENTENCES, BUT ALSO THE SENTENCES OF OTHER JUDGES IN MY DISTRICT AND NATIONWIDE YOU WOULD SEE A VERY SIMILAR EXERCISE OF ATTEMPTING TO DO WHAT IT IS THAT JUDGES DO. ATTEMPTING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DO JUSTICE INDIVIDUALLY IN EACH CASE. 
LET'S KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE. YOU ALSO SAID TO THIS INDIVIDUAL , WHO IS AN ADULT, TRIED AS AN ADULT, 18 YEARS OLD, YOU ALSO SAID TO HIM BESIDES SAYING THAT YOU FELT HIS VICTIMS WERE HIS PEERS, YOU SAID THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK THAT YOU ARE A PEDOPHILE, AND THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU WEREN'T GOING TO GIVE HIM -- YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO GIVE HIM THREE MONTHS BECAUSE YOU JUDGED HE WAS IN A PEDOPHILE. AND THEN YOU SAID, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I REALLY NEED YOUR HELP UNDERSTANDING, THEN YOU APOLOGIZED TO HIM. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I CAN'T QUITE FIGURE THIS OUT. YOU SAID TO HIM, THIS IS A TRULY DIFFICULT SITUATION. I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR FAMILY IS IN THE AUDIENCE. I FEEL SO SORRY FOR THEM AND FOR YOU AND FOR THE ANGUISH THIS HAS CAUSED ALL OF YOU. I FEEL TERRIBLE ABOUT THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CONVICTION. AND THEN YOU GO ON AND SAY SEX OFFENDERS ARE TRULY SHUNNED IN OUR SOCIETY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, JUDGE, IS HE THE VICTIM HERE OR ARE THE VICTIMS THE VICTIMS? YOU ARE APOLOGIZING TO HIM, YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE SORRY FOR THE ANGUISH THIS IS CAUSED HIM. THERE WAS A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT IN THIS CASE, IT DID NOT GET READ INTO THE RECORD, BUT IT WAS THERE. I DESCRIBED THE VIDEOS THAT WE HAVE. YOU SAY EARLIER IN THE CASE YOU TALK ABOUT HOW HEINOUS THESE CRIMES ARE AND YOU DESCRIBE THEM AND HOW HEINOUS IT IS, TO YOUR CREDIT, AND YET, HERE YOU ARE GIVING HIM THREE MONTHS AND APOLOGIZING TO HIM AND SAYING YOU FEEL SORRY FOR THE ANGUISH IT HAS CAUSED HIM, AND ALSO SAYING YOU THINK THAT SEX OFFENDERS ARE TRULY SHUNNED IN OUR SOCIETY. JUST TALK ABOUT THAT, HELP ME UNDERSTAND. IS HE A VICTIM, IS THAT YOUR VIEW? IS THAT WHY YOU SAID THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING I SAID MANY YEARS AGO. MANY YEARS AGO, AS A LAW SCHOOL STUDENT I WAS EVALUATING A NEW SET OF LEGISLATION, STATE LAWS ABOUT LEGISLATION, AND I WAS ANALYZING THEM AS LAW STUDENTS DO. IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SEX CRIME, IT WAS ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LAW. IS IT A PUNITIVE LAW, IS IT A PRESCRIPTIVE LAW, AND HOW WOULD A COURT GO ABOUT DETERMINING THAT? THAT WAS THE FRAME THAT I USED THEM, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT ANYTHING. IT WAS ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF LEGISLATION. 
JUDGE, I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, I ONLY HAVE TWO HALF MINUTES LEFT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. I'M QUOTING FROM YOUR CONCLUSION. THIS IS ON PAGE 1728 OF THE HARVARD WALL REVIEW. THIS IS YOUR CONCLUSION. IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF FEAR, HATRED AND REVENGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE RELEASE OF CONVICTED SEX CRIMINALS, COURTS NEED TO BE ESPECIALLY ATTENTIVE TO LEGISLATIVE'S ENACTMENTS. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS A CLIMATE OF FEAR, HATRED AND REVENGE THAT ARE INFORMING THESE LAWS. DESCRIBE THE LAWS EARLIER. MEGAN'S LAW AND SENATOR CRUZ ASKED YOU ABOUT THOSE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MET BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE HAWKINS CASE. YOU ARE SAYING SOCIETY TRULY SHUNS OUR SEX OFFENDERS. JUDGE JACKSON:
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MY ARTICLE IS NOW ON THE RECORD, PEOPLE CAN READ IT AND THEY CAN SEE THAT I WAS EVALUATING THESE LAWS NOT TO DETERMINE THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY, NOT TO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENACTED, BUT TO TALK ABOUT THE WAYS IN WHICH COURTS MAKE DETERMINATION ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE LAW AND ALL THE CONSEQUENCES THAT FOLLOW FROM THEM. IN LAW SCHOOL, I HAD NOT HAD ANY EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND I WAS DOING WHAT LAW STUDENTS DO, WHICH IS, SEEKING TO ANALYZE IN A CREATIVE WAY, NEW LEGISLATION. WITH RESPECT TO MYTH OR HAWKINS, I WAS DOING WHAT JUDGES DO. WHICH IS, LOOK AT THE STATUTE, 18 USC 3553-A, EXERCISE DISCRETION AS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED US TO DO. TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION CONSISTENT WITH MY AUTHORITY, MY JUDGMENTS, AND UNDERSTANDING FULLY, THE AGREE JUST NATURE OF THE CRIME. AS YOU SAID, EVEN THE PROSECUTORS IN THESE CASES ARE NOT RECOMMENDING GUIDELINE SENTENCES. THE PROBATION OFFICE, WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY, LOOKING AT THESE CASES, AND THE FACTS RELATED TO THEM ARE NOT RECOMMENDING GUIDELINE SENTENCES. THIS IS A PARTICULAR AREA WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DISPARITY, AND HAS ASKED CONGRESS TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS, TO HELP JUDGES WHO ARE LOOKING AT THESE CASES, TO BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE BYLINE. 
WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLINED TO DO. JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, IN THAT CASE WE HAVE THE STATUTE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED, CONCERNING PENALTIES, AND WE HAVE JUDGES WHO ARE DOING THEIR LEVEL BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AS THEY NEED TO BE IN OUR SOCIETY, IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. THANK YOU, JUDGE. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
JUST CHECKING WITH MY STAFF. THE ORIGINAL STATUTE WAS PASSED IN 2003, THE SCALIA DECISION, 2005, THE BOOKER DECISION. JUDGE JACKSON:
THE ORIGINAL STATUTE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, I'M JUST THINKING, I FELT LIKE IT WAS IN THE 1980'S. IN 2003. JUSTICE SCALIA, THE BOOKER DECISION MADE THE GUIDELINES ADVISORY. SO THAT EVEN THOUGH JUDGES HAD TO CALCULATE THEM, THEY ARE NO LONGER BINDING, AND WHAT IT MEANT IN THE STATUTE IS THAT THE GUIDELINES BECAME ONE FACTOR AMONGST MANY THAT JUDGES CONSIDER AT SENTENCING. 
I'M NOT GOING TO PINE ON JUSTICE SCALIA IN HIS CONDUCT AND DECISION AS IT RELATES TO THE OVERALL TOPIC. I HOPE WE ALL AGREE THAT WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER, REASONABLY WITHIN OUR POWER TO LESSEN THE INCIDENCE OF PORNOGRAPHY AND WEIGH TATIAN OF CHOI JIN. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR THAT'S YOUR POSITION. BUT I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU, CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE CLEAN HANDS IN THIS CONVERSATION. WE HAVEN'T TOUCH THIS NOW FOR 15, 16, 17 YEARS. AND YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO FACED THIS KIND OF A CHALLENGE WITH CASES BEFORE YOU. I SAID THIS MORNING AND IT BEARS REPEATING. IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS KLOTZ, TRUMP APPOINTED JUDGE SARAH PITLICK, SENATOR HAWLEY'S CHOICE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SENTENCED AN INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO ONLY 16 MONTHS, WELL BELOW THE 135 TO 168 MONTH SENTENCE REQUESTED BY THE GUIDELINES. I WILL FINISH AND OF COURSE I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. SENATOR HAWLEY, YOU'VE SAID SOME VERY POWERFUL THINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS JUDGE. BUT CLEARLY SHE FACED A SITUATION WHERE SHE DECIDED SHE WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AND TOOK A SENTENCE OF LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED. WE HAVE CREATED THE SITUATION BECAUSE OF OUR INATTENTION AND UNWILLINGNESS TO TACKLE AN EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL AREA AND CONGRESS AND LEFT IT TO THE JUDGES. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ACCEPT SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT, SENATOR. 
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, SINCE YOU'VE MENTIONED THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE, SHE FOLLOWED THE PROSECUTOR'S RECOMMENDATION IN THAT CASE. AS I SAID OVER AND OVER, PART OF MY CONCERN WITH JUDGE JACKSON IS THAT SHE HAS NOT FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR SENTENCES. SHE DIDN'T IN THE CASE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OR IN THE GUIDELINES, AND WE CAN HAVE A POLICY DEBATE OVER WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICIES ARE TOO LENIENT. I WOULD ARGUE IN THIS ERA THEY ARE NOT TOO LENIENT. YOU WERE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU VOTED IN 2003. 
I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SPONSORED A BILL TO CHANGE THIS, I WILL BE LOOKING FOR IT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THERE IS IN A LONG LINE OF PEOPLE WAITING TO COSPONSOR THIS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. IF WE ARE GOING TO TACKLE IT, WE SHOULD, BUT WE SHOULD CONCEDE THAT WE LEFT CHART -- WE LEFT JUDGES IN THIS SITUATION. THERE IS NO CLARITY IN THIS SITUATION, AND I THINK TOLD THIS JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERALL SITUATION IS TO IGNORE OUR MALFEASANCE, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY IN DEALING WITH THIS. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE JACKSON, AS YOU MAY KNOW, I ASKED THE FOLLOWING TWO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS OF EVERY NOMINEE WHO APPEARS BEFORE ANY OF THE COMMITTEES. I WILL GIVE THESE TWO QUESTIONS FIRST. SINCE YOU BECAME A LEGAL ADULT, HAVE YOU EVER MADE UNWANTED REQUESTS FOR SEXUAL FAVOR OR COMMITTED ANY VERBAL OR PHYSICAL HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT OF A SEXUAL NATURE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I HAVE NOT. 
HAVE YOU EVER FACE DISCIPLINE OR ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT RELATED TO THIS CONDUCT?
I HAVE NOT.
JUDGE JACKSON, MY COLLEAGUE FROM MISSOURI SEEMS TO THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR FEDERAL JUDGES TO SENTENCE INDIVIDUALS BELOW INAPPROPRIATE, TO SENTENCE INDIVIDUALS BELOW THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN THESE KIND OF CASES, HORRIFIC CASES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO OFFER A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS FOR THE RECORD. JUDGE JACKSON, WHEN THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION FIRST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF SENTENCING IN THIS AREA IN 2012, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT ONLY 40% OF CONVICTED OFFENDERS IN THIS CATEGORY OR RECEIVING SENTENCES WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE NUMBER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIANCE AROUND THE GUIDELINES. 
40%. WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHICH PROSECUTES THESE CASES, SENT A LETTER TO THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION IN 2013, STATING THAT THE EXISTING SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE CONDUCT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I DON'T REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR LETTER, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE FROM ALL SIDES. 
NOW THE SENTENCING COMMISSION ISSUED ANOTHER REPORT JUST LAST YEAR ON THIS TOPIC. DO YOU KNOW THAT AS OF THAT REPORT, AND EVEN LOWER -- AN EVEN LOWER PERCENTAGE WERE RECEIVING SENTENCES WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I DID NOT KNOW, BUT I'M NOT SURPRISED. 
DID YOU KNOW THAT AS OF LAST YEAR, IT WAS JUST 30% OF NONPRODUCTION OFFENDERS WHO WERE SENTENCED WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DID NOT KNOW, BUT I AM NOT SURPRISED. 
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES'S MADE A BIG SHOW OF PROMISING A FAIR PROCESS. AND TO ME, THAT MEANS ENSURING THAT YOU ARE TREATED NO DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER FEDERAL JUDGES THAT -- JUDGES NOMINEES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE RECENTLY THAT HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT MANY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY DISTRICT COURT JUDGES HAD ALSO ISSUED BELOW GUIDELINE SENTENCING TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. JUDGE RALPH ERICKSON, WHO WAS CONFIRMED TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN 2017 WITH SUPPORT FROM EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, WHO WAS SERVING IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME, AND THERE ARE AT LEAST 11 CASES WHERE HE SENTENCED PEOPLE BELOW GUIDELINE SENTENCES. DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU? JUDGE JACKSON:
IT DOES NOT, SENATOR. 
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW JUDGE ERICKSON, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE HE IS A SOFT ON CHILD OR NOT A FEE BASED ON THE SENTENCES? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT. 
DO YOU THINK MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE SOFT ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY JUST BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR JUDGE ERICKSON TO BECOME A FEDERAL APPELLATE JUDGE, EVEN AFTER HE ISSUED THESE 11 SENTENCES? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO EVALUATE WHETHER YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE SOFT ON CRIME BECAUSE OF THEIR VOTES. I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT. 
THEY VOTED FOR THIS PERSON, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE QUITE UNFAIR TO CHARACTERIZE HIM AS BEING SOFT ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO ABOUT JUDGE JOSEPH BIANCO, WHO WAS CONFIRMED TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND 2019 SUPPORT FROM EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WAS SERVING IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME, INCLUDING SENATOR HAWLEY, IN THAT CASE UNITED STATES VERSUS BOWEN. THE JUDGE SENTENCED HIM TO 60 MONTHS IN PRISON WHEN HIS GUIDELINES RANGE WAS 151 TO 188 MONTHS. AND HERE IS WHAT THE JUDGE SAID IN THE SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT FOR THAT CASE. ", AND THE GUIDELINES HERE, WAIT DISPROPORTION'S UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AND I DON'T VIEW THEM AS PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN THIS CASE. I BELIEVE THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT GOT IT RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE STATUTORY MANDATORY MINIMUM BEING SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE FACTORS OF SENTENCING." I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW JUDGE BEYOND GO, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS SOFT ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BASED ON THAT SENTENCE OR THOSE COMMENTS? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I DO NOT, SENATOR. 
DO YOU THINK MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE SOFT ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BECAUSE THEY VOTED TO CONFIRM JUDGE BEYOND GO TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT, EVEN AFTER HE ISSUED BELOW GUIDELINE SENTENCES AND MADE THESE COMMENTS? JUDGE JACKSON:
I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT. 
HERE ARE SOME OF THE OTHER CIRCUIT JUDGES THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES VOTED TO CONFIRM, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY SENTENCE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DEFENDANTS TO BELOW GUIDELINE SENTENCES. THE JUDGE ON THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. JUDGE RICHARD SULLIVAN ON THE SECOND CIRCUIT. JUDGE ANDREW ON THE 11TH CIRCUIT. AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE EVER MET THESE JUDGES BEFORE, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY BELIZE -- REASON TO BELIEVE THEY DON'T TAKE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SERIOUSLY? 
I DO NOT. 
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT SENATOR CRUZ REFERRED TO A CHART THAT LISTED EIGHT CASES AND THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND THAT YOU DID NOT ADHERE TO THOSE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. WHAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CHART WAS WHAT THE PROBATION RECOMMENDATIONS WERE. AND IF YOU ADD THOSE PROBATION RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FIVE OF THE CASES YOU FOLLOWED THE PROBATION RECOMMENDATIONS. IN ONE INSTANCE YOU ARE LOWER AND ONE INSTANCE YOU ARE HIGHER THAN THE PROBATION RECOMMENDATIONS. WISTER CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE COMPLETE CHART FOR THE RECORD. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. WHAT I DO AND WHAT I'VE DONE AND ALL OF MY 570 SOME ODD OPINIONS IS TO APPLY A METHODOLOGY THAT IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE MY IMPARTIALITY AND TO RESPECT THE LIMITS OF MY JUDICIAL ROLE. WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I'M RECEIVING THE CASES, AND AT THE OUTSET, I'M SETTING ASIDE ANY PERSONAL VIEWS THAT I MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PARTIES, ABOUT THE ISSUES, AS I ALSO SET A MY D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR ME AND, IT DOESN'T MATTER THERE -- MATTER TO ME WHETHER THE ARGUMENT IS BEING MADE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR A DEATH ROW INMATE. WHAT I'M DOING IS LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENTS, I'M LOOKING AT THE FACTS, I AM APPLYING THE LAW AND AS NEUTRAL AND CONSISTENT IN MANNER AS I CAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE DUTY AND REQUIREMENT OF THE JUDICIAL OATH. I AM ALSO VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE LAW TO PREVENT ME, AS A JUDGE, FROM BECOMING A POLICYMAKER. THIS MEANS THAT I CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE MY JURISDICTION. IT MEANS THAT I LOOK AT THE TEXT AND FOCUS ON THE TEXT AND THE INTENTIONS OF THE LEGISLATORS THAT DRAFTED THAT PROVISION, OR THE INTENTIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL. IT MEANS I AM LOOKING AT PRECEDENT. IF I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT, I WOULD BE UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLES AS I CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT AND MAKING SURE THAT THE COURT IS PUTTING FORWARD CONSISTENT AND PREDICTABLE RULINGS AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE RULE OF LAW. ALL OF THESE ICS CONSTRAINTS ON JUDICIAL AUTHORITY THAT I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN MY INDEPENDENCE AS IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. 
JUDGE JACKSON, I SAT ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES TRY TO PIN LABELS ON THE NOMINEES THAT COME BEFORE US, I FIND YOUR METHODOLOGY TO BE A LEAD JUDGE TO COME UP WITH FAIR AND OBJECTIVE RESULTS. I THANK YOU FOR THAT, WE ARE GENERALLY BOUND. IT WILL NOT BE THE CASE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT CAN OVERTURN ITS OWN PRESIDENTS. THAT IS WHY I FOUND YOUR KNOWLEDGE INSTRUCTIVE. IN THAT CASE, YOU HAD A PRESIDENT. IT ALREADY CONFRONTED THE ISSUES YOU FACED. HOWEVER, IT WAS ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT AND YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY IT. YOU NONETHELESS FOUND -- FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT PRECEDENT. WHY DID YOU FIND THAT SO PERSUASIVE? 
IN THE LAW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRECEDENTS AND BY THAT I MEAN THERE IS A VERTICAL PRESIDENT WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH. THERE ARE CASES HANDED DOWN BY HIGHER COURTS, THE APPELLATE COURT, THE SUPREME COURT. THAT BINDS THE LOWER COURTS SO EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BINDING PRECEDENT BUT THERE IS ALSO HORIZONTAL PRECEDENT. IT IS ABOUT MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY IN THE RULE OF LAW. THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU ARE IN A DISTRICT, THERE ARE MANY JUDGES. IF SOMEONE ELSE IN YOUR DISTRICT HAS HANDLED THE CASE THAT COMES OUT OR INVOLVES THE SAME ISSUE, YOU AS THE SECOND JUDGE HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THAT RULING. YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE IS PRECEDENT IN YOUR DISTRICT THAT HANDLES A CASE IN A PARTICULAR WAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE MCGANN CASE, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT JUST CLOSE, IT WAS NEARLY IDENTICAL. THE MYERS CASE INVOLVED THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE ARGUMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE THAT THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT SHE PROVIDE TESTIMONY. MY CASE INVOLVED A FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO WAS CLAIMING ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IN RESPONSE TO A LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENA. IN BOTH CASES, NOT ONLY WAS THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ISSUE ON THE TABLE BUT IN BOTH CASES, THE SAME THRESHOLD ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS JURISDICTION IN THE COURT BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAD STANDING OR DID NOT HAVE STANDING. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE. THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE COURT COULD HEAR A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, ALL OF THOSE ISSUES HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONSIDERED BY MY COLLEAGUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT. HE WROTE AN EXTENSIVE OPINION ANALYZING EACH OF THE ISSUES AND SO AT A MINIMUM, AS THE SECOND JUDGE DEALING WITH THESE EXACT SAME ISSUES, I HAD TO LOOK AT WHAT HE DID AND DECIDE. WAS IT PERSUASIVE, DID I AGREE RUSSIAN MARK I DID. -- DID I AGREE? AND I DID. 
IF THERE WAS A VERTICAL PRESIDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT , YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO FOLLOW THAT PRESIDENT BUT THERE WAS NOT. YOU FOLLOWED THAT REASONING BY ANOTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME AND THAT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE TO ME. YOU DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENT IN YOUR OPINION. THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE. THEY ARE PERFORMING A LIMITED FUNCTION THAT REFLECTS THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT UNDERGOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. THIS WAS BECAUSE OF DECIDING A LEGAL ISSUE, EVERY TIME THE SAME QUESTION WAS PRESENTED. THIS ESTABLISHES THE DOMAIN OF SAYING WHAT THE LAW IS AND INTO THE REALM OF LEGISLATING WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENT BEFORE BUT MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US WHY PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. 
THANK YOU. OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT IS DESIGNED TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW. UNLIKE OTHER SYSTEMS IN OTHER SOCIETIES, SOME OTHER SOCIETIES, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT MEN. YET, THERE ARE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE ACTING AS JUDGES IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR SYSTEM. WHAT PRECEDENT DOES IS ENSURE THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TASKED WITH THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY OF INTERPRETING THE LAW. IT ENSURES THAT THERE IS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE THAT THE LAW IS WHAT IS GUIDING JUDGES IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING AND NOT JUST THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL VIEWS. IT IS CRUCIAL FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, MAINTAINING STABILITY IN THE LAW, ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM THAT HAS PREDICTABILITY AND IT. ALL OF WHICH SUPPORTS CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY WHICH IS THE CURRENCY OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENTS AND PROMOTING CONFIDENCE, PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS. PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT ON THIS ON THAT SCORE. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHAT CHAPTERS WOULD YOU CONSIDER BEFORE OVERTURNING PRECEDENT? 
THERE ARE MANY FACTORS THAT THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS AND NOT JUST WHETHER THEY THINK A PRIOR PRECEDENT IS WRONG. THAT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT A PRECEDENT THAT IS EGREGIOUSLY WRONG IS ONE THAT IS SUBJECT TO RECONSIDERATION. BUT IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT OVERTURNING IT, IN ADDITION TO IT BEING WRONG, THE COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN RELIANCE ON THAT PRECEDENT AND IF SO, HOW MUCH. THE COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT IS WORKABLE. SOMETIMES THE COURT WILL ISSUE A RULING AND IT TURNS OUT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING IN THE WAY THAT THE COURT INTENDED. THE COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER OR NOT OTHER PRECEDENTS IN THE AREA HAVE SHIFTED SUCH THAT THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PRECEDENT IS NO LONGER SUSTAINABLE. AND THE COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE FACTS THAT RELATE TO THAT PRESIDENT OR A NEW UNDERSTANDING ABOUT -- A NEW UNDERSTANDING THAT RELATE TO A PRECEDENT. ALL OF THOSE FACTORS ARE THINGS THE SUPREME COURT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT. WHEN IT DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TO REVISIT A PRECEDENT.
THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE FACTORS. BEFORE OVERTURNING PRECEDENT. IF YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT DECIDED TO OVERTURN A PRECEDENT, THEY CAN DO SO.    
UNDER OUR SCHEME, YES.
THAT IS CORRECT.
YOU ALSO DID PRO BONO WORK FOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES WHERE YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO DO THAT WORK AS WELL.
 THERE WAS ONE DETAINEE THAT I HAD REPRESENT IT AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO WAS BROUGHT INTO MY FIRM'S PRACTICE UNBEKNOWNST TO ME. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE FIRM, THE ATTORNEYS WHO WERE WORKING ON THAT CASE RECOGNIZED I HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN A LAWYER WHO REPRESENTED THIS PARTICULAR DETAINEE. 
I THINK YOU HAVE CLARIFIED THAT. THIS IS RELATED TO DETENTION. AND I THINK THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. WERE YOU WORKING ON BEHALF OF DETAINEES AT THAT POINT? WE WORKING ON BEHALF OF OTHER GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS? 
I WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF OTHER GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS. CRACKS YES. THERE WERE THREE BRIEFS IN TOTAL. TWO DIFFERENT CASES. ONE OF THE BRIEFS I FILED WAS ON BEHALF OF OF 20 RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGES INCLUDING ONE WHO WAS A PARTNER AT MY FIRM AT THE TIME AND WHO WANTED TO MAKE A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT TO THE COURT CONCERNING THE DETENTION PROCESS. 
THESE WERE JUDGES NOMINATED BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS. IT MUST HAVE BEEN A DIVERSE GROUP. THEY MUST HAVE ASKED IF YOU BRIEF.
AND THEY DID, YES
AS PART OF YOUR WORK AT THE LAW FIRM, A RESPONSE ABILITY OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO THE PRESENT THIS. CRACKS THE OTHER TWO BRIEFS THAT I FILED WERE AT THE CERT STAGE AND MERIT STAGE. MY CLIENTS IN THOSE CASES WERE A DIVERSE GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING THE CATO INSTITUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT. MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE KNOW FULL WELL THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO REPRESENT OUR CLIENTS. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH REGARD TO THE DETAINEES. SOME OF THE VERY SENATORS WHO WERE OPENLY QUESTIONING YOU. JUDICIAL NOMINEES SHOULD NOT BE OPPOSED FOR THE ARGUMENTS THEY MADE IN THE COURSE OF REPRESENTING CLIENTS. I HAVE BEEN A MILITARY LAWYER FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS. I REPRESENTED PEOPLE AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE MILITARY THAT WERE CHARGED WITH SOME PRETTY HORRIFIC THINGS. THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WE ARE SO PROUD OF IN AMERICA REQUIRES THE UNPOPULAR TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE AND ADVOCATE. EVERY TIME A DEFENSE LAWYER FIGHTS TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT DO THEIR JOB, THAT DEFENSE LAWYER HAS MADE US ALL SAFER. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
I DO, SENATOR.
CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS FILED THIS -- THE LETTER SAID THE AMERICAN TRADITION IS AT LEAST AS OLD AS JOHN ADAMS'S REPRESENTATION OF BRITISH SOLDIERS CHARGED IN THE BOSTON MASSACRE. THE DEFENSE COUNSEL IS KEY TO ENSURING THAT MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE ACCESS TO THE BEST ARGUMENTS AND MOST RIGOROUS FACTUAL VISITATION. THE QUOTE -- YOUR WORK AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER, I DON'T KNOW IF IT DISQUALIFIES YOU OR MAKES YOU LEAN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT. I JUST HAD ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE REMAINING TIME. I WAS ON SUCH A ROLE. CHRIST YOU ARE HONORABLE AND WE WERE ON A ROLL. 
IF I COULD ASK ONE QUESTION OF THE CHAIRMAN. THE SENATOR MADE REFERENCE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROBATION OFFICE. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THOSE PROBATION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT IN THE RECORD. I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM. THAT RAISES TWO QUESTIONS. WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE IS PROVIDING DIFFERENT NOMINEES TO DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS AND REPUBLICAN MEMBERS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE SENATOR WOULD GET ACCESS TO THEM OTHER THAN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BUT SECONDLY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS DIFFERENTIAL, WITH CHAIRMAN A GREAT THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FOLK -- CONSIDERABLE FOCUS ON THIS? JACKSON HAS SAID THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING THE FACTORS IN THOSE CASES. 
CHRIST I AM SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT I WANT TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. WE WILL HAVE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
YOU WILL KEEP DIFFERENTIAL ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
I WILL LOOK IT UP. WE WILL TAKE 10 OR 15 MINUTES TO RELAX AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND WE HAVE TWO SENATORS WHO WILL BE RECOGNIZED AND THEN TAKE A BREAK FOR DINNER AND THEN WE WILL TRY TO FINISH TONIGHT WITH TWO REMAINING SENATORS. SENATOR ALLSOP AND SENATOR TILLIS WHO WILL BE FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. WE STAND IN RECESS. 
WE WANT TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR. SENATOR BLACKBURN, YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED THIS EVENING. SENATOR TILLIS WILL BE PAIRED TOMORROW WITH SENATOR ALLSOP FOR THE
I FELT LIKE WE SHOULD JUST FINISH TONIGHT.
WE ARE TRYING TO.
I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU ASKED IT TO BE ON THE PROGRAM TONIGHT AND WE WILL PUT YOU ON IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE START THIS QUESTIONING, RIGHT BEFORE THE BREAK, I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN -- WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMOCRATS HAD ACCESS TO JUDGE JACKSON'S JUDICIAL RECORD. YOU DID NOT ANSWER ME AT THE TIME. EACH OF THE REPUBLICANS WAS HANDED THIS PIECE OF PAPER. THIS IS A CHARTER PROBATION RECOMMENDATION. WE WERE JUST TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE IT TO DEMOCRATS. MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE REACTED IF THE WHITE HOUSE SHARED DIGITAL -- JUDICIAL? -- 
CHRIST YOUR OWN COUNSEL DECIDED
THAT IS THE DISCLOSURE TO THE WHOLE COMMITTEE. IN THIS CASE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ACCESS TO THAT YOU HAVE NOT SHARED WITH REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE? THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT RAISES THE INCIDENT. 
YOU ALWAYS DRAW YOUR OWN INFERENCES AND I KNOW WHERE MOST OF THEM HAD. CHRIST IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS DO NOT?
THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE THIS TO SOME OF US EARLIER BUT NOT ALL OF US. CHRIST IT WAS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THAT REQUESTED IT. CHRIST YOU HAD TO BE CLAIRVOYANT AND KNOW THAT THEY HAD IT? 
NO. IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW TO REQUEST IT
YOU WOULD KNOW THAT HE WANTS TO. ALL OF THIS INFORMATION BECAME RELEVANT TO COUNTERING.
I WOULD BE EXPECTED TO SAY "JEEZ."
THE POINT I AM GETTING TO IS AND YOU KNOW AS A GOOD LAWYER, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AVAILABLE. THEY ASKED FOR COPY AND WITHIN ONE HOUR OR TWO, YOU RECEIVED THE SAME COPY. 
WHEN DID YOU GUYS GET YOUR COPY?
SOMETIME TODAY.
THAT COVERS A LOT OF GROUND.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS.
DOES YOUR STAFF KNOW?
I TALKED TO THEM EARLIER.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS -- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE. I GOT THIS 10 MINUTES AGO. I AM VERY UPSET, I JOINED TED CRUZ.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT. WE HAD NO REFERENCE IN PRESENTENCE REPORTS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SELECTIVE INCORPORATION, WE HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE WHOLE REPORT. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THESE REPORTS. THEY HAVE BEEN MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE IN RELIANCE ON INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO. I THINK WE NEED TO BE GIVEN THOSE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW THIS TO A CONCLUSION. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW. HERE IS THE POINT. MOST OF THIS INFORMATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON POST FIVE DAYS AGO. THIS IS NOT -- 
WELL SO WOULD I
THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY ANY OF US, IS THIS AN ATTACK?
THIS IS REGARDING THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMES IMAGINABLE. DON'T CALL THESE QUESTIONS ATTACKS.
I HAVE CHARACTERIZED THEM AS ATTACKS AND OTHER THINGS AS WELL. I THINK IT IS CLEAR WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. NOW YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
JUDGE JACKSON SAID SHE RELIED ON THE PROBATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS. THE PROBATION OFFICE RECOMMENDED 18 MONTHS AND JUDGE JACKSON ONLY SENTENCED HIM TO THREE MONTHS. YOU CAN GET MORE THAN THAT ALMOST FOR A SPEEDING TICKET. GIVEN THAT SHE RAISED IT AS THE BASIS FOR HER SENTENCE, IT IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT THE PRESENTENCE REPORT SAYS. WHY DID THEY RECOMMEND 18 MONTHS AND SHE ONLY SENTENCED TO THREE MONTHS? 
IN THE CASE OF U.S. VERSUS HAWKINS, -- BRYCE IT IS THE PROBATION RECOMMENDATION. WE DON'T DISPUTE THAT THE GUIDELINE SAID IT TWO YEARS AGO.
THE GOVERNMENT PROBATION RECOMMENDED SENTENCE IS WELL BELOW THE GUIDELINES. THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED 24 MONTHS. THE DEFENSE RECOMMENDED ONE DAY. I AM TELLING YOU IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. 
I CANNOT HELP WHAT IS LINKED TO THE NEWSPAPER OR NOT. YOU KEEP REFERENCING DISCOVERY. THIS IS NOT LITIGATION. BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THE
FOR SOME REASON, YOURS I DID NOT REQUEST THE INFORMATION.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW TO REQUEST?
I REQUEST ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU MAGICALLY HAVE AND YOU ARE NOT SHARING WITH THE OTHER SIDE.
SO NOTED. WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONING.
WE ARE QUESTIONING THE PRESENTS OF REPORTS WHICH ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CRIME. IN 2019 THERE WERE ABOUT 16,000 MURDERS IN AMERICA AND IN 2020, THERE WERE MORE THAN 20,000. THAT IS A 25% INCREASE IN ONE YEAR. 2021 DATA IS NOT COMPLETE BUT WE KNOW MANY CITIES HAVE REACHED RECORD LEVELS OF MURDER INCLUDING PHILADELPHIA, ATLANTA AND MILWAUKEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRISON POPULATION HAS DECREASED BY ABOUT 14%. IN PART FROM PANDEMIC POLICIES BUT ALSO FROM FEWER PROSECUTIONS AND WEAKER SENTENCINGS. SAFE TO SAY THERE IS A SURGE IN CRIME. ESPECIALLY VIOLENT CRIME AND MURDER ACROSS AMERICA. YOU NOTED SOME MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUNDS AND I HONOR THEM AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE. DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED MORE POLICE OR FEWER POLICE? 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS YOU JUST NOTED, I HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MY BACKGROUND. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT CRIME CAUSES IN THE COMMUNITIES
I AM SORRY, WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES HERE. YOU HAVE A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT IS CONFIRMED. I ASKED A SIMPLE QUESTION. DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED MORE OR FEWER
THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE MORE OR FEWER POLICE IS A POLICY DECISION BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUDGES HAVE CONTROL OVER AND I WILL STAY IN MY LANE IN TERMS OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE PROPERLY IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. 
YOU DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICE NEEDS MORE OR FEWER POLICE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO SENTENCING. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SENTENCING. IS SOMEONE MORE LIKELY OR LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL BE CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED? 
SENATOR, WHAT IS IN MY LANE IS THE CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR CASES.
YOU SPOKE A LOT TODAY ABOUT CRIMINAL SENTENCING, THE FEAR OF SENTENCING. YOU HAVE WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT IT. IT IS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. IS SOMEONE MORE LIKELY OR LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIME IF THEY ARE MORE CERTAIN THEY WILL BE CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED? 
SENATOR, I AM AWARE FROM MY WORK ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION AND NOT AS A JUDGE THAT THERE IS RESEARCH INTO RECIDIVISM RATES, INTO REHABILITATION, INTO THE FACTORS THAT GO INTO DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE IS MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIME. PART OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT IS DETERRENCE, THE IDEA THAT IF SOMEONE IS CONVICTED AND PUNISHED, THEY WILL BE DETERRED FROM COMMITTING OTHER CRIMES. 
YOU MENTIONED THAT AND WRITTEN ABOUT THAT IN YOUR WRITINGS. ISN'T IT INHERENT IN THE CONCEPT OF DETERRENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIME IF THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED? WHY CAN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT IS THE CASE? QUESTION SENATOR, IT IS NOT THAT I AM AVOIDING SAYING THAT IS THE 
SENATOR, IT IS NOT THAT I AM AVOIDING SAYING THAT IS THE CASE.
THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN GENERAL WHEN YOU ASKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE PHENOMENA RELATED TO CRIME. IT IS THE THEORY BEHIND DETERRENCE THAT BY PUNISHING SOMEONE THEY WILL BE LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIME IN THE FUTURE, THAT IS THE THEORY -- 
DO YOU THINK THAT THEORY IS CORRECT?
THERE IS RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT DETERRENCE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN OCCUR. DOES IT HAPPEN IN EVERY CASE? I DO NOT SAY THAT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE AVERAGE INMATE SERVES IN AMERICA?
YES. THE ANSWER IS 17 YEARS ON AVERAGE. HIS 17 YEARS TOO LONG OR NOT LONG ENOUGH FOR CRIMINALS TO SPEND IN PRISON FOR MURDER?
THESE ARE POLICY QUESTIONS, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER THEY ARE IN CONGRESS, THEY ARE NOT THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I CAN OPINESEN. COTTON: 
YOU DON'T WANT TO OPINE ABOUT WHETHER OR 17 YEARS IS TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT A TIME SENTENCE FOR MURDER?  CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED A NUMBER OF FACTORS JUDGES LOOK AT WHEN THEY SENTENCE. IT MAY IN MANY CASES NOT BE. I CANNOT ANSWER IN THE ABSTRACT. 
LET'S TURN TO RAPE. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE AVERAGE INMATE CONVICTED OF RAPE SERVES IN AMERICA? JUDGE JACKSON:
RAPE IS NOT A CRIME IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH WORKING WITH, SO I DON'T KNOW. 
7.2 MONTHS. DO YOU THINK 7.2 MONTHS IS TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT FOR SOMEONE CONVICTED OF RAPE? TO BE SENTENCED TO PRISON? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, THAT IS A POLICY QUESTION ABOUT THE EGREGIOUS CRIME OF RAPE AND CONGRESS HAS SAID THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A NUMBER OF FACTORS WHEN IT SENTENCES. I CANNOT ANSWER IN THE ABSTRACT. 
THESE ARE NOT ABSTRACT. THESE ARE VERY CONCRETE. THESE ARE JUST THE LENGTH OF SENTENCE. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED. LET'S LOOK AT CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE NEVER CAUGHT. IN 2020, MURDERS INCREASED BY THE FASTEST RATE EVER IN THE UNITED STATES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MURDERS ARE SOLVED IN AMERICA?
I DO NOT. 
ABOUT HALF. 54% IN 2020. DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD CATCH AND IMPRISON MORE MURDERERS OR FEWER MURDERERS? JUDGE JACKSON: 
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. SO THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE RULE OF LAW. 
IS THAT A YES, WE SHOULD CATCH MORE MURDERERS, SPECIFICALLY THE 46% OF MURDERERS WHO GET AWAY WITH THAT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, -- 
IT IS A SIMPLE AND COMMON SENSE QUESTION. 46% OF MURDERS GO UNSOLVED. SHOULD WE CATCH MORE OF THOSE MURDERERS OR FEWER OF THEM? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, WE SHOULD HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. IF PEOPLE ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE, THAT'S A PROBLEM. 
LET'S TURN TO ASSAULTS. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ASSAULTS WERE SOLVED IN THIS COUNTRY IN 2020?
NO, SENATOR.
56% OF ALL ASSAULT VICTIMS DID NOT RECEIVE JUSTICE. SHOULD WE CATCH MORE CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT ASSAULT AGAINST INNOCENT PEOPLE OR FEWER? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. IF THEY ARE NOT, IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR THE RULE OF LAW. 
LET'S LOOK AT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND RAPES GO UNSOLVED IN THIS COUNTRY? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DO NOT, SENATOR.
77%. MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF ALL SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND RAPES GO UNSOLVED. DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD CATCH AND IMPRISON MORE RAPISTS AND SEX CRIMINALS OR FEWER?
SENATOR, ONE OF MY TWO UNCLES WAS A DETECTIVE IN THE SEXUAL CRIMES AND BATTERY UNIT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT TYPE OF CRIME. IT IS A HORRIBLE TYPE OF CRIME AS ARE ALL OF THESE YOU ARE ARTICULATING AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. FUNDAMENTAL TO THE RULE OF LAW. 
IN IT TO BE 20 ALONE, WELL OVER ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES WENT UNSOLVED. IN AMERICA. DO YOU THINK WE IMPRISON TOO MANY VIOLENT CRIMINALS OR NOT ENOUGH? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR RULE OF LAW TO ENSURE PEOPLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW IN THE WAYS THAT YOU MENTIONED AND OTHERWISE. 
DO YOU THINK THE FAMILIES OF ALL OF THOSE VICTIMS THINK? DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD -- THAT WE SHOULD ARREST ALL OF THESE CRIMINALS WHO GET AWAY WITH IT? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, I KNOW WITH THE FAMILY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THINK BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THEM. I KNOW WHAT CRIME DOES TO OUR SOCIETY. I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. AND AS A JUDGE, IT HAS BEEN MY DUTY WHEN I WAS AT THE TRIAL LEVEL -- I'M NO LONGER THERE, BUT WHEN I WAS AT THE TRIAL LEVEL, TO ENSURE PEOPLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. 
LET'S TURN TO THE CRIME OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT IT TODAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS DIFFERENCES IN CASES AND SENTENCES THEY GOT. LET ME ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT IT. SHOULD THE UNITED STATES STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN SENTENCES FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY'S? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, THAT IS NOT A SIMPLE QUESTION AND THE REASON IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY DOES IN TERMS OF PENALTIES IS AN CONGRESSES PROVINCE. YOU ALL DECIDE. YOU ALL DECIDE WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE, YOU DECIDE WHAT THE FACTORS ARE THE JUDGES USED TO SENTENCE. IF YOU DETERMINE THAT ANY SENT -- ANY SET OF PENALTIES IS INSUFFICIENT, THEN IT IS IN YOUR PURVIEW TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THERE ARE MANY CRIMES CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED WARRANT MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES, WARRANT OTHER KINDS OF PENALTIES, AND THAT IS IN YOUR PURVIEW TO DETERMINE. 
I SAY, JUDGE, WHETHER WE SHOULD STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN SENTENCES FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION. BUT I WILL MOVE ON. A BUNCH OF ELITE LAWYERS, WHETHER THEY ARE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OR LAW PROFESSORS THINK SENTENCES FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ARE TOO HARSH. I DON'T AND I'VE MET A LOT OF NORMAL AMERICANS WHO DON'T. YOU HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY SENTENCING IS A DISCRETIONARY ACT AND I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO USE YOUR DISCRETION IN THESE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES TO REDUCE THE SENTENCES. IF I HAD THAT DISCRETION, I WOULD PROBABLY THROW THE BOOK AT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY'S. MAYBE THAT IS JUST ME. LAST YEAR, MORE THAN 100,000 AMERICANS DIED FROM DRUG OVERDOSE. DRUG OVERDOSE DEATH AND GANG CRIME HAVE SKYROCKETED IN RECENT YEARS. AT THE SAME TIME A LOT OF LOWER SENTENCES HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED, INCLUDING ON OCCASION, BY YOURSELF. IN GENERAL, DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES SHOULD WEAKEN OR STRENGTHEN SENTENCES FOR FENTANYL TRAFFICKERS, NOT USERS? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS CHOOSES TO STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN PENALTIES FOR ANY CRIME IS A DETERMINATION OF THIS BODY, WHICH IS ORDINARILY MADE AFTER STUDY AND REVIEW COME A DETERMINATION, THAT IS IN THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS. 
JUDGE, YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE SENTENCING IS A DISCRETIONARY ACT. THAT IS LITERALLY THE JUDGE -- THE JOB OF THE JUDGE IN MANY CASES. JUDGE JACKSON:
RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, THE JUDGE MAKES THAT DETERMINATION NOT BASED ON ONE DATA POINT IN GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED ME -- IN GENERAL, SHOULD WE LOWER OR HEIGHTEN SENTENCES OF TOP AIDE JUDGE IS MAKING A DETERMINATION IN A PARTICULAR CASE, LOOKING AT ALL OF THE FACTORS. IT IS DISCRETIONARY, FOR SURE, BUT WE DO SO WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF A SENTENCING RANGE THAT CONGRESS PRESCRIBES AND AT TIMES, WHICH CONGRESS DECIDES A PENALTY NEEDS TO BE HEIGHTENED, THEY IMPOSE A MANDATORY MINIMUM THAT OUR RANGE IS SHORTER AND, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CRIME, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AS A POLICY MATTER ACROSS ALL FENTANYL CRIMES IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PENALTY SHOULD BE INCREASED. AS A JUDGE, WE ARE ASKED IN THE CONTEXT OF A SINGLE PROSECUTION REGARDING A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED A HORRIBLE CRIME, BUT ALSO SAYS CONGRESS IS A PERSON WHO HAS A LIFE, WHO HAS A JOB, CONGRESS HAS TOLD JUDGES THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT AND THEY DECIDE WHAT PENALTY TO IMPOSE IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE BETWEEN THE RANGE CONGRESS SETS. SO IT IS NOT A SITUATION WHICH I CAN, IN MY ROLE AS A JUDGE, TELL YOU AS A GENERAL MATTER WHETHER A PENALTY SHOULD BE INCREASED OR DECREASED. 
I HAVE TO SAY, I THINK THERE'S NOT MANY AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY NOT 100,000 AMERICANS WHOSE LOST SOMEONE TO DRUG OVERDOSE THINK THESE ARE TOUGH QUESTIONS, BUT LET'S MOVE ON. WHEN YOU ARE IN THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, YOU WERE FOR RETROACTIVELY REDUCING DRUG SENT -- DRUG TRAFFICKING SENTENCES. A DRUG KINGPIN DEALING FENTANYL GETS SENTENCED AND GETS LUCKY, GETS IN FRONT OF A NEW JUDGE WHO IS SYMPATHETIC AND THINKS HE GOT A RAW DEAL OR MAYBE HE GETS IN FRONT OF THE SAME JUDGE A FEW YEARS REMOVED FROM SEEING THE FACES OF THE VICTIMS OF HIS CRIME. DO YOU THINK RESENTENCING YEARS AFTER A CONVICTION TENS TO REDUCE SENTENCE LINKS -- SENTENCE LENGTHS? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, RESPECTFULLY, I WANTED TO REMARK ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT THESE ARE NOT DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT THAT THEY ARE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, IT IS THAT THEY ARE NOT QUESTIONS FOR ME. I'M NOT THE CONGRESS, I'M NOT MAKING POLICY AROUND SENTENCING. MY JOB IS TO LOOK AT A PARTICULAR CASE AND DECIDE WHAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE CONGRESS PRESCRIBED. 
I UNDERSTAND. YOU WERE MAKING POLICY AT THE SENATE COMMISSION AND IMPLEMENT A CHANGES TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES. DO YOU BELIEVE RESENTENCING YEARS AFTER CONVICTION TENS TO REDUCE SENTENCE LENGTHS? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY IF YOU RE-SENTENCE, YOU ARE GIVING THE JUDGE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGED PENALTIES. SOMETIMES THE JUDGE IN THAT NEW SITUATION WILL KEEP THE SAME PENALTY. A RESENTENCING IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE JUDGE TO REEVALUATE IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES. 
ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, RETROACTIVELY WEAKENING SENTENCING LAWS AND GUIDELINES LET'S HARDENED CRIMINALS OUT EARLY. AISLEWAYS HEAR THE ARGUMENT, I HEAR IT FROM SENATORS ON THIS PANEL, THAT EACH CASE THE GOES BEFORE A JUDGE, IT WON'T BE AN AUTOMATIC RELEASE BECAUSE EACH JUDGE IS GOING TO ASSESS THE FACTS IN THE ARGUMENTS. IN 2014, YOU SAID JUDGES WOULD NOT LIKELY REDUCE THE SENTENCES IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES IF SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING WERE REDUCED. I THINK YOU MISSED THAT ONE. WHEN RETROACTIVE REDUCTION TOOK EFFECT, APPROXIMATELY TWO THIRDS OF ALL CONVICTED DRUG TRAFFICKERS WHO ASKED FOR EARLY RELEASE GOT IT. THAT'S 31,614 HARDENED DRUG TRAFFICKERS BACK ON THE STREETS. MORE THAN 7500 OF THOSE HARDENED DRUG TRAFFICKERS USED WEAPONS AND THEIR CRIMES. THAT MEANS ONLY ONE THIRD OF THESE DRUG TRAFFICKERS WHO SOUGHT TO HAVE A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN THEIR SENTENCE WERE DENIED. IS ONE THIRD A VAST MAJORITY? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE NUMBERS BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THIS IS A RETROACTIVE RELEASE THAT WAS A RESULT OF THE SENTENCING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS OR CONGRESSES. CONGRESS MADE A DECISION ABOUT RETROACTIVE REDUCTIONS IN DRUG PENALTIES, SO I'M NOT SURE -- 
WE ALWAYS HEAR THE ARGUMENT, WHETHER IT'S FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING SENATORS ON HIS COMMITTEE OR THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, THAT WE SHOULDN'T WORRY, THAT THERE WILL BE INDIVIDUALIZED CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION. JUDGE JACKSON:
THAT IS MY EXPERIENCE. WHEN THERE IS A RETROACTIVE CHANGE, WHAT HAPPENS IS WHETHER IT IS THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE CHANGED OR THE LAWS THAT ARE CHANGED, WHICH HAPPENS IN CONGRESS, THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO APPLY THAT RETROACTIVELY, PLAY THAT CHANGE SO BOTH THE PEOPLE WHO GET CONVICTED OF THAT PENALTY MOVING FORWARD AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED, BOTH OF THEM GET THE BENEFIT OF THE CHANGE IF THEY DETERMINATION IS MADE TO MAKE IT RETROACTIVE. UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, WHERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A PENALTY CHANGE APPLIED TO PRIOR PEOPLE, EACH ONE OF THOSE PRIOR PEOPLE GOES BACK FOR A JUDGE AND A JUDGE, USUALLY THE SENTENCING JUDGE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WILL REEVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT -- THIS IS GENERALLY, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE JUDGE WILL REEVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE THAT PERSON THE BENEFIT OF THE CHANGE. THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS REQUIRES IN EVERY SENTENCE AND ULTIMATELY , ONE THAT BENEFITS ALL OF US UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE JUDGES ARE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT THESE CASES AND NOT MAKE GENERALIZED DETERMINATIONS. 
SO THE 2014 COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION. BUT WHETHER IT'S IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONER CONGRESS, WE ALWAYS HEAR THIS ARGUMENT THAT JUDGES ARE GOING TO MAKE INDIVIDUALIZED CASES AND NOT MANY WILL BE RELEASED. OF THE ONE THIRD THAT WERE NOT REDUCED, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE WERE NOT ELIGIBLE. THE PERCENTAGE OF CASES IN WHICH A SENTENCE IS NOT REDUCED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, BECAUSE SOMEONE IS VIEWED AS TO DANGEROUS IS 1%. JUDGE, DO YOU REMEMBER A MAN NAMED KEITH YOUNG? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES. 
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS MR. YOUNG'S SITUATION. 
I ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION. DID YOU CONTACT THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, MR. YOUNG WAS NOT RELEASED. HIS SENTENCE WAS REDUCED AND I DID NOT CONTACT THE VICTIMS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VICTIMS. HE COMMITTED A CRIME, A DRUG CRIME. THERE WERE NO IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS IN HIS CASE. 
DRUG CRIME IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME. 100,000 AMERICANS WERE KILLED BY OVERDOSES. JUDGE JACKSON:
UNDERSTOOD, SENATOR, BUT THERE WAS NO ONE TO CONTACT.
HE FILED A MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND YOU DENIED THAT RIGHTLY, BUT YOU REDUCED HIS SENTENCE. HE DIDN'T FILE A MOTION TO REDUCE HIS SENTENCE. HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RETROACTIVE TOWARD HIM. YOU TOOK A MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE TO GET OUT OF PRISON AND TURNED IT INTO A MOTION TO REDUCE A SENTENCE SO HE WILL BE RELEASED SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS EARLIER, YEARS FROM NOW. LAST WEEK, JUDGE, WHEN WE TALKED, YOU TALKED ABOUT INITIAL RESTRAINT. IS TRANSFORMING HIS MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE INTO A MOTION TO REDUCE A SENTENCE FOR THIS DRUG TRAFFICKING KINGPIN AN EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
JUDGE, CONGRESS DID CHANGE THE LAW AND THE FIRST STEP ACT. THAT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY DID NOT MAKE THAT CHANGE RETROACTIVELY AND USE ALL THAT AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS DID NOT MAKE IT METRO -- DID NOT MAKE IT RETROACTIVE. YOU CHOSE TO RELY -- TO REWRITE THE LAW BECAUSE YOU ARE SYMPATHETIC TO A FENTANYL DRUG KINGPIN WHO YOU HAD EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION AT HAVING SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU TWISTED THE LAW AND REWROTE IT. YOU CUT THE SENTENCE OF A DRUG KINGPIN. THAT IS WHAT YOU DID. JUDGE JACKSON:
RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, I DISAGREE. CONGRESS PROVIDED JUDGES THROUGH THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION MECHANISM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW SENTENCES. CONGRESS, PRIOR TO THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MECHANISM BEING ENACTED, A JUDGE WHO IMPOSED A SENTENCE WOULD HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT. IN MR. YOUNG'S CASE, THE QUESTION WAS WITH THIS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION, UNDER A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH CONGRESS HAD CHANGED THE LAW, WAS THAT AN EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE TO REVISIT HIS SENTENCE AND I MADE A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS. 
I SUPPOSE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED, WE CAN COUNT ON YOU TO ALWAYS RULE IN FAVOR OF RETROACTIVITY NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BECAUSE IT WAS A BLATANT, BLATANT REWRITE OF THE LAW SO YOU COULD REDUCE THE SENTENCE OF A DRUG KINGPIN YOU DID NOT LIKE SENTENCING TO 20 YEARS IN THE FIRST PLACE. JUDGE JACKSON:
NO, SENATOR, IT WAS NOT. 
APPROACHING 11 HOURS OF A LONG DAY AND, FORGIVE ME, I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY EARLIER SENATORS, LINDSEY GRAHAM. I THINK HE ASK YOU SOMETHING AND I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT THIS WAY -- ON A SCALE FROM ONE TO 10, HOW DEEP IS YOUR FAITH THAT I WON'T ASK THAT QUESTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
ARE YOU ASKING ME OR YOU WON'T ASK ME? 
I WON'T ASK YOU, BUT I DO WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS MY COLLEAGUES DID ON TOPLINE AND SOME OF IT I FOUND TODAY JUST DIDN'T REALLY HOLD WATER. I WANT TO START WITH MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, TED CRUZ, WHO IS MY FRIEND. HE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE TEXANS. A LOT OF TIMES IN THIS CULTURE OF POLITICS, THE REALITY IS WE KNOW EACH OTHER, WE GET TO GO GET -- WE GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER OVER YEARS AND I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH TED ON A LOT OF GOOD POLICY. I WENT BACK AND RE-LISTENED TO HIS QUESTIONING OF YOU ABOUT CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND HE REFERENCED YOUR SPEECH, WHICH I HAD NOT READ, YOU HARVARD FOLKS ARE SO FOCUSED ON THESE THINGS. I READ YOUR SPEECH AND I WAS VERY SURPRISED. TED HAD A VERY BIG CHART. I THINK HE NEEDS TO GIVE SENATOR WHITEHOUSE SOME ADVICE ON CHARTS. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF THEY WERE PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR STATE SIZES. [LAUGHTER] I WOULD REQUEST MY COLLEAGUES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STOP INTERRUPTING ME. HE TALKED ABOUT YOUR SPEECH AND I READ YOUR SPEECH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT. HE ACKNOWLEDGES COME A VERY POWERFUL MOVING SPEECH ABOUT EXTRA ORDINARY LACK WOMEN. I HAVE A CRITICISM THAT YOUR MOTHER WAS NOT IN IT BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT ALONE. THERE IS SOMETHING HE HONED IN ON, ALMOST AS IF IT SEEMED TO BE ACCUSATIONS WHICH DON'T HOLD MERIT. WE HAVE A SAYING IN NEW JERSEY, I FELT IT WAS ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE. HE SAID YOU CALLED THE WOMAN WHO WROTE THE 1619 PROJECT, THAT YOU CALLED HER PROVOCATIVE. THAT'S NOT A COMPLIMENT NECESSARILY IF YOU CALL SOMEONE PROVOCATIVE, IS IT? JUDGE JACKSON:
NO. 
I THINK TED CRUZ IS VERY PROVOCATIVE AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYING, HIS PHILOSOPHY OR HIS STATEMENTS. BUT HE POINTED OUT YOU CALLED THE AUTHOR ACCLAIMED. SHE WON A PULITZER PRIZE, CORRECT, SO SHE IS ACCLAIMED. JUDGE JACKSON: 
SHE IS. 
BUT NOWHERE ARE YOU HERALDING HER AS THIS IS A REFLECTION OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY.
CORRECT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AT ALL. ANOTHER PART OF HIS CHART -- PRICKLE RACE THEORY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICIES IN GENERAL. I WENT BACK TO THAT TALK AND SAW YOU THROUGH EVERYTHING IN THERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY, ECONOMICS, ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISCIPLINES AS TOUCHING UPON THE LAW. EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE IN THERE EXCEPT ASTROLOGY. YOU UNDERSTAND LISTING A LIST OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE TOUCH THE LAW, THEY WERE NOT YOUR PHILOSOPHIES AND ALL. JUDGE JACKSON: 
CORRECT, AND THAT SPEECH WAS NOT RELATED TO WHAT I DO AS A JUDGE. THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT SENTENCING POLICY AND ALL THE DIFFERENT ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES THAT MIGHT RELATE TO IT. 
FINALLY, WE ARE ENTERING AN AGE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY WHERE LOTS OF FOLKS ARE BEING BANNED AND LOTS OF TALKS ABOUT BOOKS BEING READ. YOU ARE ON THE BOARD OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND YOU HAVE NO SUPERVISION OR AUTHORITY OVER WHAT BOOKS THE CHILDREN READ IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL, CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
CORRECT. 
I APPRECIATE THAT. JUMPING QUICKLY TO A LOT OF TALK TODAY ABOUT THESE CHILD EXPLOITATION CASES. SENATOR DURBIN, I THINK JOSH HAWLEY USED THE WORD TACT. I DON'T KNOW AT THAT POINT OF SENSITIVITY WAS. INDIVIDUAL CASES, WE'VE HEARD ABOUT TO YOU HAVE PRESIDED OVER AS A JUDGE, YOU RESIDED OVER MORE THAN 10 OR 15 CASES? JUDGE JACKSON:
I'VE PRESIDED OVER 14 CASES THAT INVOLVED CHILD SEX CRIMES, BUT OVER MY CAREER, I'VE PRESIDED OVER MORE THAN 100. 
CASES ARE HEAVILY FACT-SPECIFIC.
THAT'S TRUE.
DO YOU REMEMBER ALL THE FACTS IN THE CASE SENATOR HAWLEY --
I DO NOT.
AND FACTS MATTER. YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE FACT OF THE CASE, NOT JUST WHAT MIGHT BE TALKED ABOUT LATER, YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT AND MAKE A DECISION, CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED JUDGES TO DO. 
YOU WENT TO THIS ELITE LAW SCHOOL -- I WENT TO A GRITTY INNER-CITY LAW SCHOOL, YALE. YOU KNOW THIS BETTER THAN ME BUT IT WAS 1984 THAT THE SENTENCING LAWS, SENTENCING STANDARDS WERE PASSED DOWN, CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
I BELIEVE SO. 
LATER IN 2003, THINGS WERE UPDATED. AT 1984 WAS BEFORE THE INTERNET AND I WANT TO CLARIFY, THE BOOKER DECISION, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD -- NO RELATION TO ME WHATSOEVER? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE BOOKER DECISION, WHICH EARLIER, I MENTIONED SCALIA WROTE IT -- IN FACT IT WAS JUSTICE STEVENS. JUSTICE SCALIA HAD WRITTEN A PREVIOUS DECISION THAT WAS SIMILAR. THE BOOKER DECISION MADE THE GUIDELINES, THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ADVISORY. 
WHY? WHY WOULD THE SUPREME COURT DO THAT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THEY DETERMINED, IN ESSENCE, IF THE GUIDELINES WERE MANDATORY, THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL TO HAVE JURORS DECIDE EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR SENTENCING. 
IT IS SORT OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
YES.
THAT GIVES JUDGES LATITUDE.
YES.
MY BROTHER WAS A POLICE OFFICER IN BALTIMORE. 
THE GENTLEMAN OVER THERE?
YES.
WHO VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. AND YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT POLICE WORK.
YES.
THE NICKNAME OF OUR CITY IS BRICK CITY. YOUR BROTHER AND I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. THE MAJORITY OF MURDER VICTIMS IN THE UNITED STATES AMERICA, DO YOU KNOW WHO THE MAJORITY OF MURDER VICTIMS ARE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DON'T. 
THEY ARE BLACK MEN. I IMAGINE YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR BROTHER AND TWO UNCLES , YOU WHO HAVE PATROLLED SOME OF THE STREETS, I IMAGINE YOU FEEL IN A DIFFERENT WAY ABOUT THE ANGUISH OF WHAT MANY COMMUNITIES OF COLOR STRUGGLE WITH WHEN IT COMES TO CRIME, MY RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YOU ARE RIGHT, SENATOR. IT IS VERY ANGUISHING AND IT IS SOMETHING I KNOW ALL TOO WELL. 
AND YOU ARE A PERSON HAS -- WHO HAS THE SAME FEAR MANY MOTHERS HAVE WITH DAUGHTERS WHO DO GO OUT INTO THIS WORLD -- MY MOM USED TO SAY WHEN YOU HAVE A CHILD, IT'S LIKE YOUR HEART GOING AROUND OUTSIDE YOUR BODY ALL THE SUDDEN. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE, GIVEN YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND, YOU ARE A MOM, THAT YOU TAKE ANY OF THIS URGENCY TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE -- AND THEN I SEE FOLKS I KNOW WELL, I'VE WORKED -- I THOUGHT JIM PASCOE, BEFORE I KNEW HIM AT FIRST I THOUGHT HE WAS AN OGRE, THE BIGGEST POLICE UNION -- I HAD SOME TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS AND HE AND I SAT DOWN AND WE SHARED OUR STORIES AND WE REALIZE WE WERE COMING FROM THE SAME PLACE WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON POLICE REFORM. FOP ENDORSED YOU AND THEY WROTE A POWERFUL LETTER. I WON'T READ IT AGAIN. THE IFP -- THE IFC P REPRESENTS THE BOSSES AND MANAGERS. THEY ENDORSE YOU. ANOTHER GROUP CALLED NOBLE, DO YOU KNOW THEM? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DO. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I INHERITED A NUMBER OF BEDROCK VALUES, AS YOU SAY, FROM MY EXTRA ORDINARY PARENTS. AS I MENTIONED, MY PARENTS GREW UP IN A TIME IN THIS COUNTRY IN WHICH BLACK CHILDREN AND WHITE CHILDREN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO SCHOOL TOGETHER. THEY PERSEVERED, THEY WERE THE FIRST IN THEIR FAMILIES TO GO TO COLLEGE, TO HAVE THAT CHANCE. THEY EACH WENT TO HISTORICALLY BLACK UNIVERSITIES AND THEY TAUGHT ME HARD WORK. THEY TAUGHT ME PERSEVERANCE. THEY TAUGHT ME THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY. AND I THINK IT CAME, AS I SAID IN MY INTRODUCTION, FROM THE SEA CHANGE THAT WE HAD IN THIS COUNTRY FROM THE 1960'S WHERE CONGRESS PASSED TO CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS FINALLY HAD THE CHANCE TO BECOME A PART OF THE DREAM, TO BECOME A PART OF THE FABRIC OF THIS WONDERFUL NATION. MY PARENTS MOVED TO WASHINGTON, D.C. BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE IT ALL STARTED FOR THEM IN TERMS OF HAVING NEW FREEDOMS. AND I WAS BORN HERE. ON THAT HOPE AND DREAM. I WAS BORN HERE WITH AN AFRICAN NAME THAT MY PARENTS GAVE ME TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRIDE, THEIR PRIDE IN WHO THEY WERE AND THEIR PRIDE AND HOPE IN WHAT I COULD BE. 
AND IT SEEMS TO ME, AS A GUY WHOSE PARENTS CAME HERE -- YOU AND I WERE BOTH BORN HERE MONTHS APART. I WOULD HEAR MY PARENTS TELL STORIES AT THE DINNER TABLE ABOUT FACING BIGOTRY. MY FATHER TOLD STORIES ABOUT HIS EARLY JOBS BUT I NEVER NOTICED A HINT OF BITTERNESS OR THAT HATE HE SAW NEVER GENERATED HATE IN HIM. HE JUST LOVE PEOPLE. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THAT IS CORRECT, SENATOR AND I WOULD SAY MY WONDERFUL PARENTS WENT ON TO BECOME EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC SERVANTS. THEY HAD NEW OPPORTUNITY. THEY COULD HAVE DONE OTHER THINGS, BUT EACH OF THEM DECIDED TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. MY MOTHER WAS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. SHE WAS A TEACHER AND THEN BECAME AN ADMINISTRATOR AND BECAME THE PRINCIPAL OF A MAGNET SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS IN MIAMI. A NEW SCHOOL THAT HAD STARTED UP AND BECAME THE BELOVED PRINCIPAL OF NEW WORLD SCHOOL OF THE ARTS. SO MANY OF HER STUDENTS CONTINUE TO SEE ME, MEET ME, AND THEY KNOW ME THROUGH MY MOTHER. 
AND SHE HAD DIVERSE STUDENTS AND SHE LOVED ALL THOSE CHILDREN, BLACK, WHITE, ASIAN --
EVERY ONE.
I WANT TO PUSH YOU A LITTLE MORE. I HAVE SOME PEOPLE I RESPECT ON THE OTHERS OF THE AISLE. FAITH IS IMPORTANT -- I WAS TEASING SENATOR GRAHAM EARLIER. BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO ASK A THING SPECIFIC ABOUT YOUR FAITH EXCEPT THIS BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I DON'T THINK BLACK WOMEN HAVE ANY PROVIDENCE OVER STRUGGLE. PEOPLE FROM ALL BACKGROUNDS IN AMERICA STRUGGLE. BUT I DO KNOW OFTEN, AS TRAILBLAZING BLACK WOMEN, THEY HAVE OFTEN FACED MANY CHALLENGES BEING THE FIRST OR BEING A TRAILBLAZER. I KNOW ON YOUR JOURNEY TO THIS MOMENT RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE FACED VERY TOUGH MOMENTS. YOU PROBABLY HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN BY LIFE. I ALWAYS SAY IF AMERICA HASN'T BROKEN YOUR HEART, YOU DON'T LOVE HER ENOUGH. YOU'VE BEEN HEARTBROKEN BY CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU HAVE BEEN LIKE ZORA NEALE HURSTON WHO SAYS I'VE BEEN THROUGH TROUBLES KITCHEN. YOU'VE BEEN LIKE LANGTON HUGHES -- LIFE FOR ME HAS BEEN NO CRYSTAL STAIR. COULD YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT ONE MOMENT OR WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU GET KNOCKED DOWN LIKE THAT? WHERE DO YOU GET THE GRIT AND THE GUT'S TO GET BACK UP? AND KEEP ON GOING? JUDGE JACKSON: 
WELL, SENATOR, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING I LEARNED FROM MY GRANDPARENTS, WHO, AS I SAID, DIDN'T HAVE IT EASY. MY GRANDPARENTS, WHO DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF FORMAL EDUCATION, BUT WHO ARE THE HARDEST WORKING PEOPLE I'VE EVER KNOWN AND WHO JUST GOT UP EVERY DAY AND PUT ONE FOOT AFTER THE OTHER AND PROVIDED FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND MADE SURE THEIR CHILDREN WENT TO COLLEGE EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER HAD THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. I REFLECT ON THEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS HISTORIC MOMENT. I STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF PEOPLE FROM THAT GENERATION. AND I FOCUS AT TIMES ON MY FAITH, WHEN I'M GOING THROUGH HARD TIMES. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS I LEARNED FROM MY GRANDMOTHER, USED TO HAVE THOSE FAMILY DINNERS AND BRING US ALL TOGETHER AND I THINK THAT'S A COMMON EXPERIENCE OF AMERICANS. WHEN YOU GO THROUGH DIFFICULT TIMES, YOU LEAN INTO FAMILY AND TURN TO FAITH. THAT IS PART OF MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL. 
I WANT TO GIVE YOU -- THERE'S ONE THING ABOUT YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. I HAVE TO SAY, I HAVEN'T SHAKEN YOUR HUSBAND'S HAND YET, BUT YESTERDAY I WAS MAD AT HIM BECAUSE WHEN HE STARTED TEARING UP AT YOUR REMARKS ABOUT HIM -- IT TRIGGERED A SYMPATHETIC CRY AND ME AS WELL. SO I'M A LITTLE UPSET AT HIM. BUT I WILL DEAL WITH HIM INDIVIDUALLY. YOU SAID SOMETHING I FOUND PROVOCATIVE, TO USE THAT WORD ONE MORE TIME. I FELT -- I EVEN TALKED TO MY STAFF ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT STATEMENT DID NOT SEEM CONGRUENT TO ME. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A PROFESSION OF HUMILITY OR OVERLY CRITICAL OF YOURSELF, BUT I WANT TO END IN MY LAST FIVE MINUTES, GIVING YOU A SPACE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF TO ME BECAUSE MUCH TO MY MOMS CHAGRIN, I'M NOT A PARENT YET AND I'M LOOKING AT SOMEBODY THAT I ADMIRE, BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT STRUCK ME BECAUSE MY MOM WAS A WORKING MOM . AND, GOD, IT WAS TOUGH. MY COLLEAGUES WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, BUT THERE WAS A TIME I WAS VERY MELODRAMATIC AND I WAS IN AN OATMEAL BATHTUB, MY MOM WAS GETTING READY TO GO ON A BUSINESS TRIP AND I LOOK AT HER WITH THESE SAD EYES AND I SAY MOM, IF YOU LEAVE ME, I WILL DIE. SHE LOOKED AT ME KNOWING YOU DON'T DIE FROM THE CHICKENPOX, BUT I REMEMBER GOING TO THE BONE -- SHE WOULD TELL ME LATER THAT SHE LOVED ME. BUT A LOT OF WOMEN WHO LOVE THEIR KIDS CAN'T STAY HOME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PAID FAMILY LEAVE IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU SIT IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN AS GOOD OF A PARENT -- I THINK IF I'M PARAPHRASING RIGHT -- AS GOOD OF A MOM AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE. AND I LOOK AT YOUR TWO GIRLS AND I LOOK AT YOU AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT STATEMENT. COULD YOU MAYBE EXPLAIN FOR ME WHAT YOU MEANT AND MAYBE TAKE ONE MORE BEAT AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU TO BE A MOM OF TWO YOUNG WOMEN GROWING UP IN AMERICA TODAY? JUDGE JACKSON:
THANK YOU, SENATOR. WHAT I SAID IN MY STATEMENT WAS THAT I HAD STRUGGLED, LIKE SO MANY WORKING MOMS, TO JUGGLE MOTHERHOOD AND CAREER. IT TAKES A LOT OF HARD WORK TO BECOME A JUDGE, TO DO THE WORK OF A JUDGE, WHICH I HAVE DONE NOW FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. YOU HAVE A LOT OF CASES, YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THAT MANY RESOURCES, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, AND IT'S A LOT OF EARLY MORNINGS AND LATE NIGHTS. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THERE WILL BE HEARINGS DURING YOUR DAUGHTERS RECITAL, THERE WILL BE EMERGENCIES ON BIRTHDAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HANDLE. AND I KNOW SO MANY YOUNG WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY HAVE SMALL KIDS WHO HAVE THESE MOMENTOUS EVENTS AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE. YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR MOM MAKING THE CHOICE TO MAKE SURE SHE CARED FOR YOU IN THAT MOMENT AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS. THERE ARE OTHER TIMES WHEN THERE ARE EVENTS THAT YOU WISH YOU COULD BE A PART OF BUT HERE IS THE EMERGENCY CASE YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH. SO, I SAID IN MY OPENING THAT GIRLS, YOU'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH ME JUGGLING MOTHERHOOD AND JOB RESPONSIBILITIES AND I DIDN'T ALWAYS GET THE BALANCE RIGHT. I WOULD HOPE, FOR THEM, SEEING ME HOPEFULLY, YOU ALL WILL CONFIRM ME, SEEING ME MOVE TO THE SUPREME COURT, THAT THEY CAN KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE PERFECT IN YOUR CAREER TRAJECTORY AND YOU CAN STILL END UP DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. YOU JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE WORLD AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A PERFECT MOM, BUT IF YOU DO YOUR BEST AND LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, THAT THINGS WILL TURN OUT OK. 
I'M SURE YOUR MOM PROBABLY FEELS SHE WASN'T PERFECT, BUT THINGS HAVE TURNED OUT OK. AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS -- I'M SURE THEY HAVE SAID IT AND IF THEY HAVEN'T, I'M SURE THEY WILL. THE OLDER I GET, THE MORE I APPRECIATE MY PARENTS. I KNOW THEY ARE PROUD OF YOU. I SIT AT HOME IN A ROOM OF MY ANCESTORS WHERE I HAVE GENERATIONS OF MY ANCESTORS PICTURES UP AND THERE ARE BLACK FOLK AND WHITE FOLK -- I HAVE A VERY INTERESTING FAMILY TREE. I SIT THERE AND FEEL MY ANCESTORS SOMETIMES AND THINK ABOUT THEM. I HOPE RIGHT NOW THAT YOU KNOW, AT THAT DESK, THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF SPIRITS AROUND YOU WITH THEIR HANDS ON YOU. NOT ONLY YOUR CHILDREN AND PARENTS, BUT SO ARE YOUR ANCESTORS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR BOOKER AND JUDGE JACKSON. A LOT OF POLITICIANS ON THIS COMMITTEE, 22 OF THEM. THERE'S ONLY ONE CORY BOOKER. WHEN HE DOES HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE HUMAN SIDE, I ALWAYS WAIT TO SEE CAN THE WITNESS GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT NO EMOTION. THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT THERE AS YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR FAMILY, PARENTS AND CHILDREN. CORY, YOU ARE ONE-OF-A-KIND. WE HAVE THREE MORE TO ASK QUESTIONS TONIGHT -- SENATOR KENNEDY, SENATOR PADILLA SENATOR BLACKBURN. WE ARE GOING TO BREAK FOR 20 MINUTES, GRAB A BITE TO EAT, FRESHEN UP, COME BACK FOR THE LAST ROUND. THE SENATE STANDS IN RECESS.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, JUDGE. I HAVE ENJOYED LISTENING TO YOU TODAY. I FIND YOU TO BE VERY INTELLIGENT AND VERY ARTICULATE. I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCERTAIN ABOUT HOW YOU THINK, HOW YOU APPROACH CASES, DECIDING CASES, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU, NOR SHOULD I, HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE A CASE. I'M NOT CAN ASK YOU, NOR SHOULD I, WHETHER YOU THINK A PARTICULAR PRECEDENT IS A GOOD PRECEDENT OR NOT. BUT I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE LAW. BUT FIRST, YOU DON'T SUPPORT EFFORTS TO DELEGITIMIZE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, DO YOU? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I HAVE NOTHING BUT ESTEEM FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, WHERE MY HOPEFULLY FUTURE COLLEAGUES ON THE COURT IN THE WORKS THAT THE COURT DOES. 
CANNOT WE AGREE THAT THE CALLS TO PACK THE COURT DELEGITIMIZE THE COURT? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME, IN MY VIEW, TO COMMENT ON CALLS TO PACK THE COURTS, AS YOU SAY, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER, TO DO ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES, THOSE ARE POLICY DETERMINATIONS FOR CONGRESS. WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ARE FOR CONGRESS, I'M JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE BRILLIANT PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE AT WHATEVER CONGRESS DECIDES, IF I'M CONFIRMED. 
THE CALLS TO PACK THE COURT DON'T LEGITIMIZE THE COURT, DO THEY?
SENATOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE FOR YOU TO DECIDE.
I'M ASKING YOUR OPINION. JUDGE JACKSON: 
RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE MY OPINION ON ISSUES THAT ARE POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING THE COURTS AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT A JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER OR SHOULD CONSIDER, IN MY VIEW. 
YOU ARE A CITIZEN.
I'M.
AS BEST I CAN TELL, A VERY GOOD ONE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WON'T WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE. TELL ME WHY YOU ALWAYS AND ON THIS ISSUE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT ENSURING THAT JUDGES REMAIN OUT OF POLITICAL DEBATES. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DEBATED, IT IS SOMETHING THAT OTHER NOMINEES, JUSTICE BARRETT WAS ASKED ABOUT THE SAME SORT OF THING, AND ALSO DECLINED TO GIVE HER OPINION. I THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. 
SO YOU THINK JUDGE BARRETT WAS A TO JUDGE -- TO DODGE THE QUESTION?
I THINK THAT EACH JUDGE HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ISSUES. I KNOW THAT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE . IN PART BECAUSE I AM SO COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS CONFIDENCE IN ME, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN MY ABILITY TO STAY IN MY LIFE -- IN MY LANE, MY ABILITY TO NOT SPEAK TO CONTENTIOUS POLITICAL ISSUES. 
YOU HAVE AN OPINION THOUGH, DON'T YOU? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, ANY OPINION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD EVER COME UP. IN MY WORK AS A JUDGE, SOMETHING I WOULD EVER RELY ON. THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE FOR CONGRESS. 
BUT DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION, JUDGE?
NOT A STRONGLY HELD OPINION.  BUT -- SEN.
BUT YOU HAVE AN OPINION? JUDGE JACKSON:
I HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BUT I HEAR THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES AND I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE A POLITICAL ISSUE.
JUDGE, YOU ARE VERY INTELLIGENT AND YOU ARE VERY ARTICULATE, AND I KNOW YOU ARE VERY WELL-INFORMED. YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT PACKING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION THAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE TO SHARE. I WORKED VERY HARD TO SET ASIDE MY OPINIONS WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT CASES, WHICH IS THE WORK OF A JUDGE. SO, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS ONE THAT IS VERY CONTENTIOUS, AS YOU SAY. WHEN THAT'S IN THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS, AND ONE THAT I THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO COMMENT ON. 
I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK IT WOULD TELL US A LOT ABOUT YOU IF YOU WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR ANSWER EARLIER, AND IT'S PROBABLY MORE MY FAULT THAN YOURS. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THESE EFFORTS TO PACK THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DELEGITIMIZE THE COURT? DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THE EFFORT, IT'S NOT AN OPINION THAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SHARE. THEREFORE, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD. 
SO YOU DO HAVE AN OPINION, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME AS A NOMINEE TO COMMENT ON A POLITICAL MATTER THAT'S IN THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS? 
WILL DECIDING TO JOIN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IF YOU ARE AFFIRMED, WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU WHETHER YOU ARE ONE OF NINE OR ONE OF 28? THAT IMPACTS THE JUDICIARY, THAT INVOLVES THE JUDICIARY. 
SENATOR, IT CERTAINLY INVOLVES THE JUDICIARY, I WOULD BE THRILLED TO BE ONE OF HOWEVER MANY CONGRESS THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO PUT ON THE COURT. 
OK.
SO YOU WOULD BE OK IF IT WAS 28?
IF THAT WAS CONGRESS --
IF THAT WAS CONGRESS DETERMINATION, YES, THE CONGRESS MAKES DECISIONS LIKE THAT.
OK.
A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES ASK YOU ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNING PRECEDENT. NOW, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY OTHER THURSDAY, BUT IT'S NOT -- WHAT'S THE WORD I'M SEARCHING FOR, JUDGE? IT'S NOT EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS PRECEDENT, IS IT? I MEAN IT HAPPENS, I WOULDN'T SAY A LOT, BUT IT'S NOT ONCE EVERY 50 YEARS, MI CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT'S MORE FREQUENT THAN ONCE EVERY 50 YEARS, FOR SURE. 
SO WHAT HAPPENS?
YES.
YOU TALKED EARLIER BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT THE COURT CONSIDERS . HIT THAT AND JUST GIVE ME A COUPLE. JUDGE JACKSON:
WEATHERED THE DECISION IS EGREGIOUSLY WRONG, WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN RELIANCE ON THE DECISION THAT IS BEING REVISITED, WHETHER THE DECISION IS WORKABLE OR UNWORKABLE, THE ONE THEY ARE LOOKING AT. WHETHER THE FACTS ARE NEW FACTS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT, OR THE FACTS -- THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT THERE IS NOW A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRIOR FACTS , AND WHETHER THE CASE LAW IN THE AREA HAS SHIFTED. 
IN FACT, THOSE ARE THE FACTORS THAT THE SUPREME COURT LISTED THREE YEARS AGO AND JANICE, ARE THEY NOT? JUDGE JACKSON:
THOSE ARE THE FACTORS. I DON'T HAVE THE JANICE OPINION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTORS FOR THE COURT. 
JANICE OVERRULED, I THINK THIS SENATOR TALKED ABOUT IT, JANICE OVERRULED -- DEALING WITH WHETHER LABOR UNIONS CAN REQUIRE NON-MEMBERS TO PAY DUES. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES. 
IS THE AGE OF A CASE A FACTOR IN WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT WON'T RULE A PRECEDENT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I THINK AGE RELATES TO THE RELIANCE FACTOR. I THINK THE LONGER AN OPINION HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT TO BE RELEVANT TO ITS DETERMINATION OF RELIANCE. 
BUT SOMETIMES THE COURT LOOKS AT IT NOT JUST IN TERMS OF RELIANCE, THEY LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AGE ISSUE, AND THAT IS THAT THERE MAY BE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND SCIENCE HAVE CHANGED, DO THEY NOT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I BELIEVE THAT IS PART OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES FACTOR. 
SO, THE SUPREME COURT IS MORE LIKELY TO OVERTURN A CASE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE THAT EXTRAORDINARY, IF THE PRECEDENT OR 49 YEARS OLD AS OPPOSED TO 4.9 YEARS OLD? JUDGE JACKSON:
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
YOU SAID THAT THE OLDER THE CASE IS, ONE COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE RELIANCE INTEREST WOULD BE GREAT. BUT YOU ALSO SAID, I THINK I DON'T NEED TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT THE OLDER THAT KC IS, THE MORE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND SCIENCE COULD CHANGE, THE SO THAT WOULD ARGUE IN FAVOR OF OVERRULING IT BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES.  
IT MIGHT. IT MIGHT. THESE ARE ALL DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COURT COULD CONSIDER UNDER THIS MULTIFACTOR TEST. 
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL TO -- EQUALED, LET'S SAY DECISIONS BEING 39 YEARS OLD VERSUS THREE YEARS OLD, LIKE JANICE, THE OLDER DECISION IS MORE LIKELY TO BE OVERTURNED? YOUR EXPERIENCE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD MAKE THAT PREDICTION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS, THE RELIANCE FACTOR, THE AGE OF THE OPINION AND HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RELYING ON IT CAN BE RELEVANT TO -- IT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT THE COURT CONSIDERS. 
OK. LET ME JUMP GEARS. I TOOK SOME NOTES. YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW YOU DECIDE CASES, I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THIS. YOU SAID YOU CLEAR YOUR MIND OF ANY BIAS, YOU READ EVERYTHING, YOU READ THE BRIEFS IN THE RECORD, THEN YOU APPLY THEM ALL. THAT'S YOUR METHODOLOGY. YOU SAID YOU ARE NOT AN ACTIVIST JUDGE, AM I RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES. 
YOU SAID JUDGES ARE NOT POLITICIANS.
THAT IS TRUE.
AND JUDGES SHOULD STAY IN THEIR LANE?
YES, SIR.
TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY STAY IN THEIR LANE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
WHAT I MEAN IS THAT, IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE A SEPARATION OF POWERS. EACH BRANCH HAS THEIR OWN SPHERE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY STAY IN YOUR LANE IS THE SHORTHAND THAT I'M USING FOR INDICATING THAT JUDGES SHOULD NOT BE POLICYMAKERS. THAT THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE LESS TO THE ELECTED BRANCHES -- LEFT TO THE ELECTED BRANCHES, AND THAT JUDGES ARE TO INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT MAKE THE LAW, AND I USE IT TO REFER TO THE PART OF MY METHODOLOGY THAT IS MINDFUL OF THE CONSTRAINTS ON JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. 
OK. SO LET ME ASK YOU, WE CAN GO TO THE CONSTITUTION, LET'S SAY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND READ ABOUT OUR EXPLICIT RATES, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, OUR RIGHT NOT TO BE ON REGIONAL BE -- UNREASONABLY SEARCHED OR SEIZED, FREEDOM SPEECH, THEY WRITE THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT AN EXPLICIT. BUT WE HAVE A BUNCH OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS. MI CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE COURT HAS DETERMINED THERE ARE CERTAIN RIGHTS RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL ATON AMI THAT ARE EXPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY OR DEEPLY ROOTED IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY OR TRADITION. 
BUT THEY ARE UNENUMERATED?
YES.
SHOULD THESE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS BE DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE AND REPRESENTATIVES OR BY THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY'S? JUDGE JACKSON:
WELL, SENATOR, THE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE COMPONENT. I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO CRITIQUE THE COURT IN TERMS OF ITS PRECEDENT. THAT IS THE PRECEDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE 14TH AMENDMENTS DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO INCLUDE A SUBSTANTIVE COMPONENT AND NOT JUST A PROCEDURAL COMPONENT. MEANING, THE 14TH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES DUE PROCESS AND THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED IT TO MEAN , THAT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS CONCERNING INTIMACY, CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION, THE RIGHT TO CHILD REARING, THERE WAS A CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT TALKED ABOUT MAKING DECISIONS FOR CHILDREN IN TERMS OF VISITATION WITH RESPECTS TO CONFLICT OF GRANDPARENTS, MARRIAGE. THESE SORTS OF RIGHTS THE COURT HAS FOUND OUR IMPLICIT AND ORDERED LIBERTY OR DEEPLY WORDED IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY TRADITION. 
THE RIGHT TO ASSISTED SUICIDE, IS THAT ONE OF THOSE ENUMERATED OR UNENUMERATED RIGHTS?
I BELIEVE THE COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT.
WHICH BODY DO YOU THINK IS BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THE CONGRESS OR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY?
WELL, SENATOR, THE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE CONSTITUTION, IT IN THIS SUPREME COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, TO INTERPRET THE LAW, AND THEY MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDES THOSE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS. 
HERE'S THE THING, JUDGE. MAYBE A BETTER EXAMPLE, A HOT TOPIC TODAY. THE RIGHT OF A TRANSGENDER WOMAN TO COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORTS. DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO GET TO DECIDE THAT THROUGH CONGRESS, OR THE JUDGE CAN JUST FIND IT AS AN UNENUMERATED RIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
WELL, SENATOR, THAT TOPIC THAT YOU RAISED IS SOMETHING THAT IS, AS YOU SAY, A HOT TOPIC TODAY, AND COULD CERTAINLY BE LITIGATED. I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS. 
I DON'T WANT TO ASK YOU HOW YOU WOULD RULE, BUT WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM SAYING OK IF IT IS LITIGATED, SAYING, THIS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION, I'M STAYING IN MY LANE, CONGRESS NEEDS TO DECIDE THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE NEED TO DECIDE THAT THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, WITHOUT BE APPROPRIATE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, THAT IS A DECISION, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT ASKING ME TO DECIDE IT, BUT THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS A POLITICAL QUESTION OR WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS OR HAS NOT JURISDICTION IS IN ISSUE FOR JUDGES. SO I'M NOT ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT. 
HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF IT. THESE ARE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS NOW, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION. THE COURT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THERE IS NO TEST FOR AN UNENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. THAT THE DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED, AND MY RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THEY HAVE GIVEN THOSE STANDARDS IN THE CASES IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN EVALUATED. 
IN SOME CASES, SOMETIMES THE COURT TALKS ABOUT THESE UNENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE TO BE DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE NATION HISTORY AND TRADITIONS. SOMETIMES THE COURT SAYS, THEY CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, THESE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS, LIKE THE RIGHTS TO ASSISTED SUICIDE WE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S A POTENTIAL UNENUMERATED RIGHT, THE RIGHT HAS TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT IN ORDER OF LIBERTY. BUT IN THIS CASE -- IN THIS OPINION, I THINK JUSTICE KENNEDY WROTE THAT OPINION AND HE DIDN'T WRITE. HE CITED WITH APPROVAL ON THE DISSENT AND THE JUSTICE SAID, THERE IS NO FORMULA HERE. THE JUSTICE ALWAYS SAID, YOU HAVE TO GO CASE-BY-CASE. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY SOME AMERICANS GO, WAIT A MINUTE, ARE JUSTICES INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION, OR ARE THEY JUST DECIDING A RIGHT WHEN THEY GET FIVE VOTES AND IT'S JUST A MORAL CONVICTION? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES, SENATOR, I DO UNDERSTAND. 
OK, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, WHERE DOES THE RESTRAINT START? LET'S TAKE THE NINTH AMENDMENT, OK. WHAT'S IT SAY, I KNOW YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER.  
IT SAYS -- IT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE RIGHTS THAT -- THAT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOME ENUMERATED RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE AREN'T OTHERS. 
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE WHAT OTHERS THERE ARE? JUDGE JACKSON:
I THINK THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT FOUND ANY OTHERS COMING FROM THAT PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.
COULD THEY?
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, SENATOR.
IT'S POSSIBLE. IF THEY GET FIVE VOTES, RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON:
ANYTIME THE SUPREME COURT HAS FIVE VOTES, THAN THEY HAVE A MAJORITY FOR WHATEVER OPINION THEY
BUT DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE A PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION TO START CREATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THROUGH THE NINTH AMENDMENT, UNENUMERATED NOW, WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, I CAN'T SPEAK TO A HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO HOLD THAT THERE WERE OTHER RIGHTS IN THE NINTH AMENDMENT. 
THE REASON I'M ASKING IS YOU TALKED A LOT TODAY ABOUT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. AND THAT IS KIND OF LIKE BEING FOR CHILDREN AND PROSPERITY. OR ALL FOR CHILDRENBUT THE RUBBER GET DOWN TO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  
WHAT IT HAS MEANT FOR ME IS WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN MY OPINIONS AND THE WAY THAT I HAVE APPROACHED ISSUES THAT HAVE INFORMED ME IN MY FIDELITY TO THE RESTRAINT THAT EXISTS IN THE LAW IN TERMS OF THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THAT ADHERENCE TO PRESIDENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IS SOMETHING THAT I DO AND EVEN IN CASES AS YOU HEARD ME DISCUSSED EARLIER IN WHICH THEY ARE NOT BINDING PRECEDENT. I FIND THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DETERMINED AND NOT BE A POLICYMAKER IN MY DECISIONS. 
OK. HERE IS WHAT IS BOTHERING ME -- THAT SOUNDS PEJORATIVE. PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. HOW DO WE KNOW -- I'M NOT SAYING YOU WOULD DO IT BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THAT SINCE I CANNOT SEEM TO FLESH OUT THIS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IF YOU GET ON THE COURT, YOU WILL NOT SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS CANNOT GET ANYTHING DONE, AND THERE ARE ALL THESE ISSUES WE NEED TO ADDRESS. I THINK THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO CREATE ALL THESE RIGHTS IN THE NINTH AMENDMENT. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT? IF SOMEBODY MADE THE ALLEGATION. JUDGE JACKSON: 
WELL, SENATOR, I THINK THAT I HAVE A RECORD AS A JUDGE IN TERMS OF HAVING BEEN GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY, HAVING LOOKED AT CASES, HAVING DECIDED ISSUES AND MY RECORD DEMONSTRATES HOW I HANDLE CASES. I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO HYPOTHESIZE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH A CASE APPEARED THAT RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THE RECOGNITION OF AND UNENUMERATED RIGHT AND WHAT I WOULD SAY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE COULD FIND SUCH A RIGHT BECAUSE THAT IS A HYPOTHETICAL. I DECIDE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES THAT COME BEFORE ME BECAUSE I'M A NOMINEE AND I CANNOT SPEAK TO HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS ABOUT HOW I MIGHT RULE IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO CASES. 
TIME GOES FAST. LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION. THIS BUSINESS OF HAVING UNENUMERATED RIGHTS THROUGH SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, THERE IS NO TEXTUAL BASIS FOR THAT. THE COURT JUST STARTED DOING IT, OK. I'M NOT ASKING WHETHER YOU THINK IT WAS GOOD OR BAD BECAUSE IT CLEAR TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND I GET IT. I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF YOU WOULD BUT I GET IT. DON'T YOU THINK THE FACT THAT OUR FOUNDERS INCLUDED A WAY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION IS A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SAYING HERE ARE YOUR RIGHTS. WE ARE WRITING THEM DOWN. WE CAN GO BUILD A BILL OF RIGHTS AND READ THEM. WE PUT IN A WAY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. JUDGE JACKSON:
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARGUE THAT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE INCLUDE A SUBSTANTIVE COMPONENT. I UNDERSTAND THE CRITIQUES OF THAT VIEW. 
I WILL TRY AND GET IN TOMORROW. WHEN DO SLIDES BEGIN IN YOUR OPINION? -- WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN IN YOUR OPINION? JUDGE JACKSON:
SIR, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. 
DO YOU HAVE A BELIEF? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I HAVE PERSONAL RELIGIOUS AND OTHERWISE BELIEFS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW IN TERMS OF WHEN LIFE BEGINS.
DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL BELIEF ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS? RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
THAT I SET ASIDE WHEN I'M RULING ON CASES.
WHEN DOES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS ATTACH TO A HUMAN BEING? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT. ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I'M SORRY. I DON'T. 
OK. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE WARRANT REFORM AND I KNOW --
YES.
WHAT IF LOUISIANA SAID WE DON'T WANT TO FILE THE REQUIREMENT? WOULD THAT BE ILLEGAL?  
ARE YOU POSITING A STATUTE OF LOUISIANA THAT WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING? WELL, SENATOR, I'M THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE. I CANNOT ANSWER THE HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL. 
CAN YOU THINK OF ANY INSTANCE WHERE A STATE COULD SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT? WE ARE GOING TO WRITE OUR OWN WARRANT REQUIREMENT? JUDGE JACKSON:
I NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING. 
WHAT OF ARTICLE ONE, SECTION FIVE OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION IS UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES? WE ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT STRICTER UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION. JUDGE JACKSON:
THE STATE CAN ALSO -- 
UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WE WILL SAY A WARRANT IS REQUIRED IN EVERY INSTANCE. DO NOT GIVE ME THIS STUFF ABOUT PLAINVIEW AND HOT PURSUIT. YOU SERVE SOMEBODY, YOU BETTER GO STOP AND GET A WARRANT. I'M NOT SAYING LOUISIANA WOULD DO THAT AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT. THEY CAN DO THAT, CAN'T THEY, UNDER THEIR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
THEY CAN PROVIDE MORE PROTECTION THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE? YOU GOT TO GO FAST. JUDGE JACKSON: 
HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH PROVIDING MORE PROTECTION TO PEOPLE? 
UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. JUDGE JACKSON: 
BECAUSE IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFLICTED WITH FEDERAL LAW. IT DOES NOT CONFLICT I THINK IF THE STATE PROVIDES MORE PROTECTION. 
THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE FACTOR, CORRECT?
YES.
I'M OVER BUT ONLY ABOUT 22 SECONDS SO I'M GOING TO LAND THIS PLANE AND WE WILL TAKE OFF AGAIN TOMORROW.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR KENNEDY. SENATOR PADILLA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE JACKSON. HOW ARE YOU DOING? IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.
IT HAS. I UNDERSTAND IT IS YOUR BIRTHDAY.
I WILL CUT TO THE CHASE ON MY FIRST QUESTION. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE STUDIED YOUR RECORD. WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IN THE OFFICE, SPENT SOME TIME THERE. LISTENING PRETTY CLOSELY TO TODAY'S HEARINGS. MY FIRST QUESTION, MAY BE HIGHEST STAKES. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE WHO IS SITTING HERE LIKE YOU FOR 12 HOURS NOW? ON HIS OR HER BIRTHDAY? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I WOULD SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY. [LAUGHTER] 
I ACTUALLY -- I ONLY ASK THAT QUESTION HALF JOKINGLY BECAUSE I WAS MOVED BY YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY AS WELL, ESPECIALLY MOVED BY MY COLLEAGUE, REVEREND BOOKER HERE A LITTLE WHILE AGO. HE UPLIFTED YOUR COMMENTARY ABOUT THE STRUGGLE YOU CLEARLY FEEL AND THAT I SHARE ABOUT BEING A WORKING PARENT. CANNOT THINK TO MYSELF HOW I HAVE HAD TO GROW AND AS WE REMIND EACH OTHER OF THIS PRETTY REGULARLY, TRYING TO GIVE GOOD ADVICE FOR CHILDREN. WE ARE TRYING TO RAISE THREE GENTLEMEN. IT'S NOT ALWAYS PERFECT BUT WE GIVE THEM THE ADVICE OF, YOU KNOW, TRY YOUR BEST TO BE YOUR BEST. WE ARE NOT EXPECTING PERFECTION. SOMETIMES, PARENTS NEED TO REMIND THEMSELVES OF THAT, TOO. CANNOT EXPECT PERFECTION. WE HAVE TO TRY OUR BEST TO BE OUR BEST. IT HAS ALSO DAWNED ON ME THAT WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 12 HOURS. THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ASKED. THEY HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT THIS HEARING IS TODAY IS A JOB INTERVIEW. IT IS A VERY PUBLIC AND THOROUGH JOB INTERVIEW AS IT SHOULD BE. YOU COULD POTENTIALLY SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR DECADES. HELPING SHAPE THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN LAW AND AMERICAN LIFE AND LASTING WAYS. IT'S APPROPRIATE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS INTERVIEW AND YOU SHOULD BE ASKED SOME IN-DEPTH QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND, ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES AND YOUR APPROACH TO THE LAW. BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS I HAVE, THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS WHY WOULD YOU WANT THIS JOB? NOW WITH THE ADDED FLAVOR OF WHY WOULD YOU WANT THIS JOB? YOU HAVE A GREAT ONE NOW. ON A DAILY BASIS, WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE. JUDGE JACKSON: 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I HAVE SPOKEN MANY TIMES ABOUT THE FACT THAT I CAME TO LOVE THE LAW STARTING AS EARLY AS FOUR YEARS OLD, WATCHING MY DAD STUDY WHEN HE WENT BACK TO LAW SCHOOL WHEN I WAS A CHILD. I HONESTLY NEVER THOUGHT THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT ONE COULD REALLY DO BECAUSE I WAS SO ENAMORED OF MY FATHER AND SO PROUD OF HIS DECISION TO FOLLOW HIS DREAM AFTER I WAS BORN. SO IF YOU ARE A LAWYER AND YOU BELIEVE IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHICH WAS A CORE FAMILY VALUE FOR MY FAMILY, THEN BECOMING A JUDGE IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION THAT ONE PURSUES AND OF COURSE BEING ON THE SUPREME COURT IS THE CAPSTONE OF A LIFE IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND I WOULD BE SO HONORED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE MY TIME AND TALENTS IN THIS WAY. 
THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S SOME OF THE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING CLOSELY THROUGHOUT THE DAY. YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, YOU'RE EVEN TEMPERAMENT, YOUR CHARM, AND CLEARLY YOUR ENDURANCE IS IMPRESSIVE. I'VE KNOWLEDGE AT TIMES THIS HEARING HAS BEEN A LITTLE FRUSTRATING. NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR ANSWERS BUT I POINT TO THE PROCESS ITSELF. THERE'S PROBABLY A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT EVERYBODY WATCHING -- YOUR ANSWERS TO WHAT THE QUESTIONS YOU CANNOT DIRECTLY ANSWER, QUESTIONS LIKE A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, QUESTIONS LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, QUESTIONS LIKE EXPANDING THE SUPREME COURT. TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM. LET ME EXPLAIN. WHEN YOU ARE ASKED A QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSE TO ASKING YOUR VIEWS ON A PENDING CASE OR ON AN ISSUE THAT MAY COME BEFORE YOU, YOU DECLINED TO ANSWER AS TO NOT PREJUDGE THE ISSUE AND I WILL REMIND THE COMMITTEE I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN THE APPROACH TAKEN BY EVERY SUPREME COURT NOMINEE FOR THE LAST THREE DECADES. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU AND OTHER JUDICIAL NOMINEES HAVE FOLLOWED THIS APPROACH? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES, THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE WITH THE DUTY TO HAVE AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND WHEN YOU ARE CONSIDERING CASES. JUDGES, UNLIKE POLICYMAKERS, ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FORMING OPINIONS IN THE ETHER. JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WAITING UNTIL A DISPUTE IS PRESENTED THAT THEY CAN HEAR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE AND WAS AN OPEN MIND. RECEIVING THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CASE. APPLYING THE LAW AND MAKING A DECISION. THE CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE THIS AND YOU START TALKING ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE BEING LITIGATED IN THE COURTS, THE CONCERN IS THAT IT WILL ERODE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN YOUR ABILITY TO BE OPEN MINDED, HEAR AND CONSIDER ONLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASES THAT ARE PRESENTED. PEOPLE MIGHT THINK YOU ARE RULING BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH SENATOR KENNEDY. DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOU. JUDGES TEND TO NOT SPEAK PUBLICLY ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE BEING LITIGATED AND ESPECIALLY JUDGES BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE SUPREME COURT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WILL COME BEFORE THAT FORUM AND YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND, THAT YOU HAVE NOT PREJUDGED ANY ISSUE AND THAT YOU ARE WAITING AND STAYING IN YOUR APPROPRIATE CONSTITUTIONAL LANE. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS PROTECTED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION MAKES CLEAR THAT NO ONE IS TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN TERMS OF THEIR EXERCISE OF VOTING AND THE CONGRESS HAS USED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT MANY STATUTES THAT ARE AIMED AT VOTING PROTECTION. THERE ARE ALSO LAWS THAT RELATE TO ENSURING THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY VOTING ACCESS BUT ENSURING THAT THERE ISN'T FRAUD IN TERMS OF VOTING. THESE CONCERNS ARE EMBODIED BY VARIOUS LAWS AND PROVISIONS AND THERE ARE DISPUTES AT TIMES OVER THE CONCERNS AND THE BALANCES THAT ARE BEING MADE ACROSS THE COUNTRY RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF VOTING AND THOSE DISPUTES COME TO COURT AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO THE SUPREME COURT. THAT INTERPRETS THE LAWS THAT PERTAIN TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE WHICH AS YOU SAY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. 
THANK YOU. ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC NOT UNIQUE TO CALIFORNIA BUT PROUD THAT CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO THE LARGEST NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION IN THE COUNTRY. MORE THAN ONE IN 10 NATIVE AMERICANS CALL CALIFORNIA HOME. CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO 109 FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES WHO HAVE A NATION TO NATION RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AS A SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, I BELIEVE THAT RESPECT FOR TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY IS PARAMOUNT. AFTER THE NOMINATION, IT'S PART OF THE HOMEWORK I WAS DOING. A CAREFULLY CONSIDERED -- ON TRIBAL ISSUES. FOR THE MOST PART, IT SEEMS YOU HAVE NOT HAD TO DEAL WITH TOO MANY CASES INVOLVING THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE PEOPLES OR TRIBES. THE CASES YOU HAD SO FAR, SUCH AS MECHANIC VERSUS JEWEL -- THE CASES YOU HAVE SO FAR DEALT WITH PROCEDURE RATHER THAN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF NATIVE AND TRIBAL RIGHTS. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED, I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON MAJOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, TREATY RIGHTS, TRAVEL RESOURCE PRESERVATION AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TRUST RESPONSIBILITY . THERE'S ALREADY ONE MAJOR CASE RELATED TO INDIAN LAW ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DOCKET FOR THE NEXT TERM AND IT DEALS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1976. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT CASE SPECIFICALLY OR IN A CASE THAT MAY COME BEFORE YOU BUT AS A GENERAL MANAGER, SHARE WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS LEGAL AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENTS. JUDGE JACKSON:
YES, SENATOR. IT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A SPECIAL TRUST RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIAN TRIBES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. INDIAN TRIBES ARE AS A GENERAL MATTER CONSIDERED TO BE SOVEREIGNS AND THE RELATIONSHIP IS A SOVEREIGN TO SOVEREIGN RELATIONSHIP BUT IT IS ONE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD SOME RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE INDIAN NATION AND IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. CARE AND TRUST, RESPONSIBILITY, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THE TRIBES ARE RECOGNIZED AND CARED FOR IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR SYSTEM. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I THINK THERE'S VERY LITTLE QUESTION THAT MY LAW CLERKS CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY -- THEY CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF MY CAREER. THROUGH THAT OPPORTUNITY, I WAS ABLE TO WORK FOR THREE EXTRAORDINARY JURISTS AND GOT TO SEE WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A JUDGE AND I GOT TO UNDERSTAND HOW JUDGES THINK AS THEY EVALUATE CASES WHICH FOR A YOUNG LAWYER IS AN EXTRAORDINARY TRAINING OPPORTUNITY AND YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS CAREER CHANGING IN A LOT OF WAYS. I HAVE TRIED IN MY TIME ON THE BENCH TO DO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OUTREACH TO YOUNG PEOPLE. I GO TO LAW SCHOOLS WHENEVER I AM ASKED. I SPEAK IN A LOT OF PLACES. YOU HEARD SOME OF MY SPEECHES GET REFERENCED. I AM OFTEN ASKED TO GO AND I TRY AND GO EVERY TIME I AM ASKED BECAUSE I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR ABOUT CLERKSHIPS. ONE THING I OFTEN GET WHEN I GO TO LAW SCHOOLS IS A SURPRISE FROM SOME GROUPS AND SOME PEOPLE ABOUT THE CHANCE TO CLERK. THEY WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO OR SHOULD TRY TO DO. IT HAS BEEN A PART OF MY PRACTICE TO GO TO SCHOOLS, TO REACH OUT TO YOUNG PEOPLE, TO TELL THEM ABOUT CLERKING, TO TRY TO GET THEM TO APPLY TO ME. IF I CAN. AND TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE. IF I CAN DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT. I THINK IT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF US ALL TO HAVE AS MANY DIFFERENT LAW STUDENTS SEEKING CLERKSHIPS AS POSSIBLE. 
HE COULD NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO ASSUME EVERYONE WATCHING AT HOME IS A CRIMINAL LAW SCHOLAR. AS THE CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA, -- WHETHER IT IS A TV SHOW, A MOVIE, MOST PEOPLE HAVE HEARD A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ON A SCREEN WHILE MAKING AN ARREST RECITE WHAT WE KNOW AS THE MIRANDA RIGHTS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, ONE WILL BE APPOINTED FOR YOU. THE MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE NOT HOW THEY -- A HOLLYWOOD INVENTION. THESE ARE FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING THOSE ACCUSED OF A CRIME. THEY COME FROM OVER HALF A CENTURY'S WORTH OF SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS. JUDGE JACKSON, WHILE MANY AMERICANS KNOW HOW CRITICAL THESE RIGHTS ARE TO OUR SYSTEMS OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE, NOT EVERYONE DOES, SO FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND, CAN YOU REITERATE WHY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THESE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? JUDGE JACKSON:
YES, SENATOR. THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THESE RIGHTS BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT LIBERTY. THAT'S ONE OF THE VALUES THAT THE FRAMERS WERE FOCUSED ON WHEN THEY SET UP OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED IN ITS POWERS IN PART BECAUSE THE FRAMERS WANTED TO PRESERVE LIBERTY, DID NOT WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENCROACH ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. THERE IS NO BIGGER FEAR OF ENCROACHMENT THAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS USING THEIR POWER TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF LIBERTY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. SO THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO DEPRIVE SOMEONE OF LIBERTY BECAUSE THEY ACCUSE THEM OF A CRIME, THEY HAVE TO AFFORD CERTAIN RIGHTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL. THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PERSON IS PROCESSED FAIRLY. CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PROTECT THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY ASSURING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. [CAPTIONS COPYRIGHT NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORP. 2021] SAYS THE GOVERNMENT HAS -- SAYS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS TO DO. IT IS THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WHO MAKES THE OBJECTION TO PROSECUTORIAL OVERREACH IN A CASE OR WHO MAKES SURE THAT ALL OF THE RIGHTS THAT THE FRAMERS PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION ARE BEING OBSERVED IN ACTUAL PRACTICE BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT'S ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID, THE MIRANDA RIGHTS SAY, IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER, ONE WILL BE APPOINTED TO YOU. THE PERSON WHO APPOINTS IS THE COURT. THE COURT IS APPOINTING LAWYERS FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS BECAUSE THE JUDGES KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO OUR JOBS, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT CRIMINAL PROCESSES ARE FAIR, WE HAVE TO GET ARGUMENTS NOT ONLY FROM THE PROSECUTION BUT ALSO FROM COMPETENT COUNSEL WHO IS MAKING ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE. SO IT IS THE COURT THAT APPOINTS LAWYERS FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT JUSTICE IS BEING DONE IN THE CASES THAT COME TO COURT. 
JUST AS A FOLLOW-UP, AS MUCH AS WE HOPE THE PROCESS IS ALWAYS FAIR DOESN'T MEAN IT'S UNDERSTOOD. I SHARED EARLIER TODAY -- YOU SHARED YOUR OBSERVATIONS FROM YOUR TIME AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT MANY DEFENDANTS DON'T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS EXACTLY THAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS IS ON OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND HOW YOUR EXPERIENCE -- THERE IS A NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL THROUGH THE EYES OF THE DEFENDANT? JUDGE JACKSON: 
YES, SENATOR. IN MY EXPERIENCE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY COMMIT CRIMES. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. WHAT I NOTICED AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER IS THAT THE PROCESS OF ENSURING THAT THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY, THERE IS RESPONSIBILITY, THERE IS REHABILITATION IS IMPUTED IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE SYSTEM ARE NOT ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS. THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT, ONE OF THE GOALS OF OUR SYSTEM IS TO ENSURE THAT CONSEQUENCES ARE HANDED DOWN FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND THEN AS A RESULT, PEOPLE STOP COMMITTING CRIMES. SO THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING, I HAVE SEEN AIDS IN THAT GOAL. THE PERSON WHO IS RECEIVING THE PUNISHMENT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN CONTRIBUTION, TO BE ABLE TO REALIZE IF THEY MADE A MISTAKE THAT THEY COMMITTED A CRIME THAT HERE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES. THIS IS A HORRIBLE THING. NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN IF THEY UNDERSTAND THAT HIS JUSTICE IN OUR SYSTEM. IF THEY GO THROUGH, IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, IF PEOPLE ARE NOT EXPLAINING, IF THEY FEEL THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD IN THE PROCESS, IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT INSTEAD THEY FEEL BETTER, THEY FEEL VICTIMIZED AND ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE REHABILITATED IN THE LONG RUN. AS A JUDGE, I TOOK THAT OBSERVATION AND TRIED TO ENSURE -- NOT ONLY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS HAPPENING BUT UNDERSTOOD THE HARMS THAT THEY HAD CAUSED WITH AN EYE TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT REHABILITATION IS HAPPENING IN THE LONG RUN AS A RESULT OF MY SENTENCES. 
THANK YOU. THAT IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE WORK WE NEED TO DO TO BUTTRESS CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A RESULT. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS IMPERFECT AND TOO OFTEN UNFAIR. TALK ABOUT THE VIRTUES AND PROMISES OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WE INCLUDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY. JUST IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIR, THEY TALK ABOUT THE MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF ONE'S PEERS, AND WE TALK ABOUT THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS. THROUGH THE LENS OF A SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, THE WORK OF PUBLIC DEFENDERS IS NOT JUST THE WORK OF DEFENDING THE ACCUSED. IT IS THE WORK OF UPHOLDING THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT MAKE UP OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. ANYBODY WHO MAY CRITICIZE JOAN JACKSON -- JUDGE JACKSON FOR PROVIDING A DEFENSE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED OF CRIME, I SUGGEST THE CRITICISM IS NOT OF JUDGE JACKSON BUT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. LISTEN TO YOU RESPOND TO QUESTIONS NOW IN THE LAST 12 HOURS. SOME OF YOUR VIEWS OUT OF CONTEXT TO TRY UNSUCCESSFULLY TO PAINT YOU AS SOMEONE YOU ARE NOT. I HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS, YOUR TEMPERAMENT , AND YOUR INTEGRITY AND RESPONDING TO THESE QUESTIONS. I HOPE THAT AMERICA IS WATCHING TODAY BECAUSE IF THEY ARE, THEY HAVE SEEN THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE TEMPERAMENT OF A JUDGE SHOULD BE, THOUGHTFUL, BALANCED, AND VERY PATIENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
THANKS, SENATOR PADILLA. SENATOR BLACKBURN.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE BRIEF YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS A BRIEF THAT I FILED ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS WHO WERE CLIENTS OF MY LAW FIRM. THIS WAS I BELIEVE IN, GOODNESS, 1999 OR 2000? MAYBE 2000 OR 2001? 
YEAH. JUDGE JACKSON: 
I WAS AN ASSOCIATE AT A LAW FIRM AND I HAD A PELLET -- APPELLATE EXPERIENCE AND IN THE CONTEXT OF MY LAW FIRM, I WAS ASKED TO WORK ON A BRIEF CONCERNING A BUFFER ZONE ISSUE IN MASSACHUSETTS AT THE TIME. THERE WERE LAWS PROTECTING WOMEN WHO WANTED TO ENTER CLINICS AND THERE WAS A FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION ABOUT THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE HAD TO BE ROOM AROUND THEM TO ENTER THE CLINIC. 
I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE RHETORIC. JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I DRAFTED A BRIEF ALONG WITH THE PARTNERS IN MY LAW FIRM WHO REVIEWED IT AND WE FILED ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT. TO ADVANCE OUR CLIENTS ARGUMENTS THEY WANTED TO MAKE IN THE CASE. 
WHEN YOU GO TO CHURCH, KNOWING THAT THERE ARE PRO-LIFE WOMEN THERE, DO YOU LOOK AT THEM THINKING OF THEM IN THAT WAY, THAT THEY ARE NOISY, HOSTILE, IN YOUR FACE? DO YOU THINK OF THEM? DO YOU THINK OF PRO-LIFE WOMEN LIKE ME THAT WAY? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, THAT WAS A STATEMENT AND A BRIEF MADE -- AN ARGUMENT FOR MY CLIENT. IT IS NOT THE WAY I THINK OF OR CHARACTERIZE PEOPLE. 
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK EVEN ZEALOUS ADVOCACY DOES NOT ALLOW THAT TYPE OF RHETORIC ON A FREE-SPEECH ISSUE. ROE V. WADE, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. IT HAS COME UP A TOUCH TODAY. IN MY OPINION, THAT WAS AN AWFUL ACT OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND IT HAS COST THE LIVES OF OVER 63 MILLION UNBORN CHILDREN AND NEARLY 50 YEARS LATER, THE SHAMEFUL RULING REMAINS BINDING PRECEDENT BUT THE BATTLE IS BEING FOUGHT IN THE COURTS AND AS YOU KNOW AND AS WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE VISITED, THE SUPREME COURT IS RECONSIDERING WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED, YOU WILL BE IN A POSITION TO APPLY THE COURT'S DECISION. WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS GOING TO BE. YOU TALKED ABOUT FOLLOWING PRECEDENT. SO DO YOU COMMIT TO RESPECTING THE COURT'S DECISION IF IT RULES THAT ROE WAS WRONGLY DECIDED AND THAT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE STATES? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, WHATEVER THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES WILL BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT. IT WILL BE WORTHY OF RESPECT IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS THE PRESIDENT AND I COMMIT TO TREATING IT AS I WOULD ANY OTHER PRECEDENT. 
ONE OF THE CENTRAL ISSUES IS WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. CAN WE EXPLAIN TO ME ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE AND WHERE IS ABORTION PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, ABORTION IS A RIGHT THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED -- IT'S ONE OF THE KINDS OF RIGHTS THAT IS UNENUMERATED. IT IS IN THAT SAME CATEGORY OF RIGHTS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED -- 
THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION ABORTION.
THAT IS TRUE.
THAT IS CORRECT. SO YOU AGREE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION AND YET, THROUGH ONE OF THE MOST BRAZEN ACTS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, OUR SUPREME COURT CREATED THE RIGHT THROUGH ROE V. WADE. THIS IS WHY AMERICANS -- THIS IS WHY SO MANY WOMEN THAT I HAVE TALKED TO ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHO SITS ON THE FEDERAL BENCH. WE NEED A JUSTICE WHO WILL ADHERE TO THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HAVE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TODAY AS YOU TALKED ABOUT HISTORICAL CONTEXT. AND I DON'T WANT JUSTICES WHO ARE GOING TO INVENT RIGHTS OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH TO SERVE A POLITICAL INTEREST. LET'S MOVE ON. I WANT TO GO TO WHEN YOU WERE AT HARVARD. PLEA-BARGAINING PROCESSES. IN THAT PIECE, YOU ARGUED THAT JUDGES HAVE, AND I'M QUOTING, PERSONAL HIDDEN AGENDAS THAT INFLUENCE HOW THEY DECIDE CASES. WHAT PERSONAL HIDDEN AGENDAS DO YOU HARBOR OR DO YOU THINK OTHER JUDGES HARBOR? JUDGE JACKSON:
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THAT LINE, TO THE EXTENT IT APPEARS IN MY THESIS, WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO HAD NOT GONE TO LAW SCHOOL AND WAS SENIOR IN COLLEGE, WHO HAS SPENT A SUMMER AN INTERNSHIP MAKING OBSERVATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP. IT IS NOT A VIEW THAT I HOLD. 
WHAT LED YOU TO THAT BELIEF? JUDGE JACKSON: 
I'M THINKING BACK. IT'S BEEN 30 YEARS. THE SUMMER BEFORE MY SENIOR YEAR, I INTERNED AT A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN NEW YORK. I WAS PART OF A TEAM -- THERE WAS LAWYERS AND INTERNS ON THIS TEAM AND THEY WERE HANDLING MISDEMEANOR CASES. 
SO IT WAS FROM AN INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE?
BEFORE I BECAME A LAWYER.
SENATOR CRUZ WAS DISCUSSING WITH YOU SOMETHING THAT PARENTS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE WORRIED ABOUT. THAT IS THE PROGRESSIVE INDOCTRINATION OF THEIR CHILDREN AND THE PUSHING OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN THE SCHOOLS. AND YOU TOLD SENATOR CRUZ THAT AS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL, YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHAT WAS TAUGHT AT THE SCHOOL, NO CONTROL OVER CURRICULUM, AND YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE SCHOOL WAS PUSHING CRT. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN PARENTS THAT CAME TO YOU AND SAID, HAVE YOU SEEN THESE BOOKS? ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS BEING TAUGHT? BEING ON THAT SCHOOL BOARD. JUDGE JACKSON:
NO, SENATOR. 
NO ONE EVER MENTIONED IT?
GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
I'M FULLY AWARE. AND YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU MEANT -- YOU THOUGHT HE MEANT THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS NOT BEING TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, CORRECT? BUT WE KNOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. BUT WE KNOW THAT CRT BEING PUSHED IN OUR K-12 SCHOOLS AND I HAVE A LETTER HERE, MR. CHAIRMAN , THAT THE SENATOR AND I WROTE LAST YEAR TO THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ON THIS ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE RECORD BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
WE HAD ADMONISHED THE NEA FOR ADOPTING PRO CRT MATERIALS DURING THE ANNUAL ORGANIZING MEETING AND PROPOSING TO SPEND $127,000 IN TEACHERS DUES TO COMBAT OPPONENTS OF CRT AND THERE ARE COUNTLESS REPORTS OF CRT BEING PUSHED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. A LOT OF PARENTS I WORK WITH EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO SEND THEIR CHILD TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, RELYING ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM TO HAVE A SUPREME COURT THAT IS GOING TO PROTECT HER PARENTAL RIGHTS TO TEACH HER CHILDREN AS PARENTS SEE FIT, TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN TAUGHT. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT WITH GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL, I FOUND IT ASTOUNDING THAT IT TEACHES KINDERGARTNERS, FIVE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN AND I HAVE GOT GRANDCHILDREN. THEY TEACH THEM THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE THEIR GENDER. SO IS THIS WHAT YOU WERE PRAISING WHEN YOU APPLAUDED THE -- I'M QUOTING YOU -- TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOLS PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION? DO YOU AGREE THAT OUR SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE THEIR GENDER? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I AM NOT REMEMBERING EXACTLY WHAT QUOTE YOU ARE REFERENCING, BUT GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL -- 
IT WAS IN A BOOK AND YOU GAVE THE QUOTE.
GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL.
I'M ASKING, DO YOU AGREE THAT SCHOOLS SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE THEIR GENDER? JUDGE JACKSON:
SENATOR, I'M NOT MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT SCHOOLS CAN TEACH. 
LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THE UNITED STATES VERSUS VIRGINIA, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ADMISSION POLICY , WRITING FOR THE MAJORITY, JUSTICE GINSBURG STATED, SUPPOSED INHERENT DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED AS GROUND FOR RACE OR NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS. PHYSICAL DISTANCING'S BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN, HOWEVER, ARE ENDURING. THE TWO SEXES ARE NOT FUNGIBLE. A COMMUNITY MADE UP EXCLUSIVELY OF ONE SEX IS DIFFERENT FROM A COMMUNITY COMPOSED OF BOTH. DO YOU AGREE WITH JUSTICE GINSBURG THAT THERE ARE PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE ENDURING? JUDGE JACKSON: 
UM, SENATOR, RESPECTFULLY, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR QUOTE OR CASE, SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT -- 
I WOULD LOVE TO GET YOUR OPINION ON THAT, AND YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT. DO YOU INTERPRET JUSTICE GINSBURG'S MEANING OF MEN AND WOMEN AS MALE AND FEMALE? JUDGE JACKSON: 
AGAIN, BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW THE CASE, I DO NOT KNOW HOW I INTERPRET IT. I WOULD NEED TO READ THE WHOLE CASE. 
CAN YOU PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR THE WORD WOMAN?
CAN I PROVIDE A DEFINITION?
YES.
I CANNOT.
YOU CANNOT?
NOT IN THIS CONTEXT. I AM NOT A BIOLOGIST.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD WOMAN IS SO UNCLEAR AND CONTROVERSIAL THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE ME A DEFINITION? JUDGE JACKSON: 
IN MY WORK AS A JUDGE, WHAT I DO IS I ADDRESS DISPUTES. IF THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT A DEFINITION, PEOPLE MAKE ARGUMENTS, AND I LOOK AT THE LAW, AND I DECIDE. 
THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER ABOUT SOMETHING AS FUNDAMENTAL AS WHAT A WOMAN IS UNDERSCORES THE DANGERS OF THE KIND OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT. JUST LAST WEEK, AN ENTIRE GENERATION OF YOUNG GIRLS WATCHED AS OUR TAXPAYER-FUNDED INSTITUTIONS PERMITTED A BIOLOGICAL MAN TO COMPETE AND BEAT A BIOLOGICAL WOMAN IN THE NCAA SWIMMING CHAMPIONSHIPS. WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THIS SENDS TO GIRLS WHO ASPIRE TO COMPETE AND WIN IN SPORTS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS? JUDGE JACKSON: 
SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE WHAT MESSAGE THAT SENDS. IF YOU ARE ASKING ME ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO IT, THOSE ARE TOPICS THAT ARE BEING HOTLY DISCUSSED, AS YOU SAY, AND COULD COME TO THE COURT. 
I THINK IT TELLS OUR GIRLS THAT THEIR VOICES DON'T MATTER. I THINK IT TELLS THEM THAT THEY ARE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS. AND PARENTS WANT TO HAVE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHO IS COMMITTED TO PRESERVING PARENTAL AUTONOMY AND PROTECTING OUR NATION'S CHILDREN. SO I -- LET'S MOVE ON. I WANT TO GO TO THE CHILD PORN ISSUE. I KNOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS TODAY ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES. WHAT IS TROUBLESOME TO ME IS YOUR CONSISTENT PATTERN OF SENTENCING THESE PREDATORS BELOW THE SENTENCES RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. SENATOR CRUZ, SENATOR HAWLEY, HAVE LAID OUT SOME OF THESE DISPARITIES. I KNOW SENATOR BLUMENTHAL MENTIONED THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT THAT HE AND I ARE WORKING ON. YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW HORRIFYING IT WAS TO GET SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AS WE HAVE HELD THESE HEARINGS, THAT HAS BEEN HORRIFYING. WE HAVE HAD MOMS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CALL US AND TELL US THEIR STORY OF HOW THESE CHILD ABUSERS -- THESE PORNOGRAPHERS ARE USING TECHNOLOGY. THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS REALLY ADVANCED. UNFORTUNATELY, WE KNOW THAT ONLINE RIGHT NOW AS A MOM AND GRANDMOTHER, THIS IS AN ISSUE OF TREMENDOUS CONCERN. I HAVE GRANDSONS THAT ARE 12 AND 13. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME, HOW THESE PEOPLE WORK. I FIND THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU MADE, THIS DISTINCTION YOU MADE BETWEEN PEDOPHILES WHO PRODUCED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND THOSE WHO ARE ONLY COLLECTORS TO BE ONE WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. YOU SAID, AND I AM QUOTING YOU, THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS ARE PEDOPHILES. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MATTERS TO THE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS WHO SUFFER ABUSE, WHAT MOTIVATION THOSE ABUSERS HAD? JEN BROWN JACKSON -- JUDGE BROWN JACKSON: 
THANK YOU. AS YOU SAID, THESE CASES ARE AMONG THE MOST DIFFICULT, FOR JUDGES WHO HAVE TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE. JUDGES WHO LIKE ME, OUR PARENTS AND -- 
DO THINK IT MATTERS TO THE KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS, THE MOTIVES OF THE ABUSER, OF THE PORNOGRAPHER? JUDGE BROWN JACKSON:
SENATOR, IT DOES NOT METRIC TO THE VICTIMS IN THESE CASES WHAT MOTIVATION IS. THE QUOTE, I AM NOT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM. I KNOW THAT WHAT SENATOR CRUZ SHOWED ME BEFORE WAS QUESTIONS I WAS ASKING IN THE CONTEXT OF A HEARING. 
I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO GO TO YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE NINTH AMENDMENT. PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE WAS LOOKING FOR A JUDICIAL NOMINEE WITH A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT IS MORE OF ONE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND ALL THE AMENDMENTS MEAN SOMETHING, INCLUDING THE NINTH AMENDMENT. YOU TOLD SENATOR TO FLEE -- YOU TOLD SENATOR DENIS YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THIS STATEMENT WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT. YOU SHARE THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY PRESIDENT BIDEN IS LOOKING FOR? SENATOR KENNEDY TRIED TO WALK THROUGH THIS WITH YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE THE NINTH AMENDMENT IS A SOURCE OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS? JUDGE BROWN JACKSON:
SENATOR, THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT FOUND ANY UNENUMERATED RIGHTS THAT DERIVE FROM THE NINTH AMENDMENT. SO, THAT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT AND THERE ARE NOT ANY RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER THAT PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF RON KLAIN HAS WRITTEN THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE WHENEVER THE NATION'S CONSCIENCE AND LAWS NEED A JOLT IN A PROGRESSIVE DIRECTION. PRESUMABLY, THAT IS WHAT HE AND HIS BOSS, PRESIDENT BIDEN, EXPECT THE JUSTICE TO DO. SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THE ROLE OF THE COURT IS TO INTERVENE WHENEVER WE NEED A JOLT IN A PROGRESSIVE DIRECTION? AND WHAT YOU DO THAT THROUGH THE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS? WOULD YOU DO IT ON ISSUES LIKE ABORTION? OR ANY OTHER ISSUE? JUDGE BROWN JACKSON:
THE ROLE OF THE JUDGES TO DECIDE CASES AND THAT JUDGE IS -- ROLE OF THE JUDGE IS TO DECIDE CASES BASED ON THE LAW, AND MIND OF THE REQUIREMENT TO RULE IMPARTIALLY AND REMAIN IN CONSIDERATION ONLY OF THE LAW AND ITS CONSTRAINTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
A LOT OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOMINATION. ONE IS DEMAND JUSTICE. THEY ARE A PROGRESSIVE GROUP THAT HAS LAUNCHED A MILLION-DOLLAR AD BUY TO PUSH YOUR CONFIRMATION. DEMAND JUSTICE IS PUSHING FOR RADICAL CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF OUR COUNTRY, INCLUDING A DEMAND THAT DEMOCRATS PACK THE SUPREME COURT. ONE OF DEMAND JUSTICE'S BOARD MEMBERS HAS URGED SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ADD 10 MORE JUSTICES TO THE COURT. IT IS CLEAR THAT DEMAND JUSTICE BELIEVES THAT, IF THE ISSUE OF COURT PACKING WERE TO COME BEFORE YOU ON THE SUPREME COURT, YOU WOULD RUE IN THEIR FAVOR -- YOU WOULD RULE IN THEIR FAVOR. ARE THEY WRONG TO BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD RULE IN THEIR FAVOR? JUDGE BROWN JACKSON: 
IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THE ISSUE OF COURT PACKING WOULD COME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. THAT QUESTION IS THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS. IT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION. 
OK. LET'S SEE. I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP TODAY. CONGRESS GRANTED DHS SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE DEPORTED. THIS MEANS DHS'S DECISION WAS UNREVIEWABLE BY A FEDERAL JUDGE AND ANY ATTEMPT TO CHALLENGE DHS'S DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE COURT. AND YET YOU DID THE VERY OPPOSITE, YOU DIDN'T DISMISS IT. YOU CONSTRUED THE LAW TO PERMIT A JUDICIAL CHALLENGE TO DHS'S IMMIGRATION DECISION DESPITE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE USE IT REVERSED YOU WHERE YOU -- THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE USE IT ON REVERSED YOU. IT QUESTION HOW YOU COULD HAVE COME TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WAS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION LAW THAT WE ENACTED, AND WE EXPLICITLY STATED THAT DHS'S DECISION WAS UNREVIEWABLE. WHAT MORE COULD WE POSSIBLY HAVE SAID OR MADE CLEAR THAT YOU WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW DHS'S DECISION? JUDGE BROWN JACKSON:
THANK YOU. WHEN CONGRESS STRIPS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, CONGRESS AND MANY CASES DOES SO EXPLICITLY. IT SAYS SOMETHING OTHER THAN SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE. IT SAYS THINGS LIKE NO COURT SHALL HEAR, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER, THERE ARE WAYS THAT CONGRESS CLARIFIES THAT JUDGES HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR A PARTICULAR CASE. THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS STATUTE AND THIS DISPUTE AND DETERMINED THAT THE COURT DID HAVE JURISDICTION. IN THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THERE WAS A CAUSE OF ACTION TO PROCEED. WHAT I DETERMINED IN LOOKING AT THE STATUTES AT ISSUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE MEANT DHS HAD THE SO9LE POWER TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT -- 
MIKE, IS RUNNING OUT -- MY TIME IS RUNNING OUT AND THEY WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF GETTING YOU OUT A FEW ON TIME TONIGHT. THIS IS THE KIND OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT REALLY CONCERNS TENNESSEANS. THESE ISSUES I HAVE BEEN THROUGH WITH YOU TODAY, THE STATEMENTS, YOUR STATEMENTS THAT I GAVE BACK TO YOU LAST NIGHT IN MY OPENING, THINGS YOU HAD SAID, DECISIONS YOU MADE, THESE CAUSE CONCERN. WE WILL TAKE UP A LITTLE MORE OF IT TOMORROW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACIOUSNESS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. 
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WANT TO THANK JUDGE JACKSON FOR THIS LONG DAY. AND PART OF IT UNDER TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU WERE A MODEL OF GRACE UNDER PRESSURE. AT TIMES, THINGS WERE SAID ABOUT YOU THAT TURNED OUT TO BE INACCURATE. AND A WAS SAID THAT YOU CALLED PRESIDENT BUSH AND SECRETARY RUMSFELD WAR CRIMINALS. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT WAS SAID THAT YOU ALWAYS SENTENCED CRIMINALS LIGHTLY. THAT WASN'T TRUE. IT WAS SAID YOU APOLOGIZED TO A DEFENDANT IN A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE WITHOUT ANY EMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS. THAT WASN'T TRUE, EITHER. YOU HAVE BEEN A JUDGE FOR NEARLY 1 YEARS. YOU HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 1 DEFENDANTS, SOME TWO DECADES IN PRISON. AND EVEN THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES THAT MY COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO RAISE OVER AND OVER, YOUR SENTENCES WERE IN LINE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AT THE PROBATION OFFICE AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE CASES THAT YOU HEARD. WE INVITED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO COME HERE TODAY, AND ONE SPECIAL GUEST WAS A LADY WHO CLEANS OUR OFFICE AT NIGHT. SHE WORKS THE MIDNIGHT SHIFT, BUT WANTED TO BE HERE TODAY TO SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU AND STAND BY YOUR SIDE. AND SHE SAID AFTERWARDS THAT IT WAS A GREAT MOMENT FOR HER TO BE IN THIS ROOM TODAY. BUT SHE ASKED MY STAFF, WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE SO MEAN? THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF US ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE WERE NOT MEAN, THEY WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND POSITIVE AND REALLY RAISED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. SOME ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THIS WAY. THAT IS THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIFE. TOMORROW MORNING, WHERE WERE TOGETHER AT 9: A.M. WITH JON OSSOFF AND THOM TILLIS. I DON'T KNOW IF AMERICA IS READY. [LAUGHTER] I KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE READY. THANK YOU. THIS MEETING FOR THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS.
YOU PROVIDED BOTH SIDES TO BE HEARD AND ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT UNFORTUNATELY I NOTICED AFTER EVERY SERIES OF QUESTIONS ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE YOU CHOOSE TO EDITORIALIZE AND CONTRADICT THE POINTS BEING MADE BY THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WILL HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EDITORIALIZE ABOUT THE ADVOCACY THAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES, THE POINTS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. I ESPECIALLY WAS CONCERNED THAT AFTER MY QUESTIONING YESTERDAY I LEFT THE HEARING ROOM AND YOU CHOSE TO COME BACK AFTER A BREAK AND RAISE WITH THE JUDGE A POINT THAT I HAD ASKED HER ABOUT, AND WHICH I FRANKLY THINK WAS MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION AND WHAT THE FACTS ARE WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE JUDGE ACCUSED PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD OF WAR CRIMES. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE OF CAUSING SOMEONE A WAR CRIMINAL AND ACCUSING THEM OF WAR CRIMES. MAYBE IN SOME OTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGE I DON'T FRANKLY UNDERSTAND, MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BUT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. SO I JUST DON'T -- I WANT TO LODGE A PROTEST AND SAY I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHAIRMAN AFTER EVERY TIME SOMEONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE ASKS QUESTIONS OF THE JUDGE, YOU COME BACK AND DENIGRATE AND ATTACK AND CRITICIZE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. I THINK THE JUDGE IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF DEFENDING HER OWN POSITION AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. SO THANK FOR YOU GIVING ME A CHANCE TO EXPRESS MY OBJECTION TO THE WAY THAT YOU'VE BEEN EDITORIALIZING AFTER EACH TIME THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE ASKS QUESTIONS. ...
THANKS, SENATOR CORNYN, IT'S KNOWN AS CHAIRMAN'S TIME.
MAY I MAKE MY STATEMENT?
MAY I RESPOND TO WHAT SENATOR CORNYN SAID?
WELL, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK BEFORE A RANKING MEMBER, ENTIRELY YOUR RIGHT.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH SENATOR CORNYN, YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU, YOU KNOW THAT, BUT I'VE HAD THE SAME ISSUE IN NORMAL HEARINGS, NONSUPREME COURT HEARINGS WHERE YOU MAKE EDITORIAL COMMENTS AFTER OUR QUESTION. I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT BUT THEY'RE NOT OFFERED IN AN EVENHANDED WAY AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S PRODUCTIVE. YOU JUST REFERRED BY NAME TO SENATOR HOLLY, I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND P. THIS IS AMERICA. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT FREE IF YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT YOU THINK. AND I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES, SENATOR CORNYN, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, MR. CHAIRMAN. ...
IT'S CALLED CHAIRMAN'S TIME, A TRADITION EXERCISED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM AND SENATOR GRASSLEY.
THEY DIDN'T DO IT THE WAY DID YOU.
I WANT TO BE ALLOWED TO BE HEARD WITHOUT INTERRUPTION AND IN THE MINORITY WE WAITED THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN'S TIME WHEN WE HAD REPUBLICAN CHAIRS AND THERE WON'T BE A SEPARATE SET OF RULES FOR DEMOCRATS IN CONTROL OF THIS COMMITTEE. THAT WAS USED AS A RESPONSE TIME AND AGAIN BY BOTH OF THOSE SENATORS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED. IF WHAT I SAID WAS SOMEHOW PROBLEMATIC OR PAINFUL YESTERDAY, I'M SORRY BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO USE THE SAME MECHANISMS THE REPUBLICANS USED IN THIS COMMITTEE. ...
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO PERSONALIZE IT AS TO SENATORS BY NAME, YOU OUGHT TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO RESPOND.
THEY WILL HAVE A CHANCE.
MR. CHAIRMAN?
EACH AND EVERY SENATOR HAS 20 MINUTES TO RESPOND TODAY IF THEY WISH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE HEAR FROM RANKING MEMBER GRASSLEY AND THEN I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THE STATE OF GEORGIA. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS TUNING IN WITH A GRAVE MATTER OF DISCUSSION WITH THE NOMINEE OF THE SUPREME COURT BEFORE US AND DON'T THINK WE SET A APPROPRIATE TONE AT THE OUTSET OF OUR PROCEEDINGS. EVERY SENATOR DESERVES TO BE HEARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY REQUEST RANKING MEMBER GRASSLEY MAKE A STATEMENT AND I AND SENATOR TILLIS HAVE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE NOMINEE AND THEN WE CAN LITIGATE BALLS AND STRIKES FROM YESTERDAY'S HEARING. WILL THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMITTEE? ...
I THINK IN THE NAME OF YOUR HUMILITY WE SHOULD DO THAT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR GRASSLEY?
THANK YOU, SENATOR GRASSLEY. SENATOR OSSOFF.
THANK YOU, SENATOR CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER GRASSLEY AND JUDGE, GOOD MORNING.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, JUDGE JACKSON. LET'S TALK ABOUT LIMITATIONS ON POWER OUR CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT THAT ANNOUNCES MONARCHISM AND INSTEAD ESTABLISHES A REPUBLICAN. YOU IN OPINION HAS BEEN WIDELY CITED MADE THE OBSERVATION THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOLWORKS AGAINST TYRANNY. JUDGE JACKSON: OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME, THE DESIGN OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS ERECTED TO PREVENT TYRANNY. THE FRAMERS DECIDED AFTER EXPERIENCING MONARCHY, TYRANNY AND THE LIKE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CREATE A GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD SPLIT THE POWERS OF A MONARCH IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE WAS FEDERALISM, IT WAS VERTICAL, THEY WOULD SPLIT THE POWERS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATES, ANOTHER WAS TO PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ITSELF BECOMING TOO POWERFUL, FROM HAVING ALL OF THE AUTHORITIES, FROM HAVING LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CONCENTRATED IN ONE PLACE, SO THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS DESIGN PUTS THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORED IN ARTICLE ONE AND GIVES IT TO THE CONGRESS, THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS. IT PUTS THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN ARTICLE 2 AND GIVES IT TO THE PRESIDENT. THE POWER TO EXECUTE THE LAWS. AND IT PUTS THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THE POWER TO INTERPRET THE LAWS IN ARTICLE 3 AND GIVES IT TO THE COURT. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS CRUCIAL TO LIBERTY. IT IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON AND ARE AND IS IMPORTANT CONSISTENT WITH MY METHODOLOGY FOR EACH BRANCH TO OPERATE WITHIN THEIR OWN SPHERE. THAT MEANS FOR ME THE JUDGES CAN'T MAKE LAW, JUDGES SHOULDN'T BE POLICYMAKERS. THAT'S A PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND PREVENTS OUR GOVERNMENT FROM BEING TOO POWERFUL AND ENCROACHING ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME, THE DESIGN OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS ERECTED TO PREVENT TYRANNY. THE FRAMERS DECIDED AFTER EXPERIENCING MONARCHY, TYRANNY AND THE LIKE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CREATE A GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD SPLIT THE POWERS OF A MONARCH IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE WAS FEDERALISM, IT WAS VERTICAL, THEY WOULD SPLIT THE POWERS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATES, ANOTHER WAS TO PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ITSELF BECOMING TOO POWERFUL, FROM HAVING ALL OF THE AUTHORITIES, FROM HAVING LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CONCENTRATED IN ONE PLACE, SO THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS DESIGN PUTS THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORED IN ARTICLE ONE AND GIVES IT TO THE CONGRESS, THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS. IT PUTS THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN ARTICLE 2 AND GIVES IT TO THE PRESIDENT. THE POWER TO EXECUTE THE LAWS. AND IT PUTS THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THE POWER TO INTERPRET THE LAWS IN ARTICLE 3 AND GIVES IT TO THE COURT. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS CRUCIAL TO LIBERTY. IT IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON AND ARE AND IS IMPORTANT CONSISTENT WITH MY METHODOLOGY FOR EACH BRANCH TO OPERATE WITHIN THEIR OWN SPHERE. THAT MEANS FOR ME THE JUDGES CAN'T MAKE LAW, JUDGES SHOULDN'T BE POLICYMAKERS. THAT'S A PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND PREVENTS OUR GOVERNMENT FROM BEING TOO POWERFUL AND ENCROACHING ON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: PRIOR TO GIDEON VERSUS WAINWRIGHT, PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD LAWYERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO LAWYERS UNDER OUR SYSTEM SO A PERSON COULD BE ACCUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND WOULD HAVE TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES IN COURT AND MAKE THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS. SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A LAWYER WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFENDING HIM OR HERSELF IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE IF THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT CHARGES. EARL GIDEON WAS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT FROM FLORIDA, MY HOME STATE, WHO HAD A HANDWRITTEN PETITION. HE COMPLAINED IT WASN'T FAIR UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME THAT PRODUCTS AND REQUIRES PEOPLE TO BE TRIED, HE SAYS I NEED HELP, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I CAN'T MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIBERTY TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO HAVE COUNSEL. AND THAT HANDWRITTEN PETITION MADE ITS WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUSTICES READ IT AND THEY DETERMINED TO TAKE HIS CASE AND IN THE END DECIDED THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT TO TRIAL INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL SO THAT EVERYBODY WHO IS ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR NOW HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SEE OR SAW AS A TRIAL JUDGE IS THAT IT WAS CRUCIAL FOR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM BOTH SIDES. IT WAS THE ONLY WAY -- IT IS THE ONLY WAY A JUDGE CAN REALLY MAKE FAIR DETERMINATIONS AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT MY CRIMINAL CASES, IN EVERY CASE I'M GETTING AS A JUDGE ARGUMENTS FROM THE PROSECUTION, I'M GETTING ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE COUNSEL OR ARGUMENTS OR STATEMENTS FROM PROBATION IN THESE CRIMINAL CASES AND THE WORK OF THE JUDGE IS TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND HEAR THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND APPLY THE LAW AND MAKE A APPROPRIATE DETERMINATION. HAVING LAWYERS AS CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AIDS IN THAT PROCESS AND BENEFITS US ALL IN YOU'RE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. ...
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND OBSERVE -- THIS IS MY FIRST SUCH PROCEEDING AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE CHAIRMAN FOR OPENING TODAY'S CEREMONIES AT THE END OF THE DIAZ, BUT SOMETHING I'VE STUDIED AND AM AWARE OF THERE'S BEEN A RANGE OVER TIME OF HOW WILLING NOMINEES ARE TO CANDIDLY AND OPENLY DISCUSS THESE CORE MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IN PROCEEDINGS LIKE THIS ONE AND A TENDENCY OVER TIME TO ALLOW LESS AND DISCUSS LESS, A MORE RESTRICTIVE APPROACH. I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE WHILE YOU HAVE PRUDENTLY AND IN A DISCIPLINED WAY REFRAINED FROM COMMENTING INAPPROPRIATELY ON PASSENGERSAL CASE LAW YOU'VE BEEN WILLING TO ENGAGE IN A FORTHRIGHT ENGAGEMENT AND IT'S AN OBSERVATION ABOUT YOUR PERFORMANCE AND NOT A CRITICISM BUT HAVING AN OPEN AND HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT DIALOGUE ABOUT THESE MATTERS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IS PART OF THE VITAL ROLE THESE PROCEEDINGS SERVE. I WANT TO TURN NOW TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THE PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. WE DISCUSSED HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS A RENUNCIATION OF MONARCHISM AND TYRANNY AND ESTABLISHES CORE CIVIL LIBERTIES, ONE OF WHICH IS THE PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. HOW WILL YOU APPROACH FOURTH AMENDMENT CASE LAW AND CAN YOU HELP THOSE TUNED IN ACROSS THE COUNTRY, REMIND THEM OF WHAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRINCIPLE OF A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY MEANS IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE?
THANK YOU, SENATOR. ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE COURT RECEIVES INFORMATION OTHER THAN DIRECTLY FROM THE PARTIES IN A CASE IS THROUGH A PRACTICE AND AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF RECEIVING AMICUS BRIEFS. AMICUS IS A TERM FOR FRIEND, FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEFS. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, WHO DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF INTEREST IN THE CASE BUT MAY HAVE EXPERTISE OR INFORMATION OR ARGUMENT THAT THEY WISH THE COURT TO HEAR. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY MECHANISM BY WHICH IF THE COURT WERE TO DECIDE TO HEAR A CASE CONCERNING A MATTER THAT INVOLVES SOME TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, I WOULD THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE AMICUS BRIEFS RELATED TO THE TECHNOLOGY, FOR EXAMPLE. I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE COURT'S RULES AND CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURTS, OTHER JUSTICES, WAYS IN WHICH DETERMINATIONS ARE MADE IN WHICH WAY THE AMICUS BRIEFS ARE RECEIVED AND WHAT DISCLOSURES ARE RELATED TO THEM BUT THE COURT DOES RECEIVE AMICUS BRIEFS IN CASES IN ORDER TO INFORM ITSELF SO THAT IT CAN MAKE A DECISION RELATED TO THE ISSUES IN A CASE. ...
THANK YOU, JUDGE JACKSON AND FOR YOUR COURAGE AND GRACE AND FORTHRIGHTNESS IN ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS AND LIE FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MORE LATER AND YIELD. ...
THANK FOR YOU BEING HERE AND HEAP YOU GOT REST LAST NIGHT.
VERY LITTLE, SENATOR, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
ME EITHER. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOUR HUSBAND WHO HAS A IMPRESSIVE MEDICAL LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS HE SHOULD BE PROUD OF AND I'M SURE YOU ARE, TOO, AND THANK TO YOU YOUR FAMILY AND PUBLIC SERVANTS SERVING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN, YOU'RE A ROLE MODEL FAMILY. I DO WANT TO GO BACK, THIS MORNING I ENDED UP TURNING TO A CHANNEL I NEVER WATCH JUST TO SEE WHAT WAS BEING SAID ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THEY WERE RIDICULING SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE FOR BRINGING UP THE BEHAVIOR OF PAST SUPREME COURT HEARINGS. THIS IS REALLY THE APPROPRIATE VENUE TO DO IT. I GUESS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR SOMETHING ELSE BUT CONTEXT CHURLLY THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT AND WE ALL HAVE TO AGREE THE BEHAVIOR IN THE KAVANAUGH HEARING WAS NOT APPROPRIATE AND HOPE WE NEVER GET BACK TO IT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN AGREE MANY OF THE POSITIONS OUR COLLEAGUES TOOK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WITH JUSTICE BARRETT WAS ABHORRENT AND NEVER DO IT AGAIN AND WHY I'M SO GLAD FOR THE MOST PART WE'VE BEHAVED IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER HERE. I'M GOING TO GET TO SOME QUESTIONS IF TIME ALLOWS THAT RELATE TO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED BUT JUDGE BARRETT, DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT AT A YOUNG AGE YOU WON A DEBATE COMPETITION OR WAS IT ORATORY COMPETITION. JUDGE JACKSON: I WAS IN SPEECH AND DEBATE AND ONE TEAM AND I DID ORIGINAL ORATORY AS MY PRIMARY EVENT. ...
I WAS IN SPEECH AND DEBATE AND ONE TEAM AND I DID ORIGINAL ORATORY AS MY PRIMARY EVENT. ...
DID YOU CONTINUE YOUR DEBATE COMPETITION, DID YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT, FIRST QUESTION, DID YOU CONTINUE TO DO DEBATE COMPETITION? CONTINUE IT IN SCHOOL OR COLLEGE? JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I DID IT MIDDLE SCHOOL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AND STOPPED WHEN I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I DID IT MIDDLE SCHOOL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AND STOPPED WHEN I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. ...
I DID, TOO, AND I RECALL WE'LL GET ASSIGNED TO TOPICS WE DON'T NECESSARILY BE ONE WE AGREED WITH BUT ARGUED IT. DID YOU GET TO PICK A TOPIC AND ARGUE THE SIDE YOU WERE FOR?
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE REFERENCING EXTERNAL RAINOUS SPEAKING. I DID THAT ONCE IN COMPETITION, I DID A ORIGINAL ORATORY WHERE I WROTE MY OWN SPEECH. ...
YOU HAD A ABILITY TO DEBATE IN THE COURT OF LAW DEBATING A POSITION. THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS THAT YESTERDAY WHEN SENATOR KENNEDY WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE EXPANDING THE COURT OR WHAT WE CALL COURT PACKING, YOU SAID, I HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT BUT I HEAR THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. AND I -- AND I HEAR THE ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES. COULD YOU BRIEFLY INDUSTRY YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. 
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO EXPAND THE COURT BEYOND THE NINE JUSTICES THAT ARE ON THE COURT RIGHT NOW, THE NINE SEATS THAT ARE THERE.
IF YOU WERE TO REVIEW, NINE IS FINE, FOUR OR MORE. THAT'S REALLY THE TWO ARGUMENTS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR YOU HAVE HEARD ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST EITHER SIDE? 
 I'M NOT EVEN SURE ABOUT THE FOUR. I JUST HEARD PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING MORE JUSTICES ON THE COURT, EXPRESSING CONCERNS THAT THE COURT HAS BECOME POLITICIZED, THAT THE COURT HAS BECOME UNBALANCED IN TERMS OF WHAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE TO BE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES AND SO I'VE HEARD ARGUMENTS ABOUT REBALANCING THE COURT ON THAT SIDE AND THEN THERE'S THE ARGUMENT THAT MANY ON THE DIAS HAVE STATED ABOUT THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF DOING SO, THE CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT LEAD TO SOME KIND OF A WAR OF EVERY TIME THERE'S A NEW PRESIDENT ADDING JUSTICES TO THE COURT. ...
YESTERDAY, I THINK IT WAS SENATOR BOOKER WHO OBSERVED SENATOR WHITE HOUSE'S PRESENTATION MADE A COMMENT ABOUT HOW REELED -- HOARED ISLAND, NEW JERSEY BEING -- RHODE ISLAND, NEW JERSEY WOULD HAVE A BIGGER GRAPHIC TO DISPLAY. I WENT BACK, NEW JERSEY IS SIX TIMES THE SIDE OF REELED -- RODED ISLAND, AND BEFORE MY FRIENDS FROM TEXAS CHIME IN, I'D LET THEM KNOW IF ALASKA WERE TWO STATES THEY'D BE A THIRD LARGEST STATE. I DECIDED TO USE THE WHITE HOUSE FORMAT FOR DARK MONEY SO WE HAVE A BALANCED UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS HIRE, THE ASPIRATIONS FOR THE COURT, THERE IS AN ECOSYSTEM OUT THERE ON BOTH SIDES. MATTER OF FACT, WE HAD A JUDICIAL NOMINEE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS ECOSYSTEM. I THINK YOU CAN REASONABLY ASSUME IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN THAT ECOSYSTEM THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVIST JUDGE. THE POINT I MAKE HERE IS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS ECOSYSTEM MOBILIZED TO SUPPORT YOU AND JUDGE JACKSON, I THINK YOU SAID YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY ENCOUNTER WITH DEMAND JUSTICE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY ENCOUNTER WITH SOME OF THESE ACRONYMS OR ABBREVIATED SO I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF WE COULD FOR THE RECORD DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE HAD ANY INTERACTIONS. JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOT. I'VE NEVER SEEN MOAT OF THOSE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOT. I'VE NEVER SEEN MOAT OF THOSE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. ...
I DID NOT EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND TO MY, ON PACKING THE COURT.
JUDGE JACKSON: I UNDERSTAND. THE BRIEF THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING WAS A BRIEF I WORKED ON RIGHT AFTER FINISHING MY SUPREME COURT CLERKSHIP, WHEN I JOINED A BIG LAW FIRM IN MASSACHUSETTS. THIS IS MAYBE 2000, AT THE END OF MY CLERKSHIP. IT IS A FIRST AMENDMENT FREE-SPEECH SET OF ARGUMENTS THAT THE LAWYERS AT MY FIRM -- I WAS PART OF A TEAM REPRESENTING CLIENTS WHO WANTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT ABOUT BUFFER ZONES, WHICH AT THAT TIME, HAD NOT YET BEEN LITIGATED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. ...
WAS IT A BUFFER ZONE THAT PUT PRO-LIFE AND PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE IN THE SAME BUFFER, FOR ONE THAT ARGUED THAT PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WERE IN YOUR FACE AND PERHAPS NEEDED A BIT BETTER BIGGER BUFFER THAN THE PRO-CHOICE?
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL MEANING IT WAS NOT ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE WERE SAYING, IT WAS ABOUT CLEARING A PATH TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENTER THE CLINIC. THE LAWS AT THE TIME WERE ABOUT HOW FAR DID PEOPLE HAVE TO BE KEPT BACK, WHETHER THEY WERE PRO-LIFE OR PRO-CHOICE BECAUSE IF THEY WERE BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE -- ...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE UNDERLYING LAW WAS ULTIMATELY DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT? JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT FOLLOW THE JURISPRUDENCE AT THAT TIME. IT HAD NOT BEEN. THIS WAS A FIRST CIRCUIT BRIEF. HIGHTOWER MEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT MY CLIENTS WANTED TO ARGUE IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT THAT THE LAWS THAT ALLOWED FOR THE CLEARING OF THE PATH SO THAT PEOPLE COULD ENTER THE CLINIC AND HAVE PEOPLE STAND BACK WERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPORTANT. THE FIRST CIRCUIT AGREED. I THINK ULTIMATELY -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY, AS YOU SAY, THERE WAS A LITIGATION THAT WHEN ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT HAD OTHER JURISPRUDENCE ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH BUFFER ZONES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT FOLLOW THE JURISPRUDENCE AT THAT TIME. IT HAD NOT BEEN. THIS WAS A FIRST CIRCUIT BRIEF. HIGHTOWER MEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT MY CLIENTS WANTED TO ARGUE IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT THAT THE LAWS THAT ALLOWED FOR THE CLEARING OF THE PATH SO THAT PEOPLE COULD ENTER THE CLINIC AND HAVE PEOPLE STAND BACK WERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPORTANT. THE FIRST CIRCUIT AGREED. I THINK ULTIMATELY -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY, AS YOU SAY, THERE WAS A LITIGATION THAT WHEN ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT HAD OTHER JURISPRUDENCE ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH BUFFER ZONES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, YOU DON'T READ IT CORRECTLY. IT WAS NOT A STATEMENT. IT WAS A LINE IN AN OPINION. THE BEGINNING OF THEIR COVID 19 PANDEMIC WAS OBVIOUSLY HORRIBLE AND DIFFICULT TIME FOR ALL OF US. WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE BEGINNING AND THE PRISONS, WHICH WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT AS JUDGES, WE WERE INVOLVED IN -- ...
I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER -- LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT. I HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN LETTERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ENCOURAGING THE RELEASE OF NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA AT A FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. I HAVE ALSO SUPPORTED EARLY RELEASE PROGRAMS -- I VOTED AND SUPPORTED THE FIRST STEP ACT. I, AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, WAS THE FIRST SPEAKER AND PROBABLY INTO DECADES, THAT ACTUALLY DID THE JUSTICE REINVESTMENT ACT EARLY RELEASE OF NONVIOLENT PRISONERS. BUT HOW CAN I NOT READ THIS TO SAY THAT PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, IF YOU READ TWO MORE SENTENCES DOWN, THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I FOCUS ON. THIS IS A CASE UNITED STATES VERSUS WIGGINS WHERE I WAS SETTING UP HIGH ANALYSIS AS TO WHY I WOULD NOT BE RELEASING MR. WIGGINS IN THIS CASE. HE WAS ARGUING ESSENTIALLY WHAT I SAID IN THAT STATEMENT. HE WAS ARGUING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF COVID-19, WHICH AT THAT POINT, WAS RAMPANT IN THE PRISONS. WE HAD NOT HAD A VACCINE, THERE WERE VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PRISONERS WHO COULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR JAIL. AND AS I SAY AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT OPINION, AT THAT POINT, COVID WAS RAVAGING THE JAIL. THE QUESTION FOR COURTS UNDER THE STATUTE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE WAS WHETHER COVID-19, A PANDEMIC IN THE JAIL, WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOULD WARRANT RELEASE. WHAT I SAID IN THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU READ WAS IT WOULD SEEM AS THOUGH SOMETHING LIKE A DEADLY PANDEMIC RAMPANT IN THE JAILS WOULD JUSTIFY RELEASING EVERYONE, BUT, I GO ON TO SAY IN THAT VERY OPINION, CONGRESS HAS INDICATED THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE HARM TO THE COMMUNITY THAT MIGHT BE CAUSED BY THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. WE CANNOT JUST RELEASE EVERYBODY, I SAID IN THAT OPINION -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, IF YOU READ TWO MORE SENTENCES DOWN, THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I FOCUS ON. THIS IS A CASE UNITED STATES VERSUS WIGGINS WHERE I WAS SETTING UP HIGH ANALYSIS AS TO WHY I WOULD NOT BE RELEASING MR. WIGGINS IN THIS CASE. HE WAS ARGUING ESSENTIALLY WHAT I SAID IN THAT STATEMENT. HE WAS ARGUING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF COVID-19, WHICH AT THAT POINT, WAS RAMPANT IN THE PRISONS. WE HAD NOT HAD A VACCINE, THERE WERE VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PRISONERS WHO COULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR JAIL. AND AS I SAY AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT OPINION, AT THAT POINT, COVID WAS RAVAGING THE JAIL. THE QUESTION FOR COURTS UNDER THE STATUTE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE WAS WHETHER COVID-19, A PANDEMIC IN THE JAIL, WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOULD WARRANT RELEASE. WHAT I SAID IN THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU READ WAS IT WOULD SEEM AS THOUGH SOMETHING LIKE A DEADLY PANDEMIC RAMPANT IN THE JAILS WOULD JUSTIFY RELEASING EVERYONE, BUT, I GO ON TO SAY IN THAT VERY OPINION, CONGRESS HAS INDICATED THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE HARM TO THE COMMUNITY THAT MIGHT BE CAUSED BY THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. WE CANNOT JUST RELEASE EVERYBODY, I SAID IN THAT OPINION -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DON'T RECALL SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT COMPASSION IN THE WAY THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. ...
NO, I AM JUST SAYING IF I TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR RESPONSES TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS AND YOUR STATEMENTS TO SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOU ARE VERY KIND PERSON AND THAT THERE IS THERE AT LEAST A LEVEL OF EMPATHY THAT ENTERS INTO YOUR TREATMENT OF A DEFENDANT THAT SOME COULD VIEW AS MAYBE BEYOND WHAT SOME OF US WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTERING JUSTICE.
I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST STILL NOTE THAT VIRTUALLY HALF OF THOSE PEOPLE STATISTICALLY SPEAKING THAT YOU GAVE THAT SPEECH TO, WITHIN EIGHT YEARS, WERE BACK IN PRISON. IN SOME CASES, FOR MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES THAN THE FIRST INCARCERATION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ...
THANK YOU FOR THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND I NOTED THAT YOU JOINED A LETTER WITH SENATOR GRASSLEY AND MYSELF IN MARCH OF 2020 AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF THIS TALKING ABOUT RELEASE UNDER THESE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. WE ALL SET AT THE SAME TIME, LOW-RISK INMATES WOULD BE CONSIDERED. ...
ONLY LOW-RISK INMATES.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU IDENTIFY ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS NOW DEALING WITH. WE HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT THAT HAS TEXT AND PRINCIPLES. IT ESTABLISHES FREEDOMS AND FOUNDATIONAL IMPORTANT CONCEPTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO GOVERN US AND THAT WE ARE BOUND BY AS A SOCIETY. THERE IS MODERN TECHNOLOGIES, AS YOU SAY, THAT THE FRAMERS AND FOUNDERS COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED. THE CELL PHONE AND ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NOW RELY UPON. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SUPREME COURT AND EVERY COURT DEALS WITH INDIVIDUAL CASES, DISPUTES ABOUT ISSUES AND WHEN THE COURT GETS AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, IT LOOKS AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE AND THE TEXT AND PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN LIGHT OF THE TIMES IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN AND ANALOGIZE HIS TO PRESENT DAY. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CELL PHONE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WHICH IS A PROTECTION FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION THAT THE FRAMERS CALLED AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH. THE TEXT, UNREASONABLE SEARCH, DOES NOT HAVE AN INHERENT DEFINITION. WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DONE IS LOOKED BACK AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING TO DETERMINE WHAT KINDS OF INTRUSION WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED WHEN THOSE WORDS WERE WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING, THOSE WORDS COVERED THINGS LIKE POLICE OFFICER INTRUDING INTO YOUR HOME AND LOOKING INTO YOUR PAPERS AND AFFAIRS, THEN, THE SUPREME COURT ANALOGIZE HIS THAT CIRCUMSTANCE TO THE MODERN-DAY CIRCUMSTANCE OF A CELL PHONE, WHICH NOW, IS IN ALL RESPECTS, SAYS THE COURT, LIKE RIFLING THROUGH YOUR PAPERS AND AFFAIRS. IT IS A PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CORE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION AS CAPTURED BY THE TEXT AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AND THEN APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES TO MODERN-DAY. ...
WELL, SENATOR, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS DON'T CHOOSE THEIR CLIENTS. AND YET, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE VIGOROUS ADVOCACY. THAT IS THE DUTY OF A LAWYER. AS A JUDGE NOW, I SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING LAWYERS WHO MAKE ARGUMENTS, WHO MAKE ALLEGATIONS. IN THE CONTEXT OF A HABEAS PETITION, ESPECIALLY EARLY IN THE PROCESS OF THE RESPONSE TO THE HORRIBLE ATTACKS OF 9/11, LAWYERS WERE HELPING THE COURTS TO ASSESS THE PERMISSIBLE EXTENT OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY BY MAKING ARGUMENTS. WE WERE ASSIGNED AS PUBLIC DEFENDERS. WE HAD VERY LITTLE INFORMATION BECAUSE OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY OR CLASSIFIED NATURE OF A LOT OF THE RECORD AND AS AN APPELLATE LAWYER, IT WAS MY OBLIGATION TO FILE HABEAS PETITIONS ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS. ...
THANK YOU. I INVITE MY COLLEAGUES TO FOLLOW MY EXAMPLE IF THEY WISH BY YIELDING BACK TIME. SENATOR GRASSLEY, YOU ARE NEXT.
BEFORE I START, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF POINT. YESTERDAY, SENATOR DURBIN REFERENCED CONGRESS'S EFFORT TO STOP CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND THE EXPLOITATION OF MINORS. I WORKED ON THIS ISSUE FOR DECADES. IN 1983 I SUPPORTED THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION ACT. IN 2012, I SENT THE LETTER TO THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHILE JUDGE JACKSON WAS VICE CHAIR. IN THE LETTER, I ENCOURAGED THE SENTENCING COMMISSION NOT TO LOWER SENTENCES FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. I SAID THAT "IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE THE COMMISSION ISSUE A REPORT OF ADVOCATES FOR THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCING FOR A CLASS OF CRIMINALS WHO CAUSE PROFOUND AND LASTING DAMAGE TO THEIR VICTIMS." I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT PUT IN THE RECORD. ...
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
YESTERDAY, YOU REFER TO YOUR RECORD OF DECISIONS AS THE BEST THING TO LOOK AT WHEN EXPLAINING AND EVALUATING YOUR NOMINATION. BUT YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU HAVE NOT HAD ENOUGH CASES INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO DEVELOP A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD TO DEVELOP A PHILOSOPHY FOR DECIDING CASES YET, WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO LOOK AT?
JUDGE JACKSON: RESPECTFULLY, SENATOR, I DO HAVE A PHILOSOPHY. THE PHILOSOPHY IS MY METHODOLOGY. IT IS A PHILOSOPHY THAT I HAVE DEVELOPED FROM PRACTICE UNLIKE SOME JUDGES WHO COME TO APPELLATE WORK FOR MACADAMIA -- ACADEMIA AND HAVE SOME OVERARCHING THEORY OF THE LAW, I APPROACHED CASES FROM EXPERIENCE, FROM PRACTICE AND CONSISTENT WITH MY CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS. MY PHILOSOPHY IS ONE IN WHICH I LOOK AT CASES IMPARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. I UNDERSTAND MY LIMITED ROLE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME AND THEREFORE, TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY ALL OF THE CONSTRAINTS ON THE EXERCISE OF MY AUTHORITY THAT EXISTS IN OUR SYSTEM. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY CASE, I AM SETTING ASIDE MY PERSONAL VIEWS. ...
ARE THOSE THE THREE STEPS YOU GAVE US? YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO THAT. LET ME GO ONE. SO THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULE A PRESIDENT WHEN IT IS CLEAR TO THE JUSTICES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. STARE DECISIS, THE PRINCIPAL IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT USES AT THE OUTSET, IT IS THE SORT OF BACKGROUND RULE OF JUDICIAL MAINTENANCE OF PRECEDENTS IN ORDER TO HAVE PREDICTABILITY, STABILITY IN THE LAW, IS THE KIND OF PRINCIPLE THAT THE COURT BEGINS WITH WHEN IT IS ASKED TO OVERRULE OR REVISIT A PRECEDENT. THE COURT HAS DEVELOPED CERTAIN FACTORS THAT IT LOOKS AT BEFORE IT ACTUALLY UNDERTAKES TO REVERSE A PRECEDENT. ONE OF THOSE FACTORS IS THE VIEW THAT THE PRECEDENT IT IS RECONSIDERING IS WRONG BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. THE COURT ALSO DETERMINES IN ADDITION TO WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUIRED PRECEDENT WAS EGREGIOUSLY WRONG, THE COURT HAS SAID, THE COURT LOOKS AT WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN RELIANCE ON THAT PRIOR PRECEDENT, WHETHER THE PRECEDENT IS WORKABLE OR HAS PROVEN WORKABLE OVER TIME, WHETHER THEY CASES IN THE AREA OF THE PRECEDENT HAVE SHIFTED SUCH THAT THE PRECEDENT ITSELF IS NO LONGER ON FIRM FOUNDATION AND WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN EITHER NEW FACTS OR A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE LONGER ON FIRM FACT THAT GIVE RISE TO A NEED TO REVISIT THE PRECEDENT. IT IS NOT JUST A LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WRONG, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THOSE FACTORS BECAUSE STARE DECISIS, MEANING LETTING THE PRECEDENT STAND IS A VERY IMPORTANT PILLAR OF THE RULE OF LAW. ...
THE JUDGE HAS TO APPROPRIATE THE GUIDELINES IN EVERY CASE. THAT IS HOW WE START THE PROCESS. UNDER THE STATUTES, IN ADDITION TO CALCULATING THE GUIDELINES WITH ALL OF THOSE ENHANCEMENTS, THE WAY OUR SYSTEM NOW WORKS IS YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE GUIDELINE RANGE OF PUNISHMENTS IS GOING TO BE AND THEN, CONGRESS SAYS YOU LOOK AT A SERIES OF OTHER FACTORS IN ADDITION TO THE GUIDELINE RANGE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE JUDGES IN THE SYSTEM NOW ARE CHOOSING SENTENCES BASED ON BOTH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE GUIDELINES AND ALSO THE ITERATION OF THE STATUTORY FACT THERE'S -- FACTORS THAT CONGRESS HAS PUT FORWARD. ...
HAVE YOU EVER DECLINED OR IMPOSED AN ENHANCED SENTENCE ON A DEFENDANT BECAUSE YOU DISAGREED WITH THE ENHANCEMENT AS A POLICY MATTER? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, YES AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE OF SUPREME COURT CASE LAW CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE GUIDELINE SYSTEM OPERATES. THE SUPREME COURT HAS DETERMINED, IN A CASE WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE NO LONGER BINDING ON JUDGES MEANING THE GUIDELINES YOU CAN CALCULATE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY IN THE GUIDELINE RANGE ANYMORE. THAT WAS THE SUPREME COURT'S BOOKER CASE. I CARE MEMBER IF IT IS IN THAT CASE OR SUBSEQUENT CASE LAW, BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU ARE CALCULATING THE GUIDELINE RANGE IN THE NEW SYSTEM THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW, JUDGES ARE FREE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, TO DECIDE IN PARTICULAR CASES WHETHER AS A POLICY MATTER, THEY DISAGREE WITH A PARTICULAR ENHANCEMENT. THAT IS THE STATE OF THE LAW, THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID JUDGES ARE PERMITTED TO DO IN CASES. AND SO, I HAVE, IN CERTAIN CASES, GIVEN THE WAY IN WHICH THE GUIDELINES ARE OPERATING, THE DISPARITIES THAT ARE CREATED IN CASES, I HAVE AT TIMES IDENTIFIED VARIOUS ENHANCEMENTS THAT I HAVE DISAGREED WITH AS A POLICY MATTER BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF A SENTENCING JUDGE IN OUR SYSTEM. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, YES AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE OF SUPREME COURT CASE LAW CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE GUIDELINE SYSTEM OPERATES. THE SUPREME COURT HAS DETERMINED, IN A CASE WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE NO LONGER BINDING ON JUDGES MEANING THE GUIDELINES YOU CAN CALCULATE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY IN THE GUIDELINE RANGE ANYMORE. THAT WAS THE SUPREME COURT'S BOOKER CASE. I CARE MEMBER IF IT IS IN THAT CASE OR SUBSEQUENT CASE LAW, BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU ARE CALCULATING THE GUIDELINE RANGE IN THE NEW SYSTEM THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW, JUDGES ARE FREE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, TO DECIDE IN PARTICULAR CASES WHETHER AS A POLICY MATTER, THEY DISAGREE WITH A PARTICULAR ENHANCEMENT. THAT IS THE STATE OF THE LAW, THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID JUDGES ARE PERMITTED TO DO IN CASES. AND SO, I HAVE, IN CERTAIN CASES, GIVEN THE WAY IN WHICH THE GUIDELINES ARE OPERATING, THE DISPARITIES THAT ARE CREATED IN CASES, I HAVE AT TIMES IDENTIFIED VARIOUS ENHANCEMENTS THAT I HAVE DISAGREED WITH AS A POLICY MATTER BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF A SENTENCING JUDGE IN OUR SYSTEM. ...
ARE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR --
YOU HAVE ISSUED THEM. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS THAT. THE REASON WHY IPODS IS BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE ISSUED IS NOT TECHNICALLY A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. PEOPLE CALL IT THAT, BUT IN A PARTICULAR SET OF CASES, ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CASES THAT ARE BROUGHT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEIZURE ACT, THESE ARE CHALLENGES TO AGENCY ACTIONS LIKE AGENCY RULES THAT THEY HAVE PROMULGATED AND IF THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE PROCEDURES THAT THE AGENCY UNDERTOOK TO CREATE THE RULE, THE STATUTE THAT APPLIES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TELLS THE COURT THAT IF YOU AGREE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS, THAT THE AGENCY RULE IS FAULTY, PROCEDURALLY, THE REMEDY IN THE STATUTE IS TO INVALIDATE THE RULE. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS TELLS JUDGES TO DO. TECHNICALLY, THAT IS NOT A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. THAT IS INVALIDATING A RULE THAT THE AGENCY HAS ENACTED. IT MAY HAVE NATIONWIDE EFFECT BECAUSE THE AGENCY MAY HAVE IMPLEMENTED RULE NATIONWIDE, BUT WITH THE COURT IS DOING IS NOT REACHING OUT AND TOUCHING EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY. THE COURT IS DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS PROMULGATED THAT RULE, THAT THE RULE IS INVALID. THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE TELLS US WE HAVE TO DO IN THOSE CASES. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION BECAUSE A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION WOULD BE A SITUATION IN WHICH WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE RULE, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WE ARE DEALING WITH A PARTICULAR CASE IN WHICH SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT, AND THE COURT SAYS BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO TELL EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY THAT YOU CANNOT -- YOU CANNOT OPERATE IN THIS WAY ANYMORE. I'M GOING TO FIND ON THE BASIS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I'M GOING TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY NOT TO DO THAT ANYMORE. THAT IS A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION WHICH IS NOT WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE CASES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS THAT. THE REASON WHY IPODS IS BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE ISSUED IS NOT TECHNICALLY A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. PEOPLE CALL IT THAT, BUT IN A PARTICULAR SET OF CASES, ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CASES THAT ARE BROUGHT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEIZURE ACT, THESE ARE CHALLENGES TO AGENCY ACTIONS LIKE AGENCY RULES THAT THEY HAVE PROMULGATED AND IF THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE PROCEDURES THAT THE AGENCY UNDERTOOK TO CREATE THE RULE, THE STATUTE THAT APPLIES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TELLS THE COURT THAT IF YOU AGREE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS, THAT THE AGENCY RULE IS FAULTY, PROCEDURALLY, THE REMEDY IN THE STATUTE IS TO INVALIDATE THE RULE. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS TELLS JUDGES TO DO. TECHNICALLY, THAT IS NOT A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. THAT IS INVALIDATING A RULE THAT THE AGENCY HAS ENACTED. IT MAY HAVE NATIONWIDE EFFECT BECAUSE THE AGENCY MAY HAVE IMPLEMENTED RULE NATIONWIDE, BUT WITH THE COURT IS DOING IS NOT REACHING OUT AND TOUCHING EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY. THE COURT IS DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS PROMULGATED THAT RULE, THAT THE RULE IS INVALID. THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE TELLS US WE HAVE TO DO IN THOSE CASES. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION BECAUSE A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION WOULD BE A SITUATION IN WHICH WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE RULE, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WE ARE DEALING WITH A PARTICULAR CASE IN WHICH SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT, AND THE COURT SAYS BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO TELL EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY THAT YOU CANNOT -- YOU CANNOT OPERATE IN THIS WAY ANYMORE. I'M GOING TO FIND ON THE BASIS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I'M GOING TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY NOT TO DO THAT ANYMORE. THAT IS A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION WHICH IS NOT WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE CASES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ...
HOW CAN THE JUDICIARY ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT FORUM SHOPPING GIVING THE RISE OF NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS? JUDGE JACKSON: WELL, FORUM SHOPPING IS A CONCERN THAT ARISES WHEN LITIGANTS SEEK TO GO TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY THINK THAT THEY MAY GET A BETTER RESULT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS CAN ADDRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WELL, FORUM SHOPPING IS A CONCERN THAT ARISES WHEN LITIGANTS SEEK TO GO TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY THINK THAT THEY MAY GET A BETTER RESULT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS CAN ADDRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. ...
EXPLAINED THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE AND THEN, WHAT STANDARDS WOULD YOU APPLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CLAIM BEFORE YOU IMPLICATES A POLITICAL QUESTION. JUDGE JACKSON: THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE IS A DOCTRINE THAT RELATES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. AS I MENTIONED, THE COURTS ARE IN A PARTICULAR BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THAT IS LIMITED IN ITS POWER. THE COURTS CANNOT MAKE POLICY. THEY CAN'T REACH OUT INTO THE WORLD AND DECIDE THAT CERTAIN THINGS ARE GOOD OR BAD AND THEN ADDRESS THEM. THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR CASES TO COME AND DECIDE THEM. WHEN A CASE COMES, IT HAS TO BE PRESENTING A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT TO ANSWER IT. IF A PERSON COMES TO THE COURT AND THEY ASK THE COURT TO ANSWER SOMETHING THAT IS PROPERLY IN THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS, IF THEY ASK A POLITICAL QUESTION, THEN THE COURT HAS TO SAY, I AM SORRY, THAT IS NOT MY ROLE. I HAD A CASE THAT INVOLVED YEMENIS CITIZENS, I'M TRYING TO GET THE FACTS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THEY HAD RELATIVES, I THINK THEY WERE RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY HAD RELATIVES IN YEMEN, A WAR-TORN AREA, THIS IS A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THEY CAME TO THE COURT, ME, ASKING IF I COULD DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXTRACT THEIR RELATIVES FROM YEMEN. THAT THEY WANTED ME TO ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO SEND IN TROOPS AND GET THEIR RELATIVES OUT BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS FOR THEIR RELATIVES TO BE IN THAT COUNTRY. WHAT I SAID IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS ESSENTIALLY, I DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO IS A POLITICAL QUESTION. THE QUESTION OF WHEN AND WHERE TROOPS CAN BE SENT AND WHO CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BELONGS WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. YOU HAVE TO ASK THEM. I SAID, I HAVE NO JURISDICTION. THAT IS THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE AND IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED IN OUR LAW. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE IS A DOCTRINE THAT RELATES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. AS I MENTIONED, THE COURTS ARE IN A PARTICULAR BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THAT IS LIMITED IN ITS POWER. THE COURTS CANNOT MAKE POLICY. THEY CAN'T REACH OUT INTO THE WORLD AND DECIDE THAT CERTAIN THINGS ARE GOOD OR BAD AND THEN ADDRESS THEM. THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR CASES TO COME AND DECIDE THEM. WHEN A CASE COMES, IT HAS TO BE PRESENTING A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT TO ANSWER IT. IF A PERSON COMES TO THE COURT AND THEY ASK THE COURT TO ANSWER SOMETHING THAT IS PROPERLY IN THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS, IF THEY ASK A POLITICAL QUESTION, THEN THE COURT HAS TO SAY, I AM SORRY, THAT IS NOT MY ROLE. I HAD A CASE THAT INVOLVED YEMENIS CITIZENS, I'M TRYING TO GET THE FACTS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THEY HAD RELATIVES, I THINK THEY WERE RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY HAD RELATIVES IN YEMEN, A WAR-TORN AREA, THIS IS A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THEY CAME TO THE COURT, ME, ASKING IF I COULD DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXTRACT THEIR RELATIVES FROM YEMEN. THAT THEY WANTED ME TO ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO SEND IN TROOPS AND GET THEIR RELATIVES OUT BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS FOR THEIR RELATIVES TO BE IN THAT COUNTRY. WHAT I SAID IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS ESSENTIALLY, I DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO DO IS A POLITICAL QUESTION. THE QUESTION OF WHEN AND WHERE TROOPS CAN BE SENT AND WHO CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BELONGS WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. YOU HAVE TO ASK THEM. I SAID, I HAVE NO JURISDICTION. THAT IS THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE AND IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED IN OUR LAW. ...
SENATOR LAHEY?
I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR POISE, ENDURANCE, THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS. I FELT PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE FOR HOURS OF THAT. YOU HAD EVEN MORE HOURS. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THE REACTION IN MY OWN STATE OF VERMONT, I HAVE GOTTEN ALL KINDS OF EMAILS AND CALLS FROM FRIENDS ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PRAISING YOU AND THEY SAID THEY REALIZE A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH YOUR QUALITIES OF BEING ON THE SUPREME COURT, BUT WERE SOME MEMBERS ENDING FOR A SOUNDBITE THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT ON A POLITICAL WEBSITE WHERE IT NOW IS. FOR EXAMPLE, WEIRD OVERHEATED CLAIMS YESTERDAY THAT YOUR REPRESENTATION OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES SOMEHOW SIGNALED YOUR POLICY PREFERENCE WITH HOW THE UNITED STATES HAS DEALT WITH THOSE DETAINEES. EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED AS COUNSEL IN CASES SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO COMPLETE A PAST REPRESENTATION FOR POLICY DECISIONS. SIMPLY BY CHOOSING TO REPRESENT THEM. YOUR POLICY VIEWS ASIDE, CAN YOU REITERATE WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR COURT TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE BEST POSSIBLE LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON BOTH SIDES OF ANY CASE AND ESPECIALLY IN CASES WHERE WE ARE IN UNCHARTED LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS.
I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN CASES WHERE THAT HAPPENS. I MENTIONED TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT I SPENT NEARLY A DECADE AS A PROSECUTOR. ESPECIALLY WHEN I HAD SERIOUS CASES, I WANTED THE BEST DEFENSE ATTORNEY POSSIBLE ON THE OTHER SIDE. I WANTED A CASE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] -- WENT UP ON APPEAL AUTOMATICALLY IF IT CARRIED A HEAVY PENALTY, I WANTED THE COURT, THE APPELLATE COURT TO LOOK AT IT AND SAID, OK, THERE WERE NOT ERRORS OF COUNSEL ON EITHER SIDE. BUT I ALSO, AS A STRONG PROPONENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SOMETHING I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. WE HAVE TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS PROTECTED. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE DEFENSE COUNSEL IS IN FAVOR OF MURDER OR RAPE OR ARMED ROBBERY. BUT THE RIGHTS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED. LET ME TELL YOU THIS ABOUT ANOTHER AREA. I'VE LONG CHAMPIONED THE BIPARTISAN JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT. I THINK IT WOULD HELP CURTAIL THE GROWING WAVE OF VOTER SUPPRESSION SWEEPING ACROSS OUR COUNTRY. AGAIN, SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IN VERMONT. UNFORTUNATELY THEY DO IN OTHER STATES. I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION. I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT OUR DEMOCRACY IS STRONGER WHEN WE EXPAND, NOT SHRINK, THE RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS TO FULLY PARTICIPATE. I BELIEVE OUR DEMOCRAT IS DEMOCRACY GROWS STRONGER WITH YOUR HISTORIC NOMINATION AND YOUR PRESENCE HERE TODAY. I'VE TOLD YOU PRIVATELY HOW MY FAMILY MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT THAT. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY'S INSTITUTIONS, COURTS AND OTHERS, TO REFLECT THE RICH DIVERSITY OF OUR NATION'S CITIZENRY?
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH HAS CERTAIN POWERS AND IT CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS TO ENSURE THAT ITS PRAGUETIFICS ARE ACHIEVED -- PREROGATIVES ARE ACHIEVED AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE POWER OF MIGHT, THE PRESIDENT CONTROLS THE MILITARY. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, ITS FORCE IN OUR SYSTEM IS THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CAN ONLY BE DONE BY ESSENTIALLY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. IT CAN ONLY BE DONE IF PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY BELIEVE, DECIDE AND AGREE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT IT IS THAT COURTS DECIDE. AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY HAVING A DIVERSE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT LENDS AND BOLSTERS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR SYSTEM. WE HAVE A DIVERSE SOCIETY IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER WHO COME TO THIS GREAT NATION AND MAKE THEIR LIVES. AND WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS COMPRICED OF A -- COMPRAOEUTZED OF A VARIETY -- COMPRISED OF A VARIETY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND WHO ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO INTERPRET THE LAWS CONSISTENT WITH THAT OATH, IT LENDS CONFIDENCE THAT THE RULINGS THAT THE COURT IS HANDING DOWN ARE FAIR AND JUST, THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, THAT NO ONE IS BEING EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF A CHARACTERISTIC LIKE RACE OR GENDER OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ROLE MODELING THAT I HAVE BEEN SO TOUCHED BY THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME TO SAY HOW MUCH IT HAS MEANT TO THEIR DAUGHTERS, TO THEIR SONS, TO THE NEXT GENERATION THAT I'VE BEEN APPOINTED, NOMINATED AND HOPEFULLY CONFIRMED. ...
I AGREE WITH YOU. I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN THAT WITHIN MY OWN FAMILY. WE DO HAVE AREAS WHERE WE AGREE ON THINGS ON THIS COMMITTEE. SENATORS GRASSLEY AND SENATOR CORNYN, MYSELF AND OTHERS, BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY AS PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. WE'VE DONE THIS WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, WE'VE UPDATED IT A NUMBER OF YEARS, SENATOR CORNYN AND I HAVE BEEN THE KEY SPONSORS OF LEGISLATION ENJOYED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY AND SENATOR DURBIN AND OTHERS TO IMPROVE THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE DETAILED OPINIONS YOU'VE WRITTEN TO TRY TO DO THE SAME THING. I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY YOU THINK TRANSPARENCY IS CENTRAL TO THE DUTIES OF A JUDGE. DO YOU INTEND TO CARRY THAT ATTITUDE, AND YOU WILL, AND YOU WILL, BECOME A MEMBER OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE VALUE OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, WHICH I WAS JUST DISCUSSING, I THINK IS ENHANCED WHEN THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE REASONS THAT A JUDGE RENDERS HIS OR HER RULING. ONE OF MY MENTORS USED TO SAY, PEOPLE THINK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS SO SECRETIVE, BUT IN FACT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS THE ONLY BRANCH THAT ACTUALLY HAS TO TELL EVERYONE, THAT ACTUALLY HAS TO WRITE THEIR OPINIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY IT IS THAT THEY DID WHAT THEY DID. AND SO I TRIED, I'VE TRIED IN THE NEARLY 10 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH, TO MAKE MY RULINGS TRANSPARENT. TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THE INPUTS THAT I HAVE CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO THE CASE, TO LAY OUT THE LAW AS I SEE IT, IN INTERPRETING WHAT CONGRESS, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR CASE. AND WHAT LEGAL PROVISIONS THAT I THINK ARE RELEVANT TO THE DISPUTE. AND THEN TO EXPLAIN MY ANALYSIS. WHY AM I GRANTING THIS MOTION OR DENYING THIS CLAIM? AND MY HOPE IS THAT IT WILL HELP PEOPLE TO BE CONFIDENT IN MY REASONING AND, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH IT, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT I THINK. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW. ...
YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT YOUR CLERKING FOR JUSTICE BREYER AND HOW IT OPENED UP DOORS OF OPPORTUNITY. I REMEMBER SO WELL OUR CONVERSATION IN MY OFFICE AND THE PRESIDENT PROTEMP'S OFFICE, TALKING BEFORE THESE HEARINGS BEGAN. YOU TOLD ME WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD MEAN TO YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR FAMILY, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR DAUGHTERS, YOUR PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE THROUGHOUT THIS AND WHAT IT MEANT TO YOUR GRANDPARENTS. YOU SAID YOU WERE THE LUCKY FIRST INHERRER TO OF DR. KING'S -- INHERITER OF DR. KING'S CIVIL RIGHTS LEGACY. I KEEP A DAILY JOURNAL. I WROTE THAT DOWN. IT MEANS A LOT. SO LET ME DO SORT OF AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION. YOU'VE PATIENTLY ANSWERED OUR QUESTIONS THIS WEEK. I TOLD YOU THE REACTION IN VERMONT, DISAPPOINTMENT, OBVIOUSLY SOME WERE POLITICAL. I HEARD THAT FROM BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE YOUR LEGAL THOUGHTS ON THE SUPREME COURT. SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE STATE OF VERMONT. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO CONVEY TO THEM ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE YOU WOULD BE IF AND WHEN YOU'RE CONFIRMED? IT'S ALL YOURS, YOUR HONOR. 
THANK YOU. CHAIR DURBIN, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, FIRST JUSTICE GOT TO VOTE ON WAS JOHN PAUL STEVENS. NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT GERALD FORD. PROUD TO VOTE FOR IT. IT'S A LONG ARC, JUDGE JACKSON, BUT I'M SO PROUD OF YOUR ANSWERS AND I YIELD BACK. ...
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAY I HAD. LET'S TAKE A -- LEAHY. LET'S TAKE A BREAK FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE.
QUESTIONING WILL RESUME. SENATOR GRAHAM.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.
JUDGE JACKSON: SORRY MUCH GOOD MORNING, SENATOR.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. UNDER OUR LAWS YOU HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO VOTE. ...
SO THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO?
JUDGE JACKSON: IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAWS, SO THE ANSWER IS NO.
OK, THEY DID THAT IN NEW YORK.
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES --
OK. IT'S A GOOD ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS NO. CAN AN UNBORN CHILD FEEL PAIN AT 20 WEEKS IN THE BIRTHING PROCESS?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ANESTHESIA IS PROVIDED TO THE UNBORN CHILD AT THAT TIME PERIOD IF THERE'S AN OPERATION TO SAVE THE BABY'S LIFE BECAUSE THEY CAN IN FACT FEEL PAIN? ARE YOU WEAR OF THAT
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. …
THAT MAY COME BEFORE YOU ONE DAY SO JUST KEEP AN OPEN MIND. YOU SAID JUST A BIT AGO THAT YOU APPLY THE LAW AND THE FACTS AND CALL THEM AS YOU SEE THEM, IS THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: THA EUTS CORRECT, SENATOR. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THA EUTS CORRECT, SENATOR. ...
AND YOU LOOK AT THE STATUTE THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN AND YOU TRY TO APPLY IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH, IS THAT RIGHT?
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS CORRECT, SENATOR.
YOU HAVE HEARD OF A CASE CALLED MAKE THE ROAD VS. MACILEAN?
JUDGE JACKSON: MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK? YES.
MAKE THE ROAD IN NEW YORK, WHO ARE THEY?
JUDGE JACKSON: MAKE THE ROAD, NEW YORK, IS A NONPROFIT THAT REPRESENTS VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN THE SORT OF IMMIGRATION…
THEY'RE A NONPROFIT ADVOCACY GROUP FOR IMMIGRATION ISSUES. DID YOU KNOW THEY RECEIVED LARGE DONATIONS FROM THE NETWORK, FROM GEORGE SOURCE'S OPEN SOCIETY NETWORK? 
NO
WELL THEY CANNER DID. IN THAT CASE, WHAT WAS THE ISSUE?
JUDGE JACKSON: THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS A CHALLENGE TO A CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION POLICY CONCERNING EXPEDITED REMOVAL, WHICH IS A POLICY THAT CONGRESS ENACTED IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CERTAIN REMOVALS IN THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. MORE NARROWLY, BEFORE EXPEDITED REMOVAL -- ...
SOME CASES DO NOT FALL IN THIS CATEGORY, RIGHT?
JUDGE JACKSON: WELL, --
TRUST ME ON THAT. BECAUSE THE STATUTE SAYS IT DOESN'T. 
JUDGE JACKSON: IF A PERSON WHO COULD OTHERWISE BE SUBJECT TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL MAKES AND HAS A CREDIBLE FEAR OF TORTURE IN THEIR COUNTRY, THEY CAN BE -- ...
AGAIN, THEY MAKE THAT CLAIM.
JUDGE JACKSON: THEY CAN BE DETERMINED TO QUALIFY FOR REGULAR REMOVAL RATHER THAN EXPEDITED REMOVAL.
EXPEDITED REMOVAL IS A CREATURE OF CONGRESS, FOLKS. AND IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS OR LESS, THE STATUTE, THE STATUTE, SORRY, THE STATUTE. THE STATUTE WOULD ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATION AND OFFICE TO HAVE EXPEDITED REMOVAL, AVOIDING A LOT OF THE HURDLES THAT WOULD EXIST OTHERWISE FOR PEOPLE HERE TWO YEARS OR LESS. DURING THE OBAMA, EVEN BUSH, YEARS, THEY DID NOT LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF APPLYING IT TO EVERYBODY. SOME PEOPLE COMING BY AIR GOT EXPEDITED REMOVAL. OTHERS DIDN'T. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO USE THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO IT BY CONGRESS TO REMOVE ALL ELIGIBLE CASES TWO YEARS OR LESS UNDER THE EXPEDITED REMOVAL STATUTE IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY? 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I WOULD SAY IT DIFFERENTLY. ...
WELL, SAY IT DIFFERENTLY. JUDGE JACKSON: ALL RIGHT. THE STATUTE THAT YOU'VE PUT UP INDICATES THAT CONGRESS IS GIVING THE DEPARTMENT, IT SAYS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT NOW IT'S THE DEPARTMENT, THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORY OF ALIENS -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: ALL RIGHT. THE STATUTE THAT YOU'VE PUT UP INDICATES THAT CONGRESS IS GIVING THE DEPARTMENT, IT SAYS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT NOW IT'S THE DEPARTMENT, THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORY OF ALIENS -- …
TWO YEARS OR LESS. JUDGE JACKSON: YES. BUT IMPORTANTLY THE AUTHORITY WAS -- IT WAS NOT CONGRESS SAYING TWO YEARS OR LESS. WHAT CONGRESS SAID IS YOU, AGENCY, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORY OF PERSONS BETWEEN -- WHO HAVE BEEN HERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES. BUT IMPORTANTLY THE AUTHORITY WAS -- IT WAS NOT CONGRESS SAYING TWO YEARS OR LESS. WHAT CONGRESS SAID IS YOU, AGENCY, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORY OF PERSONS BETWEEN -- WHO HAVE BEEN HERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS -- ...
WHICH IS TWO YEARS.
JUDGE JACKSON: FORGIVE ME, SENATOR. WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS THAT THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE AGENCY WAS TO DETERMINE WHAT LENGTH OF TIME -- WHAT LENGTH OF TIME. IT WAS NOT THE AUTHORITY TO DEPORT EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN HERE FOR 24 MONTHS. IT WAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT LENGTH OF TIME A PERSON HAS TO BE HERE IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECTED TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL. ...
HERE'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE D.H.S. SECRETARY, -- [INDISCERNIBLE] -- ONE AND TWO OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH TO ANY AND ALL ALIENS DESCRIBED IN SUBCLASS TWO AS DESIGNATEDDED BY THE ATTORNEY JEOPARDY, ACTUALLY D.H.S. DEFINITION SHOULD BE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] -- DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MAY BE MODIFIED AT ANY TIME. NOW, I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR QUITE A WHILE. WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID WAS TO USE THE DISCRETION GIVEN TO IT BY STATUTE IN A WAY DIFFERENT THAN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. THIS ADVOCACY GROUP, THE ADVOCACY GROUP, TRIED TO STRIKE IT DOWN. YOU RULED FOR THEM. HERE'S WHAT THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT SAID ABOUT YOUR RULING. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE DEFINITIVE EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO LEAVE THE DECISION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE EXPANDED REMOVAL WITHIN STATUTE OR BOUNDS TO THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. THE FORCEFUL PHRASE SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION BY ITS EXCEPTIONAL TERMS. SUCH DESIGNATION SHALL BE IN THE SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MAY BE MODIFIED AT ANY TIME. TO THOSE OF US IN THE LAW WRITING BUSINESS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD TELL A JUDGE MORE CLEARLY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION, THE AGENCY IN QUESTION, HAS DISCRETION TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITHIN THE STATUTE. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE TO ME, AND YOU MAY NOT AGREE, WHERE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE WAS COMPLETELY WIPED OUT BY YOU. YOU REACHED A CONCLUSION BECAUSE YOU DISAGREED WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, AS I QUOTED JUST A MINUTE AGO, THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE DEFINITIVE INTENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO LEAVE THE DISCRETION TO THE SECRETARY OF INDEPENDENT JUDGES. THAT TO ME IS EXHIBIT A OF ACTIVISM. LET'S GO BACK TO THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, WOULD YOU ALLOW ME TO -- ...
YES, PLEASE.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. THE STATUTE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU REFERENCE ARE ASTERISKED IN SO FAR IS THAT IS WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. IT'S NOT ALL OF IT. IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE DESIGNATION PROCESS THAT I WAS TRYING TO ARTICULATE. AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS ANOTHER STATUTE THAT IS PRESUMPTIVELY APPLIED IN AGENCY CASES TO TELL AGENCIES HOW TO EXERCISE DISCRETION. THERE'S ALSO D.C. CIRCUIT CASE LAW THAT SAYS THAT IN ADDITION TO HAVING THAT PROCEDURAL STATUTE BE PRESUMPTIVE, EVEN VERY CLEAR DESIGNATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO AN AGENCY MAY STILL BE SUBJECT TO CONGRESS' OTHER DIRECTIONS REGARDING HOW TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION. ...
THAT ARGUMENT FELL ON TKAEF EARS.
JUDGE JACKSON: UNDERSTOOD. BUT THAT'S OUR APPELLATE PROCESS.
I HAVE OTHER THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOU GAVE AN EXPLANATION BUT IT DIDN'T WORK. THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT SAID THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE DEFINITIVE EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS. THERE'S NO WAY TO WRITE A STATUTE SAYING DISCRETION LIES IN THE AGENCY. THIS SOLE, IT'S NONREVIEWABLE. YOU'RE NOT CONVINCING ME -- [TALKING SIMULTANEOUSLY] WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ALL DAY LONG BUT I AGREE WITH THE D.C. COURT. THIS TO ME IS AN EXAMPLE, EXHIBIT A, OF A JUDGE TO GET A RESULT THEY WANTED. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU FIND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DISGUSTING AS THE REST OF AMERICA. YOU'RE A MOTHER. YOU SEEM TO BE A VERY NICE PERSON. ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW MANY IMAGES ARE OUT THERE ON THE INTERNET INVOLVING CHILDREN AND SEXUALLY COMPROMISING SITUATIONS? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE NUMBERS BUT I'VE SEEN THE IMAGES IN MY ROLE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE NUMBERS BUT I'VE SEEN THE IMAGES IN MY ROLE. ...
LET ME TELL YOU THE NUMBERS. IN 2021, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN CYBERTIP LINE RECEIVED 29.3 MILLION REPORTS OF A PARENT-CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION CONTAINING 85 MILLION IMAGES, VIDEOS AND OTHER FILES. THAT'S IN 2021. IT'S UP. IN 2019 IT WAS LESS. SO THERE'S AN EPIDEMIC OF THIS ON THE INTERNET. THAT IF YOU GO OUT ON THE INTERNET, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PICTURES OF KIDS BEING ABUSED. WHEN IT COMES TO SENTENCING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION CASES, DO YOU ROUTINE LADIES COUNT THE FACT THAT A COMPUTER WAS USED? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN. THE GUIDELINES RELATED TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WERE DRAFTED AT A TIME IN WHICH A COMPUTER WAS NOT USED FOR THE MAJORITY, IF NOT ALMOST ALL, OF THESE KINDS OF HORRIBLE CRIMES. THE GUIDELINES HAVE ENHANCEMENTS IN THEM -- ...
THERE ARE TWO AREAS YOU SAID YOU DISAGREE. WHAT ARE THOSE TWO AREAS? JUDGE JACKSON: AT THE TIME THAT THE GUIDELINES WERE DRAFTED, IT WAS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR, A SUBSTANTIAL AGGRAVATING FACTOR TO USE A COMPUTER IN ORDER TO DISTRIBUTE AND DISSEMINATE THE IMAGES BECAUSE THE ORDINARY CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED BY A COMPUTER. SO THE -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: AT THE TIME THAT THE GUIDELINES WERE DRAFTED, IT WAS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR, A SUBSTANTIAL AGGRAVATING FACTOR TO USE A COMPUTER IN ORDER TO DISTRIBUTE AND DISSEMINATE THE IMAGES BECAUSE THE ORDINARY CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED BY A COMPUTER. SO THE -- ...
WOULD YOU NOW AGREE WITH ME THAT COMPUTERS ARE SORT OF THE VENUE OF CHOICE FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PEOPLE?
JUDGE JACKSON: YES.
OK. SO, HERE'S MY POINT. IF YOU BELIEVE AS I DO THE COMPUTER HAS CREATED A BIGGER DEMAND, THERE ARE MORE PHOTOS OUT THERE BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET, MORE WEBSITES EXPOSING THIS GARBAGE, WON'T YOU WANT TO DETER PEOPLE FROM GOING DOWN THAT ROAD? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, THIS CRIME IS AMONG THE MOST DIFFICULT -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, THIS CRIME IS AMONG THE MOST DIFFICULT -- ...
NO, ANSWER MY QUESTION. WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO DETER PEOPLE FROM GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF USING THE COMPUTER THAT ALLOWS THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO MILLIONS OF PHOTOS BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGY? I WANT THOSE PEOPLE DETERRED. IF YOU'RE LISTENING TO MY VOICE TODAY AND YOU'RE ON A COMPUTER LOOKING AT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, AND YOU GET CAUGHT, I HOPE YOUR SENTENCE IS ENHANCED BECAUSE THE COMPUTER AND THE INTERNET IS FEEDING THE BEAST HERE. THAT ALL THESE IMAGES OUT THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE OVER TIME BECAUSE PEOPLE USE COMPUTERS. NOW, DID YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE NUMBER OF IMAGES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT?
JUDGE JACKSON: WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPUTER, ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE DETERRENTS IS ONE THAT I IMPOSED IN EVERY CASE AND THAT JUDGES ACROSS THE COUNTRY IMPOSE IN EVERY CASE, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL SUPERVISION. …
WAIT. YOU THINK IT IS A BIGGER DETERRENT TO TAKE SOMEBODY WHO IS ON A COMPUTER, LOOKING AT SEXUAL IMAGES OF CHILDREN IN THE MOST DISGUSTING WAY, IS TO SUPERVISE THEIR COMPUTER HABIT VERSE US IS PUTTING THEM IN JAIL? 
JUDGE JACKSON: I DIDN'T SAY VERSUS. ...
THAT'S EXACTLY YOU WHAT SAID. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DETER PEOPLE FROM GETTING ON A COMPUTER AND VIEWING THOUSANDS AND HUNDREDS AND OVER TIME MAYBE MILLIONS OF CHILDREN BEING EXPLOITED AND ABUSED EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CLICKS ON IS TO PUT THEIR ASS IN JAIL, NOT SUPERVISE THEIR COMPUTER USAGE.
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT VERSUS. ...
YOU JUST SAID YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A DETERRENT TO SUPERVISE THEM. I DON'T THINK IT'S A DETERRENT. I THINK THE DETERRENT IS PUTTING IN JAIL.
WOULD YOU LET HER RESPOND?
YES. DOES SENTENCING HAVE A DETERRENT COMPONENT? 
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, SENATOR, DETERRENCE IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF PUN INNERMENT -- PUNISHMENT. AND CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED COURTS TO CONSIDER VARIOUS MEANS OF ACHIEVING DETERRENCE. ONE OF THEM, AS YOU SAID, IS INCARCERATION. ANOTHER, AS I TRIED TO MENTION, WAS SUBSTANTIAL PERIODS OF SUPERVISION ONCE THE PERSON -- ...
IF I COULD ASK YOU, IN YOUR VIEW, IT'S MORE OF A DETERRENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY SUBSTANTIALLY SUPERVISED IN TERMS OF THEIR COMPUTER USE WHO IS LOOKING AT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY THAN IT IS TO PUT THEM IN JAIL?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S MORE OR LESS. …
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO -- LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY. CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED COURTS TO USE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MEANS TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. ...
AND ONE OF THEM IS AN ENHANCED PUNISHMENT BY USING A COMPUTER.
JUDGE JACKSON: THE ENHANCEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO USING A COMPUTER RELATES TO THE PENALTY IN TERMS OF INCARCERATION -- ...
YOU CHOOSE NOT TO APPLY THAT IN THESE CASES. YOU'VE SAID THAT. I'LL READ YOU THE QUOTE. YOU DECIDED NOT TO APPLY THE USE OF COMPUTERS AND ENHANCEMENT. YOU'VE ALSO SAID YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT THE PERSON HAS LOOKED AT AS A SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT FACTOR. IS THAT TRUE? JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR, IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT A PERSON HAS LOOKED AT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IT IS THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT THEY'VE EITHER RECEIVED OR DISTRIBUTED ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR, IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT A PERSON HAS LOOKED AT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IT IS THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT THEY'VE EITHER RECEIVED OR DISTRIBUTED ...
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY LOOKED AT THEM BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD IT AGAINST THEM THAT THEY RECEIVED 10,000 IMAGES VERSUS 100?
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE SAID, SENATOR. ...
HERE'S YOU SAID. I'VE DECIDED TO APPLY MY GENERAL POLICY DISAGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ENHANCEMENTS. AT LEAST, THAT IS, TO COMPUTERS AND THE NUMBER OF IMAGES. FOLKS, WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THE REASON SHE'S ALWAYS BELOW THE RECOMMENDATION, I THINK, IS BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T USE THE ENHANCEMENTS AVAILABLE TO HER. SHE TAKES THEM OFF THE TABLE. AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG MISTAKE, JUDGE. I THINK THAT EVERY FEDERAL JUDGE OUT THERE SHOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR SOMEBODY TO GO ON A COMPUTER AND DO THIS. THAT IF YOU USE THAT VENUE, WHICH IS THE VENUE OF CHOICE FOR ALL THESE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES, THAT YOU USE IT AGAINST THEM. I THINK THE MORE YOU DOWNLOAD, LIKE DRUGS, THE MORE YOU HAVE THE MORE YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL. YOU MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DISREGARD THOSE TWO ENHANCEMENTS. SENTENCING FACTORS. AND I THINK THAT IS A WRONG WAY TO GO IN TERMS OF DETERRING. TO ME, PUTTING SOMEBODY IN JAIL FOR USING A COMPUTER IS MORE OF A DETERRENT THAN SUPERVISING THEIR ACTIVITY OF WATCHING THE COMPUTER. THAT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE THAT WE HAVE. I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME. LISTEN, YOU'VE LIVED AN INCREDIBLE LIFE. BUT HERE'S ONE THING THAT WON'T HAPPEN TO YOU AFTER WE WRAP UP THIS. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF I HAD A LETTER FROM SOMEBODY ACCUSING YOU OF SOMETHING, A CRIME, OR MISCONDUCT, FOR WEEKS, AND I GIVE IT TO SENATOR DURBIN JUST BEFORE THIS HEARING'S OVER AND NOT ALLOW YOU TO COMMENT ON THE ACCUSATION? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION. ...
SENATOR GRAHAM: DID YOU WATCH THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS? JUDGE JACKSON: NO, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS? JUDGE JACKSON: GENERALLY.
JUDGE JACKSON: GENERALLY.
PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN. SHE FILIBUSTERED EVERY QUESTION I HAD AND SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE AN ANSWER BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT IN 20 MINUTES. YOU WERE HERE FOR KAVANAUGH. SHE IS CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. PEOPLE ON THE OTHER HAD AN ACCUSATION AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH, IN HIGH SCHOOL HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED SOMEBODY. THE REST WAS HISTORY. THAT WAS KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHERS AND NEVER REVEALED DURING THE MEETINGS THEY HAD WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH. HE WAS AMBUSHED. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF WE DID THAT TO YOU?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I APPRECIATED THE KINDNESS THAT EACH OF YOU HAS SHOWN ME TO SEE ME IN YOUR OFFICES, TO TALK TO ME ABOUT MY APPROACH. …
OUR 15 MINUTE EXCHANGE WAS VERY PLEASANT, YOU ARE A NICE PERSON YOU HAVE A LOT TO BE PROUD OF. I WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO YOU. IF I HAVE INFORMATION THAT IS SKETCHY AS BEST I WOULD SHARE IT WITH YOU. I WOULD NOT DISCLOSE IT AT THE LAST MINUTE OF THE LAST DAY OF THE HEARING. I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN IT TO THE NEWSPAPERS SO THE WHOLE COUNTRY CAN READ ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU SAID A WORD. I AND ASKING HER HOW SHE MAY FEEL ABOUT WHAT Y'ALL DID. ...
YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED, AND I WILL GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINALLY COMPLETE AN ANSWER.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS WHAT PROCEDURES TOOK PLACE IN THIS BODY REGARDING KAVANAUGH. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER IS YOUR POINT ABOUT MY SENTENCINGS IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. THE POINT OF THE GUIDELINES IS TO ASSIST JUDGES IN DETERMINING WHAT PUNISHMENT TO PROVIDE IN CASES. THE IDEA IS THAT BETWEEN THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDING PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT BASED ON WHAT A PERSON HAS DONE. THIS SCHEME DOESN'T PLACE EVERYONE AT THE SAME LEVEL. THE POINT OF JUDGING AND THE GUIDELINES IS TO LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN A CASE AND COMPARE DEFENDANTS TO EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND GET PROPORTIONAL PENALTIES -- ...
SHE HAS SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE USING THEIR COMPUTER FOR EVERYONE.
JUDGE JACKSON: CAN I EXPLAIN WHY, SIR?
I WILL GIVE THE WITNESS A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO YOU.
FINALLY. JUDGE JACKSON: AT A TIME WHEN THE GUIDELINES WERE CREATED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY COME THIS CRIME WAS PRIMARILY BEING COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE LITERALLY MAILING ONE TO FIVE, 10, 1 HUNDRED PHOTOS AT A TIME. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: AT A TIME WHEN THE GUIDELINES WERE CREATED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY COME THIS CRIME WAS PRIMARILY BEING COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE LITERALLY MAILING ONE TO FIVE, 10, 1 HUNDRED PHOTOS AT A TIME. ...
HOW IS IT BEING COMMITTED NOW.
LET HER COMPLETE HER ANSWER.
JUDGE JACKSON: AS A RESULT THE COMMISSION DETERMINED IN THE GUIDELINES IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AGGRAVATING FACTOR IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE DEMONSTRATED SOMEONE HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTING HUNDREDS OF IMAGES. WHAT THAT MEANT WAS OVER THIS MAYBE IT WAS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THEY HAD COLLECTED ONE PHOTO AT A TIME, THEY HAD AMASSED IT, POTENTIALLY MAILED ONE AT A TIME, AND THAT SHOWED REALLY AGGRAVATED, TERRIBLE CONDUCT. I'M NOT SAYING AS A BASELINE IT IS NOT TERRIBLE, IT IS ALL TERRIBLE. WE ARE DIFFERENTIATING AMONG DEFENDANTS. IN A WORLD IN WHICH THE MAIL IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION, IT MATTERS IF THE PERSON HAS DISTRIBUTED IN 1000. THE GUIDELINE SAYS WE ARE GOING TO TREAT THE PERSON WHO HAS DISTRIBUTED 1000 A LOT WORSE, BECAUSE THAT SHOWS THAT THIS PERSON IS REALLY ENGAGED IN THIS REALLY HORRIBLE BEHAVIOR. IN COMES THE INTERNET. ON THE INTERNET WITH ONE CLICK YOU CAN RECEIVE, DISTRIBUTE TENS OF THOUSANDS. YOU CAN BE DOING THIS FOR 15 MINUTES, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT 30, 40, 50 YEARS IN PRISON -- ...
GOOD, ABSOLUTELY GOOD.
ALLOW HER TO FINISH.
I HOPE YOU GO TO JAIL FOR 50 YEARS IF YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET TROLLING FOR PICTURES OF CHILDREN IN SEXUAL EXPLOITATION SETTINGS. I THINK THAT IS A TERRIBLE THING.
SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ONCE AND FOR ALL. 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT OUR SENTENCING SYSTEM THAT CONGRESS CREATED, THE SYSTEM THE SENTENCING COMMISSION IS A STEWARD OF IS A RATIONAL ONE. IT IS DESIGNED TO HELP JUDGES DO JUSTICE IN THE TERRIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES BY ELIMINATING UNWARRANTED DISPARITIES, BY ENSURING THAT THE MOST SERIOUS DEFENDANTS, GET THE LONGEST PERIODS OF TIME. WHEN MODES OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHANGE SUCH THAT IN TWO SECONDS SOMEONE CAN RECEIVE OR DISTRIBUTE THOUSANDS OF IMAGES, THAT NO LONGER -- THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION FOUND IN THEIR STUDIES -- AN INDICATOR OF A PERSON WHO, RELATIVE TO OTHER PEOPLE, HAS COMMITTED THIS CRIME IN A MORE AGGRAVATED WAY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS BE RATIONAL IN OUR DEALINGS WITH SOME OF THE MOST HORRIBLE KINDS OF BEHAVIOR. THIS IS WHAT OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ABOUT. IT IS ABOUT JUDGES MAKING DETERMINATIONS IN HANDING OUT PENALTIES TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE TERRIBLE THINGS. ...
IT IS NOT RATIONAL TO TAKE THE VENUE OF CHOICE OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS THE COMPUTER WITH 85 BILLION IMAGES ON IT AND NOT CONSIDER THAT FEEDING THE BEAST. WE ARE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO STOP THE SCRAP. -- THIS CRAP. WHEN YOU TROLL ON THE INTERNET AND PULL DOWN THOUSANDS OF IMAGES OF CHILDREN FROM THE INTERNET, I WANT YOU TO STOP THAT. I WANT PEOPLE TO GO TO JAIL WHO DO THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE FEEDING THE BEAST. WE HAVE A BILL HERE THAT WOULD ALLOW VICTIMS ON THE INTERNET OVER AND OVER TO SUE THE MEDIA COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE THESE IMAGES. WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES OF HOW YOU DETER CRIME. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DETER CRIME WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS THE LOWER THE BOOM ON ANYONE WHO GOES ON THE INTERNET AND PULLS OUT THESE IMAGES FOR THEIR PLEASURE. JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, EVERY PERSON IN ALL OF THESE CHARTS AND DOCUMENTS I SENT TO JAIL BECAUSE I KNOW HOW SERIOUS THIS CRIME IS. EVERY PERSON I DISCUSSED THE HARM OF THESE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE IMAGES TO THE VICTIMS WHO ARE PRETRADE IN THEM, I TALKED ABOUT WHAT THIS CRIME DOES TO THE CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED IN THESE PHOTOS AND ON THE OTHERS OF THEIR TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT I ENSURED THAT THEY WERE FACING LENGTHY. Y PERIODS OF SUPERVISION AND RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR COMPUTER USE SO THEY COULD NOT DO THIS SORT OF THING AGAIN. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED OF JUDGES, AND THAT IS WHAT I DID IN EVERY CASE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, EVERY PERSON IN ALL OF THESE CHARTS AND DOCUMENTS I SENT TO JAIL BECAUSE I KNOW HOW SERIOUS THIS CRIME IS. EVERY PERSON I DISCUSSED THE HARM OF THESE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE IMAGES TO THE VICTIMS WHO ARE PRETRADE IN THEM, I TALKED ABOUT WHAT THIS CRIME DOES TO THE CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED IN THESE PHOTOS AND ON THE OTHERS OF THEIR TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT I ENSURED THAT THEY WERE FACING LENGTHY. Y PERIODS OF SUPERVISION AND RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR COMPUTER USE SO THEY COULD NOT DO THIS SORT OF THING AGAIN. THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED OF JUDGES, AND THAT IS WHAT I DID IN EVERY CASE. ...
ALWAYS UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROSECUTOR, MANY TIMES PAROLED PEOPLE, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU JUDGE, A 32-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO SENT AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN 10-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, YOU SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE NOT ONLY THE GUIDELINES BUT THE RECOMMENDATION. ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT YOUR VIEW ON HOW TO DETER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS NOT MY VIEW. I THINK YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG AND EVERY JUDGE WHO DOES WHAT YOU'RE ARE DOING IS MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE CHILDREN TO BE EXPLOITED. IF YOU ARE ON A COMPUTER LOOKING AT A KID IN A SEXUALLY COMPROMISING SITUATION AND YOU GET CAUGHT I HOPE NO ONE GIVES YOU A BREAK BECAUSE YOU USED A COMPUTER. ...
THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IS REPREHENSIBLE AND I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM DEGREES -- EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AGREES. PART OF OUR JOB WE FAILED IN RESPONDING TO THE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FACE THIS CRIME. IT HAS BEEN 15 OR 16 YEARS? SHE IS NOT AN OUTLIER IN SENTENCING. 70% OF FEDERAL JUDGES FACE THE SAME DILEMMA AND WONDER WHY CONGRESS FAILED TO ACT. ...
THIS IS OUR FAULT?
TO BE HONEST, IT IS. SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
I HAVE LISTENED TO MOST ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY, WHICH I THINK NOW YOU HAVE GONE FOR OVER 15 HOURS. I WANT TO SAY I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A STAMINA AND VERY GOOD BRAIN AND A REAL SENSE OF EMPATHY, AS HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME IN THESE 15 HOURS. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF SUPREME COURT HAS TURNED INCREASINGLY NEGATIVE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. A RECENT PEW RESEARCH SURVEY FOUND THAT 44% OF ADULTS HAVE AN UNFAVORABLE VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT. LESS THAN THREE YEARS AGO THAT NUMBER WAS 30% OF ADULTS THAT HELD THAT VIEW. I UNDERSTAND THAT AS A JUDGE ON THE D.C. BENCH YOU FREQUENTLY ACCEPTED INVITATIONS TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC EVENTS IN THE HOPES OF GIVING THE PUBLIC MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE IN THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE COURT. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED, HOW WOULD YOU STRIVE TO IMPROVE THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT AND ITS DECISIONS?
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I THINK THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT IS IMPORTANT. IT IS CRUCIAL TO THE RULE OF LAW THAT THE PUBLIC BELIEVE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND THEREFORE CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RULINGS OF THE COURT. NOT JUST THE SUPREME COURT, BUT ALL OF THE COURTS. IT IS PART OF THE WAY OUR PROCESS WORKS. I THINK THAT I HAVE TAKEN THAT TO MEAN IN TERMS OF MY ROLE AS A JUDGE THAT OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT WE DO TO INSPIRE HOPEFULLY LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, YOUNG LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS, AND ELSEWHERE TO THINK ABOUT CAREERS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OR CAREERS IN LAW AS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO SHORE UP PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. IF I AM CONFIRMED I PLAN TO CONTINUE, AS BEST AS I CAN, TO DO THAT KIND OF THING. AS YOU SAY, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE WORK OF THE COURT AND TO FOLLOW ITS PRONOUNCEMENTS CONCERNING THE LAW. EARLIER -- SEN. FEINSTEIN: ...
EARLIER, WHEN YOU AND I SPOKE IN MY OFFICE WE DISCUSSED PEOPLE WHO HAD MEANT TOWARD YOU THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREER. ONE OF THOSE WAS JUDGE PATTY SARRIS. YOU SERVED AS A LAW CLERK FOR HER ON THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT EARLY IN YOUR CAREER. YOU HAVE SPOKEN PUBLICLY ABOUT THE ROLE THAT SHE HAS PLAYED AS A MENTOR IN YOUR LEGAL CAREER. YOU HAVE DESCRIBED HER AS "A CONSENSUS BUILDER, A GOOD LISTENER, A CAREFUL SPEAKER, THE ESSENCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENTS." WOULD YOU SHARE WITH THE MEMBERS HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW THE JUDGE'S APPROACH TO JUDGING AND MENTORSHIP HAS SHAPED TO AND YOUR CAREER. IF YOU COULD GIVE SPECIFICS I THINK EVERYONE WOULD BE INTERESTED.
JUDGE JACKSON: AS I REFLECT ON HER MENTOR SHIP AND THE MENTORSHIP OF MY OTHER TWO JUDGES I LEARNED DIFFERENT THINGS FROM EACH OF THEM. JUDGE SARRIS, MY FIRST CLERKSHIP, YOU ARE CORRECT. SHE SERVED ON THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE TRIAL-LEVEL COURT. I LEARNED HOW TO LOOK AT THE FACTS IN A CASE FROM JUDGE SARRIS. THAT IS PART OF WHAT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL DOES. AS TRIAL JUDGES DEVELOPED THE RECORD IN THE CASE, TAKE TESTIMONY, HAVE TRIALS, AND SHE IS EXTRAORDINARY AT DEVELOPING A RECORD AND MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE DEDUCED FROM THE WITNESSES AND CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF HER TRIAL AND RECORD RESPONSIBILITIES. THAT, I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT I LEARNED FROM HER IN TERMS OF THE LAW. HER WARMTH AND CARE FOR HER LAW CLERKS MEANT THAT SHE HAS BEEN A LIFELONG MENTOR TO ME. IRONICALLY, SHE BECAME THE CHAIR OF THE SENTENCING COMMISSION AFTER I HAD BEEN ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, SO WE WORKED TOGETHER LATER ON IN MY CAREER. I OFTEN USE THAT STORY TO TELL YOUNG PEOPLE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SOMEONE WHO YOU WORKED FOR AT ONE POINT MAY BE YOUR CALLING DOWN THE LINE. ...
LET ME ONE MORE. YOU HAVE HANDLED A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES DURING YOUR CAREER, BOTH AS AN ADVOCATE AND AS A JUDGE. AS AN ADVOCATE YOU HAVE WORKED ON A WIDE VARIETY OF CASES, FROM WORK FOR CORPORATE CLIENTS DURING YOUR TIME IN PRIVATE PRACTICE TO YOUR WORK FOR LOW INCOME CLIENTS DURING YOUR SERVICE AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER. DURING YOUR NINE YEARS AS A FEDERAL JUDGE, YOU HAVE WRITTEN NEARLY 600 OPINIONS. I THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY QUITE A STERLING RECORD. I IMAGINE THAT SOME OF THE CASES HAVE REALLY STUCK WITH YOU. SO, I WOULD LIKE YOU, IF YOU CAN, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE CASES, MAYBE ONE OR TWO, THAT YOU HAD THAT HAVE MADE A DEEP IMPRESSION AND HAVE REALLY ENABLED YOU TO PROGRESS AS YOU HAVE.
STOP FOR A MINUTE. I THINK THAT YOU ARE AN IMPORTANT ADDITION TO THE COURT. WHAT I AM TRYING TO FATHOM FROM THE HEARING IS WHAT KIND OF JUDGE WILL SHE BE? HOW WILL WE LOOK AT HER IN FIVE OR SIX YEARS? WHAT I REALLY WANT TO ASCERTAIN IS WHAT KIND OF JUDGE YOU WILL BE. WHAT WILL BE THE PRINCIPLES THAT YOU HOLD DEAR AND HOW WILL YOU FUNCTION IN THIS CAPACITY? IF YOU COULD JUST ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR ABOUT 15 HOURS SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. JUDGE JACKSON: I WOULD HOPE TO BE THE KIND OF JUDGE THAT I HAVE BEEN DURING THIS LAST DECADE. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO RULE NEUTRALLY . TO NOT HAVE ANY AGENDA WHEN I AM LOOKING AT A CASE. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT FACTS MATTER. FACTS LIKE THE ONES I WAS DESCRIBING, AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO TAKES MY RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT BE A POLICYMAKER, TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND AND ASCERTAIN THE WILL OF CONGRESS IF IT IS A STATUTE, OR TO MY OWN -- I HAVE BEEN SAYING STAY IN MY LANE. TO NOT EXERT MY AUTHORITY BEYOND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES WHEN I AM INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE LAW. I THINK I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO LIVES UP TO THE OATH IN TERMS OF BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, RULING WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, AND RULING CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE THREE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I WOULD HOPE TO BE THE KIND OF JUDGE THAT I HAVE BEEN DURING THIS LAST DECADE. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO RULE NEUTRALLY . TO NOT HAVE ANY AGENDA WHEN I AM LOOKING AT A CASE. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT FACTS MATTER. FACTS LIKE THE ONES I WAS DESCRIBING, AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS. I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO TAKES MY RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT BE A POLICYMAKER, TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND AND ASCERTAIN THE WILL OF CONGRESS IF IT IS A STATUTE, OR TO MY OWN -- I HAVE BEEN SAYING STAY IN MY LANE. TO NOT EXERT MY AUTHORITY BEYOND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES WHEN I AM INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE LAW. I THINK I HAVE BEEN THE KIND OF JUDGE WHO LIVES UP TO THE OATH IN TERMS OF BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, RULING WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, AND RULING CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE THREE. ...
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, SENATOR FEINSTEIN. SENATOR CORNYN?
I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M THE LAST ONE BEFORE LUNCH SO IF YOU'RE BLOOD SUGAR IS LOW YOU CAN THINK ABOUT HAVING A BREAK. THE CHAIRMAN KEEPS BRINGING THIS TOPIC UP THOSE THAT LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME, ARE YOU CALLING THEM A CRIMINAL? 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HAVEN'T ACCUSED ANYONE OF A CRIME. …
THAT IS NOT MY QUESTION. IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND IN PLAIN ENGLISH, IF YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME ARE YOU ACCUSING THEM OF BEING A CRIMINAL? 
JUDGE JACKSON: I -- IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT ELSE YOU SAY ABOUT THEM WILL STOP IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. …
IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES? YOU PUT THIS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS DEFINING WHAT A BIOLOGICAL WOMAN IS. YOU NOT SURE? JUDGE JACKSON: I DIDN'T SAY THAT I...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DIDN'T SAY THAT I...
SO YOU ARE SURE.
JUDGE JACKSON: I SAID THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE POSITING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE CALLING SOMEONE A CRIMINAL.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IS CREDIBLE, JUDGE. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. YOU TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COURTS AND OUR INSTITUTIONS, WHICH I AGREE ARE VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS CONFIDENCE IN OUR JUDICIARY. WOULD YOU AGREE TO -- AGREE WITH ME THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE JUDGES, UNELECTED LIFETIME TENURED JUDGES THAT ARE MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS THAT IT UNDERMINES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE? 
JUDGE JACKSON: I DO. ...
YESTERDAY WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT PRECEDENT. I KNOW SENATOR FEINSTEIN, AS SHE DOES IN THESE HEARINGS, TALK ABOUT SUPER PRECEDENT AND IN PARTICULAR ROE V. WADE. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. FIRST, LET ME ASK YOU, DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS ANY GOOD REASON FOR THE SUPREME COURT NOT TO OVERRULE A PREVIOUS DECISION WHEN THEY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THAT DECISION WAS WRONG? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AGAIN, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THE ABSTRACT. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID OUT FACTORS BEYOND JUST THE PRECEDENT BEING WRONG AS THE REASON TO OVERTURN IT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AGAIN, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THE ABSTRACT. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID OUT FACTORS BEYOND JUST THE PRECEDENT BEING WRONG AS THE REASON TO OVERTURN IT. ...
WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. THE SUPREME COURT REVISITED THE ISSUE OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, WHICH WAS THE LAW TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION UNDER PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON AND OVERRULED THAT PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS WRONG, RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOT LOOKED CAREFULLY AS TO WHETHER ALL OF THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT THE SUPREME COURT NOW USES TO OVERTURN WERE DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION. NOW THE SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT IS TO OVERTURN ON THE BASIS OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND NOT JUST IF IT IS WRONG. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOT LOOKED CAREFULLY AS TO WHETHER ALL OF THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT THE SUPREME COURT NOW USES TO OVERTURN WERE DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION. NOW THE SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT IS TO OVERTURN ON THE BASIS OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND NOT JUST IF IT IS WRONG. ...
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT OR COULD NOT OVERRULING PRECEDENT THAT THEY DECIDED WAS WRONGLY DECIDED? JUDGE JACKSON: I AM SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S CASE LAW INDICATES THAT IT IS LOOKING AT MULTIPLE FACTORS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S CASE LAW INDICATES THAT IT IS LOOKING AT MULTIPLE FACTORS. ...
I UNDERSTAND YOU GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS. BUT IF IT IS WRONG THAT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT YOU CONSIDER?
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THERE MIGHT BE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COURT DETERMINES ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IS WRONG BUT WILL NOT OVERRULE IT? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE FACTORS INDICATES THAT THE COURT LOOKS AT MORE THAN RATHER OR NOT IT IS WRONG. …
SO YOU WOULD SAY, IF I'M INTERPRETING YOU CORRECTLY, THAT IF THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IS WRONG IT WILL NOT NECESSARILY OVERRULE THAT. IT APPLIES A MULTIPOINT ANALYSIS. JUDGE JACKSON: YES, I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE. ...
BACK WHEN ROE V. WADE WAS DECIDED IN 1973, GENERALLY SPEAKING THE COURT SAID THAT THE STATES MAY NOT LIMIT ACCESS TO ABORTION PRE-VIABILITY, BUT POST -VIABILITY THERE COULD BE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO ABORTION. JUDGE JACKSON: AS A GENERAL MATTER, YES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: AS A GENERAL MATTER, YES. ...
THANK YOU. WELL, I THINK SINCE 1973 THE QUESTION OF VIABILITY HAS RISEN AGAIN, WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS. NOW VIABILITY WAS AROUND 28 WEEKS, THE FETUS COULD LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. BECAUSE OF THE ADVANCES IN MEDICAL SCIENCE THE FETUS CAN LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB AFTER 23 WEEKS. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HAVE NOT STUDIED THIS. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF WEEKS IN THE WAY THAT YOU ARE SAYING. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HAVE NOT STUDIED THIS. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF WEEKS IN THE WAY THAT YOU ARE SAYING. ...
LET'S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT VIABILITY. THE LINE THAT WAS DRAWN FOR A PRE-VIABILITY AND POST-VIABILITY BY THE COURT. WHAT DOES VIABILITY MEAN WHEN IT COMES TO AN UNBORN CHILD IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HESITATE TO SPECULATE. I KNOW THAT IT IS A POINT IN TIME THAT THE COURT HAS IDENTIFIED IN TERMS OF WHEN THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO REGULATION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HESITATE TO SPECULATE. I KNOW THAT IT IS A POINT IN TIME THAT THE COURT HAS IDENTIFIED IN TERMS OF WHEN THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO REGULATION. ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN AT A LATER POINT IN HIS CAREER ON THE SUPREME COURT ADMITTED THAT THE VIABILITY LINE WAS AN ARBITRARY LINE. DO YOU AGREE WITH HIM?
 JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM NOT ABLE TO COMMENT ON VIABILITY. A CASE PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW CONCERNS THE ISSUES -- …
I AM ASKING YOU ABOUT PREVIOUS DECISIONS, BUT I HEAR YOU. NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT A 20-WEEK-OLD FETUS CAN LIVE INDEPENDENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE MOTHER'S WOMB, DO THEY? JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T KNOW. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T KNOW. ...
THE CHILD WILL NEED TO BE FED, SHELTERED, AND ALL OF THE OTHER ESSENTIALS TO SUSTAIN HUMAN LIFE. THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT AFTER 20 WEEKS A CHILD CAN LIVE INDEPENDENTLY, CORRECT?
 JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM NOT A BIOLOGIST. I HAVEN'T STUDIED THIS. I DON'T KNOW. …
YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER AN UNBORN CHILD CAN LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB AT 20 WEEKS GESTATION? JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT I KNOW IS THE SUPREME COURT HAS TESTS AND STANDARDS THAT IT HAS APPLIED WHEN IT EVALUATES REGULATION OF THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY. THEY HAVE, THE COURT HAS ANNOUNCED THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO TERMINATE UP TO THE POINT OF VIABILITY SUBJECT TO THE FRAMEWORK IN ROE AND CASEY. THERE IS A PENDING CASE THAT IS ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT I KNOW IS THE SUPREME COURT HAS TESTS AND STANDARDS THAT IT HAS APPLIED WHEN IT EVALUATES REGULATION OF THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY. THEY HAVE, THE COURT HAS ANNOUNCED THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO TERMINATE UP TO THE POINT OF VIABILITY SUBJECT TO THE FRAMEWORK IN ROE AND CASEY. THERE IS A PENDING CASE THAT IS ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES. ...
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION THE WORD ABORTION, CORRECT?
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS CORRECT.
JUST LIKE IT DOESN'T MENTION THE WORD MARRIAGE. CORRECT?
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS CORRECT.
AS YOU AND I DISCUSSED PERHAPS AD NAUSEAM YESTERDAY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS THAT THE COURT HAS CREATED, MADE DOCTRINE OR LAW, IN CREATING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, CORRECT? JUDGE JACKSON: THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT -- ...
WE TALKED ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS YESTERDAY. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS, RIGHT? THE SUPREME COURT CASES THAT DEAL WITH THE RIGHT OF ABORTION IS A RESULT OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS LIKE YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY?
 JUDGE JACKSON: YES. …
YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE CONFIRMED FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN THAT PROCESS WE HAD A HEARING AND THEN WE SENT YOU QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WE CALL QFR'S AROUND HERE. QUESTION NUMBER 10 WAS DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROTECT RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT EXPRESSLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION? AS PART OF YOUR ANSWER YOU SAID -- YOU MENTIONED ROE V. WADE AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD VERSUS CASEY AND YOU SAID THIS. I WILL QUOTE. THEY ARTICULATE A LIMITED RIGHT TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY. WHAT IS THE LIMITATION THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WAS PRONOUNCED IN ROE VERSUS WADE AND CASEY WHEN IT COMES TO A RIGHT TO TERMINATE AN ABORTION? WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS UNDER CURRENT LAW?
 JUDGE JACKSON: UNDER CURRENT LAW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS IN SO FAR AS THERE CAN BE REGULATION OF THE PRE-VIABILITY UNLESS THE REGULATION IMPOSES AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT, AND THERE CAN BE REGULATION AFTER VIABILITY AS LONG AS THERE IS EXCEPTION FOR THE HEALTH AND I THINK LIFE OF THE MOTHER. THE LIMITATIONS ARE ABOUT WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE. THE RIGHT. ...
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING UNDER THE CURRENT PRECEDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO ABORTION UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF THE CHILD? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW, ACTUALLY. THE SUPREME COURT IN EVERY CASE IS LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I AM NOT AWARE OF THE COURT HAVING MADE A PRONOUNCEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT REGULATION CAN EXTEND ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL BIRTH. I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF THAT. IT IS BECAUSE THE COURT IS LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL CASES AND MAKING ITS RULINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIVIDUAL CASES AND NOT MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS IN GENERAL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW, ACTUALLY. THE SUPREME COURT IN EVERY CASE IS LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I AM NOT AWARE OF THE COURT HAVING MADE A PRONOUNCEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT REGULATION CAN EXTEND ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL BIRTH. I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF THAT. IT IS BECAUSE THE COURT IS LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL CASES AND MAKING ITS RULINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIVIDUAL CASES AND NOT MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS IN GENERAL. ...
YOU ARE SUGGESTING IN SOME INDIVIDUAL CASE OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION COULD EXTEND THROUGH THE ENTIRE PREGNANCY UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE CHILD WAS DELIVERED? 
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR. I AM SUGGESTING THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE THAT HAS HANDLED THE ISSUE. ...
YOU TOLD US THAT YOU THINK YOU BELIEVE ROE V. WADE AND CASEY ARE PRECEDENTS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT IS A SUPER PRECEDENT AND THE LIKE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE HELLER CASE?
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM. …
THAT WAS A DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT RECOGNIZE THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IS THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE COURT?
JUDGE JACKSON: IT IS. ...
YOU WOULD RESPECT THAT PRECEDENT?
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, ALL PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE TO BE RESPECTED.
IS IT EQUIVALENT IN TERMS OF ITS PRECEDENT TO ROE V. WADE, OR WOULD YOU EVALUATE IT DIFFERENTLY? JUDGE JACKSON: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY RANKING OR GRADING OF PRECEDENTS. ALL PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE ENTITLED TO RESPECT ON AN EQUAL BASIS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY RANKING OR GRADING OF PRECEDENTS. ALL PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE ENTITLED TO RESPECT ON AN EQUAL BASIS. ...
I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT BLOWS MY MIND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT SUPER PRECEDENTS AS IF SOMEHOW ONE PRECEDENTS WAS DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE OR PRIORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHERS. IN A SHORT TIME THAT I HAVE REMAINING, LET ME REVISIT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY WITH REGARD TO FREE EXERCISE RELIGION. OF COURSE, THAT IS RECOGNIZED EXPLICITLY UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE FIRST AMENDMENT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CASES THAT HAD BEEN LITIGATED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INVOLVING THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR WITH REGARD TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE MANDATE ON CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE? JUDGE JACKSON: YES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES. ...
THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR ARE A BENEVOLENT GROUP OF NUNS, 300 OF THEM WHO TAKE CARE OF ELDERLY AND INFIRM INDIVIDUALS WILL STOP AS A MATTER OF THEIR END -- OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS DOCUMENTED IN THE COURTS OPINIONS, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN CONTRACEPTION OR ABORTION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE THAT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE CASE THAT YOU TALKING ABOUT. …
I THINK THAT IS RIGHT. WHEN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MANDATED THAT EVERY HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY CONTAIN COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION OR CHEMICALLY INDUCED ABORTIONS THEY OBJECTED AND SAID THAT THIS VIOLATED THEIR CONSCIENCE AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT? ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE SO.
AFTER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EXPANDED REGULATIONS TO NOT ONLY ALLOW CHURCHES, BUT ALSO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR A WAVER FROM THAT CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION INDUCING DRUG MANDATE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? JUDGE JACKSON: YES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES. ...
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD RESTORE THE PREVIOUS REGULATION THAT WAS PROMULGATED UNDER THE OBAMA AT INDUSTRY SHOULD -- OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND EXCLUDE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR FROM THAT WAIVER POTENTIAL FOR ABORTION DRUGS OR CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE?
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT SENATOR. …
WOULD ALL OF THIS BOILS DOWN TO, CONGRESS PASSED A BILL CALLED THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT WHICH TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE SINCERELY -- PEOPLE'S SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE ACCOMMODATED UNDER THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS OPPOSED TO CONGRESS MANDATING THINGS THAT WOULD VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIOUS AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACCOMMODATE THE SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF ALL AMERICANS WHEN IT COMES TO LEGISLATION THAT THE CONGRESS MAY PASS? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS A CORE FOUNDATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. IT IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REFLECTS THE FOUNDING FATHERS' UNDERSTANDING OF THIS COUNTRY BEING ONE THAT IS BASED UPON, IN LARGE PART, THE IDEA OF PLURALISM. THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE CAN COME AND HAVE SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICE THEM WITHOUT PERSECUTION. THAT IS PART OF THE FOUNDATIONAL FOUNDATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING. AS A RESULT, THAT RIGHT IS PROTECTED IN MANY WAYS. YOU MENTIONED THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT. CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A STATUTE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS, IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN PLACED ON RELIGION, THEN THE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD APPLIES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS A CORE FOUNDATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. IT IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REFLECTS THE FOUNDING FATHERS' UNDERSTANDING OF THIS COUNTRY BEING ONE THAT IS BASED UPON, IN LARGE PART, THE IDEA OF PLURALISM. THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE CAN COME AND HAVE SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICE THEM WITHOUT PERSECUTION. THAT IS PART OF THE FOUNDATIONAL FOUNDATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING. AS A RESULT, THAT RIGHT IS PROTECTED IN MANY WAYS. YOU MENTIONED THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT. CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A STATUTE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS, IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN PLACED ON RELIGION, THEN THE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD APPLIES. ...
I AGREE. I HAVE ONE MINUTE, ONE MORE QUESTION. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. SINCE I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION OR MADE THIS POINT TO SOME OF YOUR PREDECESSORS WHO SAT IN THE SAME CHAIR AND EXPRESSED MY CONCERN ABOUT SOME OF THE COURT'S ESTABLISHMENT LAW, ESTABLISHMENT JURISPRUDENCE, I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU OUT OF THAT CONCERN. WHEN I WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS I HAD THE CHANCE TO ARGUE A CASE IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CALLED THE SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT VERSUS DOE BROUGHT BY THE ACLU THAT SOUGHT TO PREVENT A STUDENT-LED PRAYER BEFORE FOOTBALL GAMES AT THE SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF HOUSTON. FIVE JUDGES SAID THAT THAT VIOLATED THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, CAUSING CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST TO WRITE IN HIS DISSENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES NEUTRALITY TOWARDS RELIGION, NOT HOSTILITY. BUT THAT THE COURT'S DECISION EVIDENCED HOSTILITY TOWARDS RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, LEAVING ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PUBLIC SQUARE WE CAN TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM VIOLENCE TO MISOGYNY TO SEX, YOU NAME IT, BUT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I WOULD FOOTNOTE THAT FOR YOU AND PLANT THE SEED, FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ...
THANK YOU. WELCOME MAJORITY LEADER, SCHUMER . HE WOULD REPORT, IF HE COULD, THAT WE HAVE A CHALLENGE TO FINISH OUR HEARING TODAY IN TIME TO GO TO THE FLOOR FOR A SERIES OF VOTES THAT WILL END THE DAY. WE WANT TO STICK TO THE SCHEDULE AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I WILL SAY SENATOR CORNYN'S SUGGESTION OF LUNCH WAS ASPIRATIONAL. [LAUGHTER] IT WAS AN UNENUMERATED RIGHT. ...
YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF THE AGENDA.
WE NEED TO TAKE THREE MORE SENATORS BEFORE WE HAVE AN ACTUAL LUNCH, BUT IT IS UP TO YOU. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM OPEN AND HAPPY TO ANSWER WHO EVER WOULD LIKE TO ASK ME A QUESTION. ...
I APPRECIATE THAT. SENATOR WHITEHOUSE.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR WHITEHOUSE, AND YOU JOIN WITH THE YIELDING OF SEVEN MINUTES. SENATOR LEE? ...
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, JUDGE. I WANT TO TALK NEXT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A CASE YOU WERE INVOLVED IN MOUNTAIN WATCH VERSUS UNITED STATES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, A RULING YOU ISSUED IN 2015 WHILE ON THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. I KNOW YOU HAVE HAD A LOT OF CASES. I CANNOT IMAGINE BY NEARLY TRIGGERING THE CASE NAME THAT WOULD NECESSARILY WRING IT BACK, BUT THIS CASE INVOLVED A CHALLENGE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ON SOME ISSUES BEARING ON COAL MINING WITHIN THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA. THERE WERE TWO PARALLEL CHALLENGES BROUGHT AGAINST THAT PARALLEL ACTION, ONE IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WEST VIRGINIA, WHERE THEY LANDED IN THE QUESTION WAS LOCATED, AND ANOTHER IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE YOU SET. THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST THAT ACTION BROUGHT BY SOME ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS ASKED THAT YOU DISMISS THE D.C. CASE SO THAT THE MATTER COULD BE LITIGATED IN WEST VIRGINIA. YOU DENIED THAT. DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS, AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU MIGHT HAVE DENIED IT? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T. IT SOUNDS LIKE DOZENS OF CASES THAT I HANDLED WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AND REQUESTS, SOMETHING LIKE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS EARLY IN THE ACTION, SO DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS IS PRETTY ROUTINE. …
JUDGE JACKSON: WELL, SENATOR, IF I WERE PRESENTING IN A CASE WITH THAT STATUTE AND CIRCUMSTANCE, I WOULD PROCEED AS I ALWAYS HAVE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PARTY BECAUSE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE PARTICULARS IN THE CASE -- UNDERSTAND THE PARTIES ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE PARTICULARS IN THE CASE. WHAT DOES THE PROCLAMATION SAY, WHERE DOES IT RELATE, ARE THERE ANY PRECEDENTS IN THIS AREA THAT FURTHER DEFINE OR ADDRESS WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTE AT ISSUE? ...
I WOULD SAY IT ALSO MATTERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S LAWYERS MADE AN ARGUMENT THAT WOULD LEAVE THE INTERPRETATION OPEN-ENDED AND MEANINGLESS. 
JUDGE JACKSON: AS PART OF YOUR INTERPRETIVE EXERCISE, AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING THE PARTY'S VARIOUS ARGUMENTS, ONE THAT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE ONE THAT YOU WOULD -- …
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT.
JUDGE JACKSON: -- YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH.
I GET IT, AND IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I APPRECIATE ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US IN THESE HEARINGS, I REALLY LIKE THE WAY YOU HAVE DESCRIBED HOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE TEXT THAT YOU ARE ASKED TO INTERPRET, AND YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, AND YOU ARE ENDEAVORING TO FIGURE OUT THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEETING. I THINK THAT IS A VERY HELPFUL THING. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU CLERKED ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR JUSTICE BREYER IN OCTOBER TERM 19 99, RIGHT? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS RIGHT. …
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS IN FRONT OF ME. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH THE METHOD OF EXTRACTION, THE FACT-FINDING RELATED TO THE PROCEDURE. IN ONE CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD MADE SOME FINDINGS AND THE COURT FELT FOUND BY THEM. IN ANOTHER, THERE WAS CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND THOSE THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY RELIED UPON. SO THERE WERE DISTINCTIONS THAT THE COURT LOOKED AT AND CONSIDERED IN THE CASES. YES. ...
LET'S TALK ABOUT COURT PACKING FOR A MINUTE.
JUDGE JACKSON: YES.
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS. I HAVE -- I AM A HUMAN BEING, AND I HAVE AN OPINION ON A LOT OF THINGS. THE REASON WHY, IN MY VIEW, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO COMMENT WAS BECAUSE OF MY FIDELITY TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I THINK THAT I AM UNCOMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO IT. ...
 JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DO NOT HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF MR. HAWKINS' CASE. I RECALL THAT I FOUND THAT CASE, LIKE ALL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES, TO BE DIFFICULT, REALLY DIFFICULT. AND HIS CASE, I RECALL, WAS, IN MANY WAYS, AN OUTLIER IN TERMS OF THE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS THAT CONGRESS REQUIRED ME TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. ...
BUT THERE WERE PREPUBESCENT VICTIMS AT STAKE -- JUDGE JACKSON: I DO NOT REMEMBER HOW MANY AND DO NOT REMEMBER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS ACTUAL CRIME. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT, CONSISTENT WITH SUPREME COURT CASE LAW AND CONGRESS' STATUTE IN THIS AREA, JUDGES HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND THE GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE NO LONGER -- I WON'T SAY NOT MANDATORY, YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE GUIDELINES, THEY ARE NO LONGER BINDING. AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME, JUDGES HAVE DISCRETION -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DO NOT REMEMBER HOW MANY AND DO NOT REMEMBER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS ACTUAL CRIME. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT, CONSISTENT WITH SUPREME COURT CASE LAW AND CONGRESS' STATUTE IN THIS AREA, JUDGES HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND THE GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE NO LONGER -- I WON'T SAY NOT MANDATORY, YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE GUIDELINES, THEY ARE NO LONGER BINDING. AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME, JUDGES HAVE DISCRETION -- ...
OK, I AM ALMOST OUT OF TIME HERE. HAWKINS, AS I RECALL, AND S SENATOR HAWLEY DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IMAGES OF 11 TO 17-YEAR-OLDS. SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CAN BE AN INSTANCE THAT SHOULD NOT MATTER. AND THE FACT THAT HE DID IT WITH A COMPUTER? IT HARDLY TONES FOR WHAT HE WAS DOING, HARDLY OFFSETS THE FACT THAT HE WAS SEEKING AND OBTAINED PREPUBESCENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IMAGES, NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE IMAGES BECOME EASIER OVER TIME TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE AND RESTORE BECAUSE OF COMPUTERS. I THINK IT CUTS PRECISELY IN THE OPPOSITE ARCH AND YOU DESCRIBED, IT MAKES IT MORE SEVERE, NOT LESS. THEY SAY THIS IS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR, AND THAT IS A GREAT CONCERN TO ME. I SEE I HAVE USED MY TIME. THANK YOU. ...
YOU MAY RESPOND. 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, AS IN EVERY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE THAT I SENTENCED, I CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS. IT IS NOT THE SAME EXERCISE TO LOOK AT A TRANSCRIPT, TO THINK ABOUT GUIDELINES, TO NOT HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE INDIVIDUALS, THE VICTIMS, THE PICTURES, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT TRIAL JUDGES HAVE TO REVIEW IN THESE CASES OR ANY CASES. I UNDERSTAND, SENATOR, THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT RECORDS, ETC. COURTS HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND COURTS HAVE ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF VARIOUS PARTIES, AND COURTS HAVE, UNDER CONGRESS' AUTHORITY, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF USING OUR JUDGMENT TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY, TO COMPLY WITH THE PURPOSES OR PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THINGS LIKE UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITY. AND IT MAY SEEM, IT MAY SEEM LIKE AN EASY EXERCISE. IT MAY SEEM, IN RETROSPECT, WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT A FEW PIECES OF DATA, THAT COURTS HAVE NOT DONE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT WHAT I CAN ASSURE YOU IS THAT I TOOK EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES SERIOUSLY IN MY DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY AS A JUDGE, AND I MADE MY DETERMINATIONS IN LIGHT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE, THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE, THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT, THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCING TO PROMOTE VARIOUS PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT, AND ALL OF THE OTHER FACTORS THAT CONGRESS PRESCRIBES. ...
YOU KEEP RECITING THAT STANDARD, YET YOU SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT HE HAD REQUESTED AND OBTAINED IMAGES OF PREPUBESCENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IMAGES.
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I DID NOT EXCLUDE IT. I DID NOT EXCLUDE IT. WHAT I DID IS I LOOKED AT THE GUIDELINES, WHICH IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT REQUIRES, AND I WAS MAKING POLICY DETERMINATIONS , AS THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THE JUDGES ARE TO DO. ...
LOOK AT PAGE 38 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU EXCLUDED IT, AND YOUR ACTIONS, SENTENCING HIM TO THREE MONTHS FOR ONE OF THE MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES IMAGINABLE -- KEEP IN MIND, BECAUSE THESE ARE -- ...
SENATOR --
PEOPLE RE-VICTIMIZED VICTIMS FOR THE REST OF THE LIFE.
NEXT IS SENATOR KLOBUCHAR. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD A SUPPORT LETTER FOR JUDGE JACKSON FROM 48 FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN A SOUTH FLORIDA. SENATOR KLOBUCHAR. ...
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. ...
RIGHT, AND SPEAKING OF BEING CLEAR AND CAREFUL IN YOUR RULINGS, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE, I THINK, GIVEN NOT NECESSARILY TRUE VIEWS OF YOUR WHOLE RECORD. BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR RULINGS BEING UPHELD, THE NUMBERS SHOW THAT OUT OF OVER 550 CASES, YOUR DISTRICT CASES, YOU WERE REVERSED LESS THAN 3% OF THE TIME. AND IN SOME OF THE INSTANCES, YOU WERE REVERSED ONLY TO HAVE YOUR DECISION LATER UPHELD. I NOTICED ONE CASE, TERRITORY OF GUAM, THE UNITED STATES, IN WHICH YOU WERE INITIALLY REVERSED BUT THEN A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT REVERSED THAT DECISION, THEN SIDING WITH YOU, AND IN AN OPINION WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS THAT ALIGNS WITH YOUR REVIEW. DO YOU WANT TO QUICKLY TALK ABOUT THAT CASE? 
JUDGE JACKSON: WELL, THAT CASE WAS KIND OF LEGALLY COMPLICATED. IT WAS A SUPERFUND CLEANUP KIND OF CASE, WHERE THE COUNTRY OF GUAM, WHICH HAS A DUMP SITE ON IT THAT WAS USED BY BOTH THE CITIZENS OF GUAM AND THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE 1950'S, WHEN THE UNITED STATES WAS STATIONED THERE, MILITARY OPERATIONS HAPPENED OUT OF GUAM, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF JUMPING INTO THIS SITE. OVER TIME, THE SITE GOT CONTAMINATED, AND GUAM WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING TO CLEAN IT UP. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THERE ARE STATUTES, VERY COMPLICATED STATUTES, ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH YOU CAN SEEK CONTRIBUTIONS, UNDER WHICH A COUNTRY LIKE THAT CAN ASK FOR THE UNITED STATES TO PAY SOME OF THAT COST OR OTHER COUNTRIES TO PAY SOME OF THAT COST. AND THAT WAS SORT OF THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE, AND I DID A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GUAM'S ACTION COULD PROCEED. THE UNITED STATES FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, SAYING THAT ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OVERALL WERE NOT MET AND THAT THE ACTION HAD TO BE DISMISSED, AND I DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER INTERPRETING THE STATUTE, SAYING THAT THE ACTION COULD CONTINUE. THE D.C. CIRCUIT REVERSED MY VIEW, HAD A DIFFERENT READING OF THE STATUTE, SAYING THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DISMISSED THE CASE. THEN IT WAS APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND AS YOU SAY, THE SUPREME COURT REINSTATED THE ACTION, SAYING IT COULD PROCEED. ...
VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. IN 1972 IN BRANDENBURG V HAYES, A 5-4 COURT DID NOT RECOGNIZE A REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE IN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. I SPOKE WITH YOU EARLIER AT LENGTH ABOUT SULLIVAN AND FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES, SO THIS WILL BE MY LAST QUESTION ON THIS. SINCE THE COURT'S DECISION, MY STATE, LIKE MANY OTHERS, ENACTED STRONG REPORTER PRIVILEGE LUSTER PROTECT JOURNALISTS FROM HAVING TO DIVULGE UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS, CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES. HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH BALANCING THE NEED TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS AND THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN INFORMING THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO OTHER INFORMATION? JUDGE JACKSON: I WOULD APPLY THE PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS AREA. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AS I MENTIONED, PRESS FREEDOMS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE COURT HAS A NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS IN TERMS OF EXPRESSIVE FREEDOM, PRESS FREEDOM. AND IN EVERY CASE, THERE WILL BE A SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT, AND THE COURT WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRIOR PRECEDENT, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR REGULATION COULD BE UPHELD. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I WOULD APPLY THE PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS AREA. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AS I MENTIONED, PRESS FREEDOMS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE COURT HAS A NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS IN TERMS OF EXPRESSIVE FREEDOM, PRESS FREEDOM. AND IN EVERY CASE, THERE WILL BE A SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT, AND THE COURT WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRIOR PRECEDENT, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR REGULATION COULD BE UPHELD. ...
THANK YOU. THIS IS MY VERY LAST QUESTION BEFORE ALL OF US GET TO EAT LUNCH, INCLUDING YOU. AND THAT IS REALLY THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF DISSENTING OPINIONS. JUSTICE GINSBURG ONCE SAID THIS, SHE SAID, DISSENT SPEAKS TO A FUTURE AGE, NOT SIMPLY TO SAY MY COLLEAGUES ARE WRONG AND I WOULD DO IT THIS WAY, BUT THE GREATEST DISSENTS BECOME COURT OPINIONS, AND GRADUALLY OVER TIME, THEIR VIEWS SOMETIMES BECOME THE DOMINANT VIEW. WHEN JUSTICE GINSBURG'S RABBI GAVE A EULOGY AT HER MEMORIAL SERVICE HERE IN THE CAPITOL, SOME OF US WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE THERE, THEY SAID JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DISSENTS WERE NOT CRIES OF DEFEAT, THEY WERE BLUEPRINTS FOR THE FUTURE. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE PURPOSE OF A DISSENT, AND DO YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? THIS IDEA THAT THEY COULD BE BLUEPRINTS FOR THE FUTURE.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. ON THE SUPREME COURT, THERE ARE NINE JUSTICES, AND IN EVERY CASE, THEY ARE ALL SITTING TOGETHER TO HEAR THE ISSUES IN CASE. AND ONE HOPES, AND IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT THE JUSTICES AGREE AS TO ISSUES IN THE CASES. I BELIEVE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES THAT THE JUSTICES HERE ARE ACTUALLY NOT -- THERE IS NO DISSENT, THAT THEY AGREED TO THE OUTCOME. BUT THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH, AFTER DELIBERATION AND COLLABORATION AND CONSIDERATION, THE JUSTICES MAY DISAGREE ABOUT HOW THE CASE SHOULD BE RESOLVED, AND THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR EVERY JUSTICE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO JOIN OTHERS, EITHER IN THE MAJORITY, WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO WRITE A SEPARATE OPINION THAT MIGHT AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BUT WANTS TO MAKE A DIFFERENT POINT OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO DISSENT. AND SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONE JUSTICE MIGHT DISSENT OR JOIN IN DISSENT. IT IS A WAY OF EXPRESSING ONE'S OWN VIEW THAT THEY DIFFER FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY MANY JUSTICES IN THE HISTORY WHO HAVE USED THE DISSENT MECHANISM TO DISCUSS THE LAW IN WAYS THAT OTHERS FIND, OVER TIME, TO BE MORE PERSUASIVE. AND SO I AM THINKING OF THE FIRST JUSTICE HARLAND WHO DISSENTED FAMOUSLY IN PLESSY VERSUS FERGUSON, DISSENTED ALONE. ALL OF THE OTHER JUSTICES AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, AND HE SAID NO IN A DISSENT. HIS DISSENT, GENERATIONS LATER, BECAME, ACCORDING TO JUSTICE THOROUGH GOAL -- JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL, BECAME THE BLUEPRINT FOR JUSTICE MARSHALL TO MAKE ARGUMENTS THAT LED TO BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD. SO THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR JUSTICES TO DESCRIBE THEIR VIEWS IN WAYS THAT BECOME PERSUASIVE TO OTHERS IN THE FUTURE. ...
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE GIVEN US THE LAST FEW DAYS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU.
WE ARE GOING TO BREAK NOW FOR A 30-MINUTE LUNCH. I SAY TO EVERYONE THAT WHEN WE RETURNED, IF WE STICK TO 20-MINUTE BRETT -- ROUNDS AND DO NOT YIELD BACK TIME, WE WILL FINISH IN SOMETHING AROUND FOUR AND A HALF HOURS, WHICH WOULD TAKE US TO ABOUT 7:00. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A BREAK, BUT WE WILL CONSIDER THAT LATER ON. THANK YOU. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. [INDISCERNIBLE CHATTER] ...
GIVES CREDIT FOR KEEPING HER POISE, FOR THE CLARITY AND INTELLECT IN HER RESPONSES, AND JUST THE TEMPERAMENT SHE CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE IS CONVINCING MEMBERS MORE AND MORE THAT SHE IS READY FOR THE SUPREME COURT. THANK YOU. ...
UNDER ARTICLE THREE OF THE CONSTITUTION, SENATE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTIONS ONLY OVER CASES AND CONTROVERSIES. THAT MEANS IT HAS TO BE AN ACTUAL DISPUTE. FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT SIMPLY ISSUE ADVISORY OPINIONS ON A QUESTION. ONE COMPONENT OF ARTICLE THREE JURISDICTION IS THE REQUIREMENT OF STANDING. IN ORDER FOR A PLAINTIFF TO HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE CASE, THE PLAINTIFF, GENERALLY SPEAKING, MUST HAVE REAL AND CONCRETE INJURIES. IS THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS CORRECT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS CORRECT. ...
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MEANS THAT EVEN IF I MIGHT HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME PARTICULAR POLICY OR LAW, THAT I CANNOT BRING A CASE UNLESS I AM PERSONALLY AGGRIEVED BY THE POLICY OR LAW. SO FOR EXAMPLE YOUR AND MY ALMA MATER, HARVARD, IS CURRENTLY BEING SUED FOR ITS EXPLICIT AND IN MY VIEW EGREGIOUS POLICY OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS. EVEN THOUGH I SEEK THAT POLICY IS EGREGIOUS, I AS AN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF COULD NOT BRING A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING IT BECAUSE I AM NOT ASIAN AMERICAN, IS THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: IF YOU BROUGHT A LAWSUIT, THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE WHETHER YOU HAD AN ACTUAL INJURY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE SUIT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: IF YOU BROUGHT A LAWSUIT, THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE WHETHER YOU HAD AN ACTUAL INJURY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE SUIT. ...
BUT IF I AM NOT IN THE CLASS IS TERMINATED AGAINST, I DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING THE LAWSUIT, JUDGE IS THAT RIGHT?
YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL INJURY. CERTAINLY PEOPLE IN THE CLASS COULD CLAIM AN INJURY FOR THE PURPOSE.
NOW, YOU ARE ON THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED DO YOU INTEND TO RECUSE FROM THIS LAWSUIT? JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS MY PLAN, SENATOR.
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS MY PLAN, SENATOR.
WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY HOW THE STANDARD WAS FOR RAISED IS FROM A NATION. THE COURT HAS A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION. WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO GENDER DISCRIMINATION? 
JUDGE JACKSON: GENDER DISCRIMINATION, THE COURT HAS HELD INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY APPLIES WHICH IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO HAVE AN IMPORTANT INTEREST IN -- AND THE TAILORING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AS NARROW. …
RIGHT. SO, YESTERDAY UNDER QUESTIONING FROM SENATOR BLACKBURN YOU TOLD HER THAT YOU CANNOT DEFINE WHAT A WOMAN IS. THAT YOU ARE NOT A BIOLOGIST, WHICH I THINK, YOU ARE THE ONLY SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IN HISTORY WHO HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT IS A WOMAN? LET ME ASK YOU, AS A JUDGE, HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE IF A PLAINTIFF HAD ARTICLE THREE STANDING TO CHALLENGE A GENDER-BASED RULE, REGULATION, POLICY WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT A WOMAN WAS? JUDGE KENTANJI BROWN JACKSON
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR. I KNOW I AM A WOMAN AND SENATOR BLACKBURN IS A WOMAN AND THE WOMAN I ADMIRE MOST IN THE WORLD IS IN THE ROOM TODAY, MY MOTHER. …
UNDER THE MODERN LEFTIST SENSIBILITIES IF I DECIDE RIGHT NOW THAT I AM A WOMAN, THEN, APPARENTLY, I AM A WOMAN, DOES THAT MEAN I WOULD HAVE ARTICLE THREE STANDING TO CHALLENGE A GENDER-BASED RESTRICTION? 
JUDGE JACKSON: TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE ASKING ME ABOUT WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO BRING LAWSUITS BASED ON GENDER, THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES ARE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURTS AND I AM NOT ABLE TO COMMENT ON THEM. 
IF I CAN CHANGE MY GENDER AND BE A WOMAN AND AN HOUR LATER I DECIDE I AM NOT A WOMAN ANYMORE I GUESS I WOULD LOSE ARTICLE THREE STANDING. DOES THAT SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIED TO OTHER PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS? COULD I DECIDE I WAS AN ASIAN MAN? WHAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE AN ASIAN MAN AND CHALLENGE HARVARD'S DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I MADE THAT DECISION?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM NOT ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YOU ARE ASKING ME ABOUT HYPOTHETICALS.
I AM ASKING YOU HOW YOU WOULD ASSESS STANDING IF I SAID I HAVE DECIDED I IDENTIFY AS AN ASIAN MAN.
JUDGE JACKSON: I WOULD ASSESS STANDING THE WAY I ASSESS OTHER LEGAL ISSUES WHICH IS TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES, CONSIDER THE RELEVANCE PRESIDENTS -- PRESIDENT --PRECEDENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED AND MAKE A DETERMINATION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I HAVE SPOKEN AT LENGTH THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING ABOUT THESE CASES. I HAVE SAID WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY, WHICH IS, I HAVE TAKEN EVERY CASE SERIOUSLY. THESE ARE VERY HORRIBLE -- ...
I AM ASKING YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS CASE.
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE TAKEN EVERY CASE SERIOUSLY.
SO YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THAT? JUDGE JACKSON: THESE ARE VERY HORRIBLE CRIMES, AS A MOTHER, HAVING TO LOOK AT THESE PICTURES, HAVING TO FOLLOW CONGRESS'DIRECTIVES, HAVING TO LISTEN TO RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE I'M A WITCH, ARE -- THAT CASE, WHICH, ARGUED FOR 60 MONTHS, I IMPOSED THE SENTENCE THAT I BELIEVED WAS THE SENTENCE THAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THESE ARE VERY HORRIBLE CRIMES, AS A MOTHER, HAVING TO LOOK AT THESE PICTURES, HAVING TO FOLLOW CONGRESS'DIRECTIVES, HAVING TO LISTEN TO RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE I'M A WITCH, ARE -- THAT CASE, WHICH, ARGUED FOR 60 MONTHS, I IMPOSED THE SENTENCE THAT I BELIEVED WAS THE SENTENCE THAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. YOU HAVE PICKED OUT SEVEN OR EIGHT CASES, I HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE. IN EVERY CASE I LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, I LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE MY DUTY AS A JUDGE IS TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN CASE. I LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, I TALKED TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE HARMS THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN. MANY OF THESE DEFENDANTS ARE PEOPLE -- ...
YOU HAVE NOT TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE ABOUT THE HARM. LET ME READ TO YOU WHAT YOU SAID AT THE BENCH. YOU SAID, "AMONG THE DEFENDANTS THEY RECEIVE A LOAD -- OPPOSED TO DEPARTURE, THE AVERAGE SENTENCE RANGE FROM 84 TO 92 MONTHS", DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES SENTENCE BELOW THE GUIDELINES. A NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES DO. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE NOT POINTED TO A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC JUDGE WHO 100% OF THE TIME SENTENCES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DEFENDANTS TO A MARKEDLY LOW SENTENCE. IN THIS CASE YOU SAY, "COMPARABLE DEFENSES ARE SENTENCED TO 84 TO 94 MONTHS. ASCENDANCY GUIDELINES BY STATUTE REQUIRED TO HAVE SIMILAR SENTENCES. YOU SENTENCED HIM TO 28 MONTHS. WHY?
JUDGE JACKSON: I SAID WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY ABOUT THESE CASES. NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR A JUDGES ENTIRE RECORD. …
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN IT?
SENATOR, WILL YOU LET HER RESPOND?
NO, YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY TIME.
IF YOU WANT TO FILIBUSTER -- >>
PLEASE ALLOW HER TO FINISH --
I ASKED HER TO EXPLAIN WHY SHE SENTENCED CHIASSON TO A SENTENCE CONSIDERABLY LOWER AND SHE SAID SHE WAS NOT GOING TO ANSWER. JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT SAY I WASN'T GOING TO ANSWER. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE RECORD. I DON'T HAVE THE RECORD. I SAID IN EVERY CASE, I LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT, THE PROBATION OFFICER, THE DEFENDANT, THE RECORD, THE EVIDENCE. I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT SAY I WASN'T GOING TO ANSWER. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE RECORD. I DON'T HAVE THE RECORD. I SAID IN EVERY CASE, I LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT, THE PROBATION OFFICER, THE DEFENDANT, THE RECORD, THE EVIDENCE. I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE. ...
IN THE CASE OF CHIASSON, THE PROSECUTOR COMES IN FRONT OF YOU AND SAYS, "I UNDERSTAND FROM MY EXPERIENCE BEFORE YOUR HONOR, YOUR HONORS PART OF -- POLICY OBJECTIVES TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, HOWEVER IN THIS CASE THE SENTENCING CHARACTERISTIC IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SADOMASOCHISTIC IMAGES OF INFANTS AND TODDLERS." I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU SEE SOMEONE WHO POSSESSES IMAGES OF INFANTS AND TODDLERS BEING SEXUALLY VIOLATED AND YOU SENTENCE THEM TO 64% BELOW WHAT THE PROSECUTOR IS ASKING FOR. YOU DON'T PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION OTHER THAN A GENERIC CONCERN THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE TOO HIGH. YOU DON'T PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY STATUTE. I AM ASKING YOU TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TO THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY IN 100% OF THE CASES YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH VILE CRIMES, YOU HAVE LANGUAGE SAYING THEY ARE VILE CRIMES, BUT THEN YOU SENTENCE THEM TO VERY LOW SENTENCES. AND WHY YOU CONSISTENTLY, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME CHOOSE TO DO THAT? JUDGE JACKSON: NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR A JUDGES ENTIRE SENTENCING RECORD. I HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE. YOU HAVE EIGHT OR NINE CASES IN THAT CHART. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR A JUDGES ENTIRE SENTENCING RECORD. I HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE. YOU HAVE EIGHT OR NINE CASES IN THAT CHART. ...
JUDGE, YOU SAID THAT BEFORE.
JUDGE, THERE IS NO POINT IN RESPONDING. HE IS GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR TRYING TO FILIBUSTER. SHE IS DECLINING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WANT TO JOIN HER ON THE BENCH YOU CAN. I AM NOT INTERRUPTING YOUR QUESTIONING. ...
I AM ASKING YOU TO GIVE HER A CHANCE TO ANSWER.
SHE IS CONSISTENTLY SAYING SHE IS NOT GOING TO ANSWER. I WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, THE CASE I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH COOPER AND NOT CHIASSON. THE CASE I WAS READING FROM YOUR TRANSCRIPT IS COOPER. CHIASSON, I PULLED THE WRONG TAP. CHAISE AND IS EQUALLY HORRIFYING. THE GUIDELINES LAYOUT DIFFERENT ENHANCEMENTS AND YOU SAY REPEATEDLY YOU DISAGREE WITH THE GUIDELINES, YOU THINK THEY ARE WRONG. THE TWO GUIDELINES YOU DISAGREE WITH IS AN ENHANCEMENT FOR USE OF COMPUTER. YOU SAVE THE WORLD IS CHANGING AND ALL OF THINGS ARE ON THE COMPUTER. I UNDERSTAND BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. THE SECOND THING YOU SAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS AN ENHANCEMENT FOR THE NUMBER OF IMAGES. YOU SAY REPEATEDLY WHATEVER THE STATE OF THE LAW WHEN THE GUIDELINES WERE FIRST ADAPTED, NEITHER THE USE OF COMPUTER NOR THE NUMBER OF IMAGES ARE ESPECIALLY AGGRAVATING FACTORS TODAY. I FIND THAT BIZARRE. YOU SAY THAT IN EVERY CASE. THE NUMBER OF IMAGES IS NOT AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR. DO YOU BELIEVE A PREDATOR WHO HAS HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF IMAGES OF HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY VIOLATED HAS NOT COMMITTED AN OFFENSE THAT IS MORE SERIOUS THAN SOMEONE THAT HAS A SINGLE PICTURE OF A SINGLE CHILD? A SINGLE PICTURE OF A SINGLE CHILD IS HORRIFYING BUT HUNDREDS THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, YOU BELIEVE THAT IS NOT A MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE? JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT HAVE ANY CASE INVOLVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PICTURES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DID NOT HAVE ANY CASE INVOLVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PICTURES. ...
I SAID HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS.
JUDGE JACKSON: I ALSO APPLIED AN ENHANCEMENT, JUST NOT TO THE DEGREE OF THE GUIDELINES.
IT IS A FIVE-POINT DEGREE ON THE GUIDELINES, YOU PROVIDE TWO. YOU SAID THE NUMBER OF IMAGES DOESN'T REFLECT IT IS A MORE SEVERE CRIME. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?
JUDGE JACKSON: AS I SAID TO SENATOR GRAHAM, THE COURT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THE COMMISSION HAS DONE A REPORT ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE GUIDELINES, WHICH ENHANCEMENTS ACTUALLY REFLECT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CULPABILITY. ...
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, JUDGE. YOU SAID THE PURPOSE OF SENTENCING IS TO DISTINGUISH AGAINST CRIMES THAT ARE NOT AS SERIOUS FROM TRULY AGREE JUST CRIMES. IS THAT RIGHT? JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR. ...
SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?
 JUDGE JACKSON: IT IS TO ASSIGN PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT. IT IS TO DO JUSTICE IN CASES WHERE YOU HAVE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE CONVICTED OF THE SAME CONDUCT BUT HAVE DIFFERING LEVELS OF CULPABILITY. …
I WILL POINT OUT YOU HAVE A PATTERN THAT DOESN'T MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS THE CASE IS. YOU HAD A CASE WITH AN 18-YEAR-OLD HAVING PICTURES OF BOYS AS YOUNG AS EIGHT YEARS OLD AND YOU SENTENCED HIM TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL. THE STEWARD CASE -- THE STEWARD CASE, YOU DESCRIBED HE HAD OVER 6007 HUNDRED IMAGES AND VIDEOS. THAT IS A LOT OF KIDS BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. ...
YOU HAVE TAKEN OVER ONE MINUTE OF MY TIME. I KNOW YOU LIKE TO INTERRUPT. I AM GOING TO ASK MY QUESTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO TESTIFY, YOU ARE WELCOME. ...
YOU PLAYED TO THE SAME RULES AS EVERY OTHER SENATOR.
IN THE STEWARD CASE, YOU SAY ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY -- CHILD POSITION CRIME WAS EGREGIOUS IN THE COURT VIEW. YOU SAID THIS WAS EGREGIOUS. THE GUIDELINES SAID 97 TO 100 20 MONTHS. THE PROSECUTOR SAID 97 MONTHS. YOU SAID IT WAS EGREGIOUS. AT THOUSAND IMAGES. YOU ARE CLAIMING IT IS CHERRY PICKING. YOU ARE WELCOME TO EXPLAIN, LET'S TAKE THE STEWARD CASE. ...
YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZE, SENATOR.
YOU DO NOT WANT HER TO ALLOW -- ONE HER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION?
YOU HAVE GONE OVER YOUR TIME FOR TWO MINUTES.
YOU HAVE INTERRUPTED ME FOR TWO MINUTES. CHAIRMAN, YOU DO NOT WANT HER TO ANSWER WHY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? CHAIRMAN, WILL YOU ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE...
YOU WON'T ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. PLEASE, SENATOR. PLEASE, SENATOR.
WILL YOU ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, CHAIRMAN? WHY ARE YOU NOT ALLOWING HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? I AM NOT ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION. ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION CHAIRMAN DARMAN. WHY DON'T YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STEWARD CASE OR ANY OF THESE CASES? I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE CHAIRMAN OR FUSED TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO ANSWER A QUESTION. YOU CAN BANG IT AS LOUD AS YOU WANT. ...
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
WILL YOU ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? YOU HAVE TAKEN A BIG CHUNK OF THE TIME. WILL YOU ALLOW HER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? SHE IS WELCOME TO ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW. WILL YOU LET HER? SO NO? WILL YOU LET HER ANSWER THE QUESTION? APPARENTLY YOU ARE VERY AFRAID OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEARING THE ANSWER. ...
WE HERE IN THE SENATE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A POLICY FIGHT. ACROSS THIS NATION, MORE THAN 70% OF DISTRICT JUDGES WHO IMPOSE SENTENCES IN THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN SO VIGOROUSLY DEBATED HERE THE PART FROM SENTENCING GUIDELINES FROM THE REQUEST OF THE PROSECUTORS. AS YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IT REPEATEDLY AND IN DETAIL, THAT IS ALLOWED TO WEIGH A SERIES OF ACTIONS. HOW MANY OPINIONS HAVE YOU WRITTEN AS A JUDGE?
 JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE READ AND -- I HAVE WRITTEN AT LEAST 570 OPINIONS. …
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU IMPOSED SENTENCING AS A FEDERAL JUDGE?
JUDGE JACKSON: MORE THAN 100.
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, SENATOR, PERFECTLY. IT WAS ONE OF THE VERY FEW IN WHICH WE COULDN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT. ABOUT THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR SENTENCING ACT REDUCTION. …
TO FINISH THE FRAMING, THE SENTENCING COMMISSION THAT OFTEN DECIDES THINGS UNANIMOUSLY WAS SHARPLY UNITED -- VITA. YOU VOTED TO DENY RELIEF TO COOPERATORS. TO DENY THEM A PATHWAY TOWARDS REDUCING THEIR PRISON SENTENCES AND YOU WERE JOINED BY TWO CONSERVATIVES, JUDGE WILLIAM PRYOR AND NOUN JUDGE FRAZIER. THE THREE OF YOU WERE OUTVOTED BY FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHICH INCLUDED AN INDIVIDUAL NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT REAGAN, DESCRIBED AS A HARD-NOSED, NO-NONSENSE CONSERVATIVE, WHO WAS ON THE OTHERS OF THE ARGUMENT FROM YOU. YOU HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS AND THEY THOUGHT THE LAW COULD BE INTERPRETED TO GIVE A BREAK ON SENTENCING AND YOU WERE ON THE OTHERS OF THAT ARGUMENT. IF SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO PAINT YOU, YOU WERE DETERMINED TO GIVE EVERY BREAK YOU COULD TO CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, YOU COULD HAVE JOINED THE MAJORITY AND THIS WOULD HAVE PASSED. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU DID. HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY NOT. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THIS WAS A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION BUT THE TOP LINE IS WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ISSUES AND AT THE LAW, IT WAS MY OPINION THAT THE LAW DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE FURTHER REDUCTION THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THIS WAS A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION BUT THE TOP LINE IS WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ISSUES AND AT THE LAW, IT WAS MY OPINION THAT THE LAW DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE FURTHER REDUCTION THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: ONE OF THE THINGS DISTRICT JUDGES, SENTENCING JUDGES OFTEN SAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE TASK IS THAT SENTENCING IS THE HARDEST THING THAT A JUDGE HAS TO DO AND IT IS IN PART FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE ARTICULATED. IT IS ONE THING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW, TO READ IT IN A BOOK, LOOK AT DATA AND NUMBERS AND MAKE POLICY BASED ON THAT. IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO HAVE SOMEONE IN THE COURTROOM, WHETHER AS A VICTIM OF CRIME, A DEFENDANT WHO HAS PERPETRATED CRIME, AND HAVE TO DECIDE HOW TO PROCEED AND PRONOUNCE SENTENCE ON THAT INDIVIDUAL. THE WORK I DID ON SENTENCING COMMISSION WAS PRIOR TO BECOMING A DISTRICT JUDGE ENABLED ME TO UNDERSTAND UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITIES. TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE POLICY REASONS BEHIND THE GUIDELINES AND TO MAKE THE KINDS OF EVALUATIONS THAT THE LAW NOW REQUIRES SINCE THE GUIDELINES ARE NO LONGER MANDATORY. I FELT BETTER ABOUT THE TASK OF CALCULATING THE GUIDELINES, WHICH IS WHAT COURTS HAVE TO DO AT THE BEGINNING OF A SENTENCE. HAVING BEEN ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, I THINK THAT HELPED. AT SOME OF THESE CASES MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. I THINK I AM PREPARED TO HANDLE THE CASES THAT INVOLVE SENTENCING THAT DO GO TO THE COURT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF GROWTH. I HOPE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF GROWTH. IN YEAR ONE AND YEAR FIVE, I WAS STILL A DISTRICT JUDGE. IN BOTH THOSE YEARS, IT DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY FROM MY WORK AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE WHICH IS WHERE I WAS CURRENTLY STATIONED. IN EVERY JOB, YEAR ONE, YOU ARE NEW, TRYING TO FIGURE THINGS OUT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAD QUITE PINNED DOWN AT THE VERY BEGINNING EXACTLY HOW I WOULD APPROACH CASES. BY THE TIME I GOT TO YEAR FIVE, I HAD A REALLY GOOD SENSE OF THIS JUDGING THING. AND WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IN MY OPINIONS THE MANY OPINIONS I HAVE WRITTEN. THE WAY IN WHICH I GO ABOUT MAKING MY DECISIONS. I WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, THE PARTIES IN THE CASE, THE ISSUES IN THE CASE, WHAT IT IS ABOUT, FROM A STANDPOINT THAT PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS NOT AN ISSUE. I AM SETTING THOSE THINGS ASIDE. I AM RULING FROM A POSITION OF NEUTRALITY AND TRYING TO DETERMINE IN EVERY CASE WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. I AM LOOKING AT ONLY THE FACTS IN THE CASE. I AM EVALUATING THE PARTIES IN THE CASES. IF IT IS INTERPRETATION, I AM TRYING TO INTERPRET WHAT CONGRESS HAS INTENDED. I HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS THE ROLE AND THE ONLY APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR A JUDGE. ...
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TROUBLING PATTERN WE SEE ON LAW SCHOOL CAMPUSES AND HIGHER EDUCATION MORE BROADLY, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THERE IS A TREND THAT SHORTENS -- A TREND TOWARDS SHUTTING DOWN THE LEFT WING. IT CALLS FOR FIRING PROFESSORS, SHUTTING DOWN AND -- PROFESSORS THAT BRING DIFFERING OPINIONS. THESE PRACTICES ARE COMMONPLACE. PARTICULARLY WITH CONSERVATIVE PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS. AND TRADITIONALLY AGAINST LIBERALS. THE ODDITIES THAT DOESN'T FIT INSIDE HOW THE MEDIA COVERS THINGS, IN D.C. ONE OF THE ODDITIES FOR ME IS HOW OFTEN I HAVE LIBERAL PROFESSORS REACHING OUT TO ME SAYING THEIR EXPERIENCE ON CAMPUS IS BECOMING LESS INTERESTING. THE DIVIDE ON AMERICAN CAMPUS IS LESS. CONSERVATIVE POLICY LEANING VERSUS LIBERAL POLICY LEANING. MORE LIBERAL VERSUS ILLIBERAL. I THINK THESE CAMPAIGNS ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. THEY SHUT DOWN DEBATE, RATHER THAN TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO ENGAGE IDEAS THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ENCOUNTERED BEFORE. WHICH IS A PRETTY DECENT DEFINITION OF EDUCATION. IF YOU EVER KNEW EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU ENCOUNTERED A NEW IDEA, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WRITE CHECKS OR TAKE TIME OFF OF PRODUCTIVE LIFE. THERE IS A TENDENCY AND RESPONSE FOR STUDENTS TO SELF CENSOR RATHER THAN LEARN FROM EACH OTHER. THIS ROBS STUDENTS OF THE CHANCE TO ENGAGE WITH IDEAS ACROSS THE POLITICAL STATE -- POLITICAL SPECTRUM. IN LAW SCHOOLS, IT ROBS STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATE POSITION AND ALTER -- ARGUE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD. GIVEN THAT YOU WERE A DEBATE CHAMPION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK DO YOU AGREE LAW STUDENT SHOULD BE ENGAGING WITH IDEAS FROM ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, EVEN THOUGH THEY DISAGREE WITH, RATHER THAN TRYING TO SHUN THOSE DISAGREEMENTS?
JUDGE JACKSON: THESE ISSUES ARE THINGS THAT COULD IMPLICATE MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE THE COURTS, I WILL SAY THAT AS A GENERAL MATTER LAW SCHOOL, LIKE MANY SCHOOLS, IS A PLACE WHERE IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES ARE CONSIDERED. IN THE LAW, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE JUDGE WHO IS MAKING THE DECISION TO HAVE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TRADITIONALLY HAPPENS IN LAW SCHOOLS IS YOU ARE TRAINED IN LAW TO MAKE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE AT TIMES NOT EVEN THE ARGUMENTS YOU PERSONALLY AGREE WITH. BECAUSE THE UNDERSTANDING IS IN LITIGATION, DISPUTES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT, THE COURT IS GOING TO WANT TO HEAR FROM DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. IN THAT SENSE, THE ESSENCE OF LEGAL INSTRUCTION IS TO HAVE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS TEAM MADE BECAUSE THAT MODELS IN GREAT PART WHAT HAPPENS IN A COURTROOM. ...
I AM NOT TRYING TO ASK ANY KIND OF GOTCHA QUESTION. IT IS BETTER TO DEBATE IDEAS THEN TO SHOULD HAVE THEM SHOT DOWN. ISN'T IT? JUDGE JACKSON: IT IS BETTER IN LAW SCHOOL TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE IDEAS FROM ALL DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN, THEY SHOULD NOT BE REPRESSED. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: IT IS BETTER IN LAW SCHOOL TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE IDEAS FROM ALL DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN, THEY SHOULD NOT BE REPRESSED. ...
YOU DON'T WANT STUDENTS SHUTTING DOWN OTHER STUDENTS OR VISITING PROFESSORS?
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM NOT SUGGESTING I RECUSE YOU. I AM NOT SUGGESTING WE DIFFER. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THESE ISSUES ABOUT SPEECH ON CAMPUS AND THE LIKE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE ISSUES THAT ARE WORKING THEIR WAY IN DIFFERENT FORMATS THROUGH THE COURTS. I AM JUST BEING CAREFUL IN TERMS OF MY ANSWERS. ...
I AM TRYING TO LEAD YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO BE A HERO, YOU ARE ALREADY A HERO, TO LOTS OF KIDS. MORE BROADLY, STUDENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IT IS IN AMERICA'S PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THEM TO HEAR YOU AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE FOOL, VIGOROUS, STRONG DEBATE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS. I SUSPECT YOU ARE AN ADVOCATE FOR VIGOROUS AND ROBUST DEBATE. I DO NOT SEE HOW YOU WOULD BE CONSTRAINED SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE FUTURE CASES. I AM GOING TO ASSUME WE ARE MOSTLY ALIGNED ON THIS. JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DO, SENATOR. ...
SOME OF THE WAYS THE COURT HAS BEEN CALLED ILLEGITIMATE BY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, INCLUDED OVER THE RECENT DAYS AND WEEKS LEANS INTO EXTREME PARTISANSHIP. IT LEADS INTO EXTREMISM, LEADS -- TWIST THE LAW. THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN THE COURT. WE NEED THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE IN THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS GOVERNMENT , INCLUDING ALL THREE BRANCHES. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU, DO YOU AGREE WITH THESE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE COURT OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS? JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOTHING BUT RESPECT FOR MY FORMER JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES, MY CURRENT JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES AND HOPEFULLY MY FUTURE JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES. I BELIEVE WE NEED LEGITIMACY. I HAVE SAID THAT IS THE CURRENCY OF THE COURT AND I LOOK FORWARD, IF I AND CONFIRMED, TO JOINING THE INSTITUTION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE NOTHING BUT RESPECT FOR MY FORMER JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES, MY CURRENT JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES AND HOPEFULLY MY FUTURE JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES. I BELIEVE WE NEED LEGITIMACY. I HAVE SAID THAT IS THE CURRENCY OF THE COURT AND I LOOK FORWARD, IF I AND CONFIRMED, TO JOINING THE INSTITUTION. ...
DO YOU THINK THERE COULD BE ANY OPINION HANDED DOWN THIS TERM THAT COULD UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS COURT? JUDGE JACKSON: THE SUPREME COURT MAKES ITS DETERMINATIONS AND ALL OF THEM ARE PRECEDENTS AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RESPECT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THE SUPREME COURT MAKES ITS DETERMINATIONS AND ALL OF THEM ARE PRECEDENTS AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RESPECT. ...
I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TO OUR CONVERSATION FROM YESTERDAY. YOU POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, YOU WERE CONSTRAINED AND BOUND BY THE SUPREME COURT. YOU MENTION A COUPLE OF TIMES YOU HADN'T HAD MUCH TO DO CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION FOR YOURSELF. I AGREE WITH THE WAY YOU FRAMED MOST OF THAT FOR THE LOWER COURTS, BUT I THINK YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH ME THAT THE JOB OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS DIFFERENT THAN A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AS WELL. WHEN YOU SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT, YOU WILL HAVE TO INTERPRET WITH CONSTITUTION MEANS. BASED ON WHAT YOU TOLD ABOUT LOWER COURT DECISIONS, NOT BEING ABLE TO APPROACH THE NEW JOB YOU HAVE ON THE HIGHEST COURT. OUR CONVERSATION ON JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WAS SOMEWHAT HELPFUL. I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT YOU TOOK A LOT OF US TO LAW SCHOOL YESTERDAY IN WAYS THAT WERE HELPFUL. YOU WALKED US THROUGH SOME DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND -- TORY INTERPRETATION IN WAYS THAT WERE GOOD FOR THE COMMITTEE, THE COURT AND THE PUBLIC MORE BROADLY. IF YOU COULD TAKE US TO LAW SCHOOL ONE MORE TIME AND WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES OF DUE PROCESS. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT IDEAS ON THE SUPREME COURT AND THE BROADER LEGAL COMMUNITY?
JUDGE JACKSON: I AM NOT MOSTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S EFFORTS IN THIS AREA. IT HAS BEEN A WHILE NOW THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES DUE PROCESS INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIVE COMPONENT TO PROCEDURE. THE TERM DUE PROCESS IS ABOUT PROCEDURES BEFORE IT AFFECTS YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO SAID THAT PROTECTION EXTENDS TO CERTAIN PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THAT RELATE TO DIGNITY AND AUTONOMY. AND THAT ARE DEEPLY ROOTED IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY IN TRADITIONS OR IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF LIBERTY. THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED PURSUANT TO THAT THE LINE OF THINGS LIKE MARRIAGE, INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION, A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY, ABORTION. OR SUBJECT TO THE FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED, TRAVEL. SOME OF THE RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. I'M LESS INTERESTED IN THE SCHOLARLY DEBATE. IN EVERY CASE, THE SUPREME COURT IS LOOKING AT A PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE ARTICLE THREE REQUIREMENT THE COURT ONLY LOOK AT CASES AND CONTROVERSIES. IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT CASES CAME BEFORE THE COURT. THE CHALLENGE YOU AND I HAVE BEEN GOING OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, I GET THE MODESTY POINTS ABOUT BEING ON THE DISTRICT COURT BUT IT SEEMS PRETTY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LIMITS MIGHT BE AS A JUSTICE. THIS MORNING YOU STATED AGAIN THAT YOU'RE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS YOUR METHODOLOGY. THE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OF SOME KIND IS NECESSARILY AN INPUT INTO YOUR METHODOLOGY TO EVERY JUDGE ON THE COURT. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNPACK THAT. ...
YOU WOULDN'T CLAIM ANY OF THOSE PHILOSOPHIES FOR YOURSELF AND YET THE PHILOSOPHIES -- JUDGES ON THE TOOLS THEY CONSULT ON HOW THEY DISCERN INTENT AND HOW THE CONSTITUTION IS PROTECTING DEFINING PRINCIPLES OR MORE GENERAL VALUES AND WHETHER MODERN VALUES CAN BE USED TO INFUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN YOU NERI THE DEBATE BETWEEN JUSTICE BREYER AND YOU GOT LOTS OF INPUT -- AND THE SCALIA DEBATES, YOU DIDN'T REALLY TELL US WHO GOT THE BETTER OF THE ARGUMENT. THROUGHOUT THESE TWO DAYS, YOU HAVE FOCUSED A LOT ON WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID. THAT IS HELPFUL AND IMPORTANT, BUT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET AT WHAT YOU THINK THE LIMITS MIGHT BE ON JUSTICE JACKSON, WOULD BE CONSTRAINED BY. WE STILL HAVEN'T HEARD YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. I WISH I MADE MORE PROGRESS WITH YOU ON THAT. WHAT WE KNOW ON A PERSONAL NOTE IS THESE COMMITTEE THREE DAYS HAVE BEEN VERY LONG AND I WANT TO THANK YOU. I GOT TO HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION WITH YOUR PARENTS EARLIER. YOUR WHOLE FAMILY, FOR WHAT YOU ENDURED AND SPENDING TIME WITH US. I WISH BISH WISHES TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. THANK YOU, JUDGE. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. ...
THANK YOU SENATOR. SENATOR BLOOM FELLOW IS NEXT.
THANKS CHAIRMAN. JUDGE JACKSON, I KNOW YOUR BIRTHDAY. SEPTEMBER 14. YOU HAVE THE HAPPY COINCIDENCE WITH THE BIRTHDAY OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY WHO JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE BEEN BORN IN NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT. WE ARE VERY PROUD SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. SHE IS ONE OF MY HEROES AS WELL. IF YOU KNOW ABOUT HER, SHE WAS THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN APPOINTED -- AS YOU KNOW ABOUT HER, SHE WAS THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN TO BE APPOINTED TO THE FIRST COURT. SHE WAS THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN TO HAVE ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT. -- THE COURT. SHE WAS PREDOMINANTLY RESPONSIBLE, THURGOOD MARSHALL GOT A LOT OF THE CREDIT, SHE DID A LOT OF THE WORK. WHY DON'T YOU TELL US AND MAYBE TELL THOSE FOLKS, PARTICULARLY WOMEN AND GIRLS WHO ARE WATCHING OR LISTENING, WHY YOU SAID ON THE OUTSET OF THE HEARINGS HERE THAT SHE WAS ONE OF THOSE WHOSE SHOULDERS YOU STOOD UPON AS YOU CAME HERE TODAY. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT WE SHARE A BIRTHDAY, WHICH I DISCOVERED WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL AND THOUGHT WHAT A HAPPY COINCIDENCE IN TERMS OF SOMEONE WHO I ADMIRED AND SECRETLY AT THAT POINT, I WAS THINKING I MIGHT WANT TO BE A JUDGE. IT WAS A WONDERFUL COINCIDENCE. I ADMIRED THE FACT THAT SHE WAS THE FIRST. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY EASY TO BE THE FIRST BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW PEOPLE WHAT IS POSSIBLE. WHEN YOU ARE THE FIRST, IT MEANS NO ONE HAS EVER DONE IT LIKE YOU BEFORE AND THERE MAY BE HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THOUGHT, I CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE THERE LIKE ME. SO BEING A TRAILBLAZER, WHETHER IT IS JUDGE MOTLEY, JUSTICE MARSHALL OR JUSTICE O'CONNOR, BEING A TRAILBLAZER IS REALLY INSPIRING. I WAS ALWAYS MOVED BY JUDGE ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT WE SHARE A BIRTHDAY, WHICH I DISCOVERED WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL AND THOUGHT WHAT A HAPPY COINCIDENCE IN TERMS OF SOMEONE WHO I ADMIRED AND SECRETLY AT THAT POINT, I WAS THINKING I MIGHT WANT TO BE A JUDGE. IT WAS A WONDERFUL COINCIDENCE. I ADMIRED THE FACT THAT SHE WAS THE FIRST. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY EASY TO BE THE FIRST BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW PEOPLE WHAT IS POSSIBLE. WHEN YOU ARE THE FIRST, IT MEANS NO ONE HAS EVER DONE IT LIKE YOU BEFORE AND THERE MAY BE HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THOUGHT, I CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE THERE LIKE ME. SO BEING A TRAILBLAZER, WHETHER IT IS JUDGE MOTLEY, JUSTICE MARSHALL OR JUSTICE O'CONNOR, BEING A TRAILBLAZER IS REALLY INSPIRING. I WAS ALWAYS MOVED BY JUDGE ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I'M NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. …
I THINK HE SAID THE DISSENT THAT HE IS PROUDEST OF WAS IN PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS VERSUS SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I THINK HE SAID IT WAS THE OPINION THAT HE WAS PROUDEST OF. HE CITED IT IN A HARVARD LAW SCHOOL SYMPOSIUM ABOUT HIS NOTABLE OPINIONS. HE SAID THIS DISSENT WAS MOST NOTABLE. I WILL GIVE YOU THE CITATION. WHEN WE ARE DONE. AND I WILL ASK THAT IT BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. ...
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
JUDGE, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, SO LET ME GET INTO IT. SENATOR CRUZ WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT UNITED STATES VERSUS STEWART. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE NEIL STEWART TRIED TO CROSS STATE LINES TO RAPE ANOTHER PERSON'S NINE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER. HE HAD 6700 IMAGES AND VIDEOS OF EGREGIOUS AND BRITTLE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED 97 MONTHS. THE GUIDELINE SAID 97 TO 112 MONTHS. YOU CAME IN AT 57 MONTHS. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER WHY NOW. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR AN JUDGES ENTIRE RECORD. I HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE IN A VARIETY OF EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. IN EVERY CASE, ESPECIALLY CASES THAT INVOLVE THE KINDS OF ACTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH AS A JUDGE. IN EVERY CASE, I AM BALANCING THE FACTORS THAT CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED ARE APPROPRIATE AND REQUIRED FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. THE DATA POINTS THAT SENATOR CRUZ POINTED TO, YOU MAY HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, DON'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS BEFORE ME AS A JUDGE AND THE AUTHORITY THAT YOU ALL, CONGRESS, AND YOUR PRIOR CONFIRMATION WHEN I WAS A DISTRICT JUDGE PROVIDED FOR ME TO EXERCISE MY JUDGMENT. I TREATED THOSE CASES AND EVERY CASE VERY SERIOUSLY AND IMPOSED A SENTENCE THAT WAS SUFFICIENT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR AN JUDGES ENTIRE RECORD. I HAVE SENTENCED MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE IN A VARIETY OF EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. IN EVERY CASE, ESPECIALLY CASES THAT INVOLVE THE KINDS OF ACTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH AS A JUDGE. IN EVERY CASE, I AM BALANCING THE FACTORS THAT CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED ARE APPROPRIATE AND REQUIRED FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. THE DATA POINTS THAT SENATOR CRUZ POINTED TO, YOU MAY HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, DON'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS BEFORE ME AS A JUDGE AND THE AUTHORITY THAT YOU ALL, CONGRESS, AND YOUR PRIOR CONFIRMATION WHEN I WAS A DISTRICT JUDGE PROVIDED FOR ME TO EXERCISE MY JUDGMENT. I TREATED THOSE CASES AND EVERY CASE VERY SERIOUSLY AND IMPOSED A SENTENCE THAT WAS SUFFICIENT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT. ...
WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO NOTE THAT MR. STEWART WAS A RECIDIVIST? JUDGE JACKSON: WOULD IT SURPRISE ME? SENATOR, THERE IS DATA IN THE SENTENCING COMMISSION AND ELSEWHERE THAT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE RECIDIVISM -- SERIOUS RECIDIVISM ISSUES. AMONG THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SENTENCED, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REOFFEND. IT IS A TERRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WOULD IT SURPRISE ME? SENATOR, THERE IS DATA IN THE SENTENCING COMMISSION AND ELSEWHERE THAT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE RECIDIVISM -- SERIOUS RECIDIVISM ISSUES. AMONG THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SENTENCED, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REOFFEND. IT IS A TERRIBLE THING THAT HAPPENS. ...
LET ME ASK ABOUT THE HAWKINS CASE. YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO THINK ABOUT IT OVERNIGHT. YOU HAD AN 18-YEAR-OLD WHO POSSESSED AND DISTRIBUTED HUNDREDS OF IMAGES OF EIGHT-YEAR-OLD AND NINE-YEAR-OLDS AND 10-YEAR-OLDS AND YOU GAVE HIM FRANKLY A SLAP ON THE WRIST THREE MONTHS. DO YOU REGRET IT?
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS DISTRIBUTION OR POSSESSION. ...
DO YOU REGRET IT?
JUDGE JACKSON: IN THE LAW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT CRIMES THAT PEOPLE COMMIT.
MY QUESTION IS DO YOU REGRET THREE MONTHS? JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT I REGRET IS THAT IN A HEARING ABOUT MY QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME FOCUSING ON THIS SMALL SUBSET OF MY SENTENCES. I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN -- I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT VERY SERIOUS CASES. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT I REGRET IS THAT IN A HEARING ABOUT MY QUALIFICATIONS TO BE A JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME FOCUSING ON THIS SMALL SUBSET OF MY SENTENCES. I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN -- I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT VERY SERIOUS CASES. ...
I'M GLAD WE AGREE.
JUDGE JACKSON: SOME OF WHICH INVOLVE CONDUCT THAT I SENTENCE PEOPLE TO 25 OR 30 YEARS.
THREE MONTHS, DO YOU REGRET IT?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT I AM TELLING YOU --
WE DISCUSSED IT FOR HALF AN HOUR YESTERDAY. THERE IS A 55 PAGE TRANSCRIPT WHICH I'M SURE YOU HAVE READ. YOU EMPHASIZED TO THIS COMMITTEE OVER AND OVER YOU HAVE LIVED IT. YOU SAID YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS, YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THE IMAGES, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS HAD TO ENDURE ALL OF THIS. YOU GAVE HIM A THREE MONTH SENTENCE, I WONDER IF YOU STAND BY IT? ...
 IN EVERY CASE, I FOLLOWED WHAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ME TO DO IN LOOKING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AT THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT APPLY, THAT CONSTRAIN JUDGES, THAT TELL US HOW TO SENTENCE. I RULED IN EVERY CASE BASED ON ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS. ...
SO YOU DON'T REGRET IT?
JUDGE JACKSON: NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN --
I'M ASKING IF YOU REGRET THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ANSWER IS NO. I REGRET IT. LET ME READ WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THESE KINDS OF CASES. MAKE NO MISTAKE MR. HAWKINS THE CHILDREN YOU SAW IN THOSE PICTURES WERE NOT WILLING PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONDUCT YOU WITNESSED. THEY WERE BEING FORCED COMMIT UNSPEAKABLE ACTS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FOR THE PLEASURE OF THE PERSON WHO WAS FILMING. FOR THE GRATIFICATION OF SICK PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, PEOPLE WHO APPARENTLY HAVE NO SHRED OF EMPATHY FOR WHAT THIS MUST BE DOING TO THE CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED IN THIS WAY. SOME OF THE CHILDREN YOU SAW IN THOSE PICTURES WILL NEVER HAVE A NORMAL ADULT RELATIONSHIP. SOME WILL TURN TO DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION AND OTHER VICES TO TRY TO DEAL EMOTIONALLY WITH THE PAIN THAT RESULTS FROM THE TORTURE HAVE EXPERIENCED. EVEN THOSE WHO MANAGED TO LEAD A NORMAL ADULT LIFE SAY THEY LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF BEING RECOGNIZED. SOME PEOPLE ARE EVEN UNABLE TO LEAVE THEIR HOUSES BECAUSE ONCE THOSE PICTURES ARE ON THE INTERNET, THEY ARE THERE FOREVER. THE VICTIMS CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT WORRYING THAT EVERY PERSON THEY MEET HAS SEEN THEM IN THEIR MOST VULNERABLE STATE AT THE MOST HORRIBLE TIME IN THEIR LIVES. THOSE ARE YOUR WATT -- YOUR WORDS. POWERFUL WORDS I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AFTER SAYING THIS , YOU COULD GIVE THIS GUY THREE MONTHS IN PRISON WHEN THE PROBATION OFFICE THAT WE HAVE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT RECOMMENDED 18 MONTHS EVEN THE PROBATION OFFICE RECOMMENDED 18 MONTHS. DO YOU HAVE ANY THING TO ADD?
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR. …
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I HAVE TWO RESPONSES. FIRST, THAT IS NOT MY POLICY DISAGREEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED THAT IN THAT WAY. ...
YOU SAY IN THE CASES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. IN THE HAWKINS CASE, I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE NECESSARILY TO INCREASE THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF YOUR USE OF A COMPUTER OR THE NUMBER OF IMAGES OR PREPUBESCENT VICTIMS. YOU SAY THE SAME THING IN COOPER. JUDGE JACKSON: TO OBSERVE PATIENTS. -- TWO OBSERVATIONS. ONE, I AM SENTENCING IN EVERY CASE, I HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH EVERY ASPECT -- WITH ASPECTS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT I OUTLINE IN THE CASE AS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED AND AS THE SUPREME COURT COMMITS -- PERMITS IN LIGHT OF MY EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY AS A DISTRICT BUT ALSO ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHICH DID A REPORT ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE GUIDELINES. SECOND, YOU HAVE READ EXTENSIVELY FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED INFORMATION FROM THE PROBATION OFFICE OR THE DEFENSE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: TO OBSERVE PATIENTS. -- TWO OBSERVATIONS. ONE, I AM SENTENCING IN EVERY CASE, I HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH EVERY ASPECT -- WITH ASPECTS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT I OUTLINE IN THE CASE AS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED AND AS THE SUPREME COURT COMMITS -- PERMITS IN LIGHT OF MY EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY AS A DISTRICT BUT ALSO ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHICH DID A REPORT ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE GUIDELINES. SECOND, YOU HAVE READ EXTENSIVELY FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED INFORMATION FROM THE PROBATION OFFICE OR THE DEFENSE. ...
I DON'T HAVE THE PROBATION OFFICE REPORT. 
JUDGE JACKSON: THE PROBATION OFFICE PROVIDES A RECOMMENDATION. THERE HAS BEEN INFORMATION GATHERED ABOUT WHAT A RECOMMENDATION WAS GIVEN IN EACH ONE OF THESE CASES. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IN EVERY CASE, THE JUDGE IS NOT JUST HEARING FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE JUDGE IS NOT JUST EVALUATING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IN THESE CASES. IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, A JUDGE HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL SORTS OF FACTORS INCLUDING ARGUMENTS BEING MADE BY THE DEFENDANT, BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE PROBATION OFFICE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN CERTAIN CASES, THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE MADE AN ARGUMENT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WHO MAKE ARGUMENTS. THE COURT EVALUATES EVERYTHING AS CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED. NO ONE CASE CAN STAND IN FOR MY ENTIRE RECORD OF HOW I DEAL WITH CRIMINAL CASES OR DID WHEN I WAS A DISTRICT JUDGE. I HAVE A LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MY FAMILY. I AM A MOTHER WHO HAS DAUGHTERS WHO TOOK THESE CASES HOME WITH ME AT NIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE SO GRAPHIC IN TERMS OF THE KINDS OF IMAGES THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. THEY GIVE YOU NOT ONLY THE ACTUAL VIDEOS WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SEE, BUT THEY DESCRIBE IN THE BRIEFS IN DETAIL WHAT THESE VIDEOS SHOW. I AM FULLY AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS OFFENSE AND ALSO MY OBLIGATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CRIME AS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED ME TO DO AND I MADE A DETERMINATION SERIOUSLY IN EACH CASE. ...
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS IT THAT YOU SAY MULTIPLE TIMES THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE PREPUBESCENT VICTIMS IN COOPER AND HAWKINS THAT THAT DOESN'T SIGNAL THAT THIS IS A HEINOUS OR EGREGIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY ANY SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ASKING YOU FOR? THE SENTENCE GETS TO BE LESS BECAUSE YOU SAY I'M NOT GOING TO APPLY -- THE GOVERNMENT ASKS FOR ENHANCEMENTS RELATED TO PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN, THE NATURE OF THESE IMAGES AND YOU SAY I'M NOT GOING TO APPLY IT. YOU DON'T HAVE A POLICY OBJECTION? WHY DIDN'T YOU APPLY THE ENHANCEMENTS AS THEY WERE ASKED FOR? HON. 
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ANY TIMES FOR MANY SENATORS WHO HAVE ASKED MEAT SO I WILL STAND ON WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID. ...
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ADD ABOUT WHY THESE CRIMES WHY THESE IMAGES IN YOUR VIEW DO NOT SIGNAL AN ESPECIALLY HEINOUS OR EGREGIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE? HAWKINS, COOPER. I UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENTS BUT I DO NOT FIND THEM PERSUASIVE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CHARACTERIZING THIS AS AN ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE, THAT'S PAGE 58. LET ME ASK YOU THIS, YOU SAID SENATOR GRAHAM EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO WHAT IS RATIONAL. AND YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RATIONAL TO SENTENCE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THOUSANDS OF IMAGES BY USING A COMPUTER TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES TO THE MANDATORY RANGE I'M SORRY IT'S NOT MANDATORY, TO THE DISCRETIONARY RANGE. JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I SAID THE GUIDELINES SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO BE RATIONAL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I SAID THE GUIDELINES SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO BE RATIONAL. ...
LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHY ISN'T IT RATIONAL TO SENTENCE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THOUSANDS OF IMAGES ON A COMPUTER TO MORE TIME AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS ONE OR TWO PICTURES IN THE MAIL? THE MORE IMAGES THERE ARE, WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO SENTENCE THAT PERSON TO MORE TIME RATHER THAN LESS? JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION AND I WILL STAND ON WHAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION AND I WILL STAND ON WHAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. ...
YOUR ANSWER IS WHAT? FRESH MY MEMORY. JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. I HAVE EXPLAINED HOW THE GUIDELINES WORK AND WILL STAND ON MY ANSWER.
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. I HAVE EXPLAINED HOW THE GUIDELINES WORK AND WILL STAND ON MY ANSWER.
THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT MANDATORY. I WISH THEY WERE BUT THEY ARE NOT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK IT'S RATIONAL NOT TO SENTENCE CRIMINALS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THEY HAVE? YOU SAY THIS IS A POLICY DISAGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE GUIDELINES. THIS GETS TO THE CORE OF YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. YOU SERVED ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHERE YOU RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE GUIDELINES BASED ON THIS POLICY DISAGREEMENT. I THINK IT'S RELEVANT AND VITAL WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POLICY DISAGREEMENT IS.
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED WHAT THE POLICY DISAGREEMENT IS AND I WILL STAND ON MY ANSWER. ...
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION?
JUDGE JACKSON: NO I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
I AM ASKING A QUESTION IN YOUR DECLINING TO ANSWER.
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE EXPLAINED HOW THE GUIDELINES WORK. I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT THE GUIDELINES WERE DEVELOPED AT A TIME IN WHICH THE COMMISSION OF THIS CRIME WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY. I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT INTERVENED TO REVISE OR DIRECT THE COMMISSION AROUND HOW TO DEAL WITH THE CHANGES IN THE COMMISSION OF THIS CRIME SO JUDGES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE GRAPPLING WITH HOW TO APPLY THIS GUIDELINE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE'S AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF DISPARITY. IN EACH CASE, A JUDGE HAS TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE FACTORS NOT JUST THE GUIDELINES, NOT JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ASKS FOR, BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE PROBATION OFFICE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND DEFENSE, THE NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE, THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT, THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT WHICH INCLUDE THINGS LIKE REHABILITATION. ALSO IN EVERY CASE, CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED JUDGES TO IMPOSE NOT ONLY TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CONSEQUENCE IS FOR THESE CRIMES BUT A RANGE OF OTHER PREVENTATIVE KINDS OF MEASURES WHICH COURTS IMPOSE IN CASES TO PREVENT THESE DEFENDANTS FROM REPEATING THESE -- THIS TYPE OF EGREGIOUS CONDUCT. I TALKED TO EACH DEFENDANT AS YOU HAVE QUOTED, EXPLAINING TO THEM THE HARMS THAT THEIR CRIES CAUGHT -- CRIMES CAUSED. I IMPOSED NOT ONLY A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, BUT ALSO ALL OF THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF THE OFFENSE TO INCLUDE DECADES OF SUPERVISION RESTRICTIONS, USE OF A COMPUTER AND THE LIKE. THAT IS MY ANSWER AND I HAVE ANSWERED IT MANY TIMES. DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? ...
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE GUIDELINES BEING OUTDATED, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN COMPUTERS WERE NOT COMMON. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE NUMBER OF IMAGES OF CHILDREN ON THESE DEVICES HAS EXPLODED. I'M TRYING TO GET AT WHAT WAS CHARACTERIZED AS A FUNDAMENTAL POLICY QUESTION. YOUR VIEW ON WHY IT IS THAT THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AVAILABLE ON THESE THINGS HAS EXPLODED THAT SENTENCING SHOULD NOT TRACK THAT? YOU'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE GUIDELINES WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN THIS STUFF WAS LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL PICTURE, MAGAZINES WHATEVER. NOW ALMOST EVERY OFFENDER BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS, THEY HAVE SOMETIMES THOUSANDS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WOULDN'T WE WANT TO DETER THAT? ISN'T THAT A REASON TO IMPOSE HARDER CERTAIN -- SENTENCES? 
JUDGE JACKSON: CONGRESS HAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. NOW, YOU HAVE A GUIDELINE THAT HAS GRADATIONS IN IT FOR THE NUMBER OF IMAGES THAT ENDS UP BEING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE SOMETHING LIKE THE DIFFERENCE OF 10 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, BUT EACH TWO LEVEL ENHANCEMENT IS LIKE SEVERAL YEARS. THE GRADATIONS ARE LIKE ZERO -- ZERO TO 50 PICTURES, 52 A HUNDRED PICTURES, 100 TO A 150 PICTURES. SET UP AT A TIME IN WHICH THE MALE -- THE MAIL WAS THE PRIMARY MODE OF DISTRIBUTION. SO IF SOMEONE HAD 50 PICTURES THEY ACCORDING TO CONGRESS DESERVED AN EXTRA 10 YEARS IN PRISON. NOW WITH THAT SCALE, EVERYBODY IS AT THE TOP IMMEDIATELY. JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET. YOU ARE NOT DIFFERENTIATING USING THAT SCALE ANYMORE GIVEN THE WAY THIS CRIME IS COMMITTED. JUDGES ARE HAVING TO DECIDE HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE PENALTIES AND DO OUR JOB TO IMPOSE SENTENCES THAT ARE SUFFICIENT BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES? ...
I WILL SAY IN CLOSING THAT I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AS A POLICY MATTER I THINK WE DISAGREE. THE MORE IMAGES THAT ARE THERE, THE MORE PUNISHMENT THERE SHOULD BE AND I WANT TO SEE THIS DETERRED. I THINK WE FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE. I HAVE ENJOYED OUR EXCHANGES, I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. ...
SENATOR --
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM ASKING TO BE RECOGNIZED.
MAY PROCEED?
I WAVE MY TERM. I HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR 47 YEARS. WE SHOULD FOLLOW REGULAR ORDER.
THE WITNESS JUST SAID WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THOSE CASES WITHOUT --
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
I HAVE A LETTER THAT IS SIGNED BY 10 SENATORS ON THIS COMMITTEE. ARE YOU NOT GOING TO ALLOW A LETTER FROM 10 SENATORS? THIS LETTER THAT IS SIGNED BY 10 SENATORS ON THE COMMITTEE ADDRESSED TO YOU MAKES THE POINT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE GAVE YOU PROBATION INFORMATION FOR DEMOCRATS THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE MINORITY ON THIS COMMITTEE AND JUST NOW, JUDGE JACKSON TOLD SENATOR HAWLEY YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THESE CASES WITHOUT READING THE PROBATION REPORTS. 10 SENATORS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE ASKING THE CHAIRMAN PROVIDE THOSE REPORTS SO WE CAN DO IT JUDGE JACKSON JUST SAID. [INDISCERNIBLE] ...
I KNOW THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM TEXAS ASKED TO GET ON TELEVISION, BUT A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. HE SAYING HE IS DOING THIS TO HELP SENATOR HAWLEY. SENATOR HAWLEY COULD HAVE PUT IT IN AND HE DID NOT. ...
SENATOR HAWLEY DID NOT WRITE THE LETTER. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IT BE ADDED TO THE RECORD. OR YOU DENYING CONSENT?
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE NOW FOR ALMOST A DECADE. I TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITIES NOT ONLY TO HEAR AND DECIDE CASES SERIOUSLY, BUT ALSO MY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN EMPLOYER THAT I BRING LAW CLERKS INTO MY CHAMBERS. I WAS A LAW CLERK TO THREE WONDERFUL JUDGES WHO WERE ROLE MODELS FOR ME. I TRY TO ACT AS A ROLE MODEL TO MY LAW CLERKS. I TRY TO BRING IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RESPECT OF OTHERS, PEOPLE WHO COME WITH STRONG RECOMMENDATIONS. PEOPLE WHO I THINK WE'LL GET ALONG WITH ONE ANOTHER. PEOPLE WHO I THINK WILL GET ALONG WITH ME. WE CREATE A LITTLE GROUP, WORKING GROUP AND I THINK THAT IT HAS WORKED OUT WELL. ...
I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT FROM ANY OF YOUR CLERKS OR EMPLOYEES.
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S ABSOLUTE CORRECT. …
DURING OUR COURTESY MEETING, I ENJOYED LEARNING MORE ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY. OF THE NINE SITTING JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, ONLY THREE WERE EDUCATED IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. YOU WOULD AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED MAKE A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE COURT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATE MYSELF. PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS EDUCATE PEOPLE FROM ALL BACKGROUNDS AND MOST PEOPLE GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THEY DON'T GET TO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. YOUR CLASSMATES PROBABLY CAME FROM DIFFERENT RACIAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS, STATUS, ABILITIES. HOW HAS YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPERIENCE SHAPED PERSON YOU ARE AND YOUR APPROACH TO THE LAW? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IN MIAMI, FLORIDA. I HAD A WIDE RANGE OF CLASSMATES AND IT WAS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW PEOPLE WHO WERE DIFFERENT THAN ME. TO LEARN AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THEY WERE NOT SO DIFFERENT THAN I AM. EVEN IF THEY CAME FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. I'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MY DEBATE TEAM. THAT WAS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT I ENGAGED IN AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEBATE TEAM AND WITH MY WONDERFUL COACH. YOU LEARNED HOW TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER, AND HOW TO SPEAK ACROSS -- HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE. IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE. AS I HAVE MENTIONED IN MANY WAYS, DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERATION BEFORE WHO IN FLORIDA WERE SEGREGATED BY LAW. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IN MIAMI, FLORIDA. I HAD A WIDE RANGE OF CLASSMATES AND IT WAS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW PEOPLE WHO WERE DIFFERENT THAN ME. TO LEARN AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THEY WERE NOT SO DIFFERENT THAN I AM. EVEN IF THEY CAME FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. I'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MY DEBATE TEAM. THAT WAS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT I ENGAGED IN AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEBATE TEAM AND WITH MY WONDERFUL COACH. YOU LEARNED HOW TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER, AND HOW TO SPEAK ACROSS -- HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE. IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE. AS I HAVE MENTIONED IN MANY WAYS, DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERATION BEFORE WHO IN FLORIDA WERE SEGREGATED BY LAW. ...
I TAKE IT THAT NOT ONLY DID YOU HAVE A BROAD EXPERIENCE OF ENCOUNTERING PEOPLE FROM ALL DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE AND BACKGROUND, BUT THERE WAS STILL COMMONALITY THAT YOU HAD. THAT IS VERY MUCH EXEMPLIFIED IN YOUR APPROACH TO HER WORK. I ALSO TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE CREATIVE PART OF OUR LIVES. I THINK LAWYERS TEND TO BE VERY LEFT BRAINED. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A VERY WELL-ROUNDED PERSON. I ASKED YOU, WHAT DO YOU DO TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE CREATIVE SIDE OF HER LIFE? -- OF YOUR LIFE? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I TOOK UP NOT TOO LONG AGO THE FIBER ARTS AS THEY SAY. MY MOTHER IS AN EXPERT CROCHET ARTIST. SHE MAKES YOU PIECES OF ALL KINDS. I ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THAT. SHE TRIED TO TEACH ME WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND IT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT. AS I HAVE GONE ALONG IN MY CAREER WANTING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CREDO OUTLET AND ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF HIGH STRESS, I HAVE STARTED PINING FOR SOMETHING TO DO TO EXPRESS MY CREATIVE SIDE. I BOUGHT A BOOK ON CROCHET. I TALKED TO MY MOM. I STARTED MAKING HATS AND SCARVES THEN I MOVED TO KNITTING DURING ONE OF MY CONFIRMATION HEARING SCENARIOS BECAUSE I NEEDED SOMETHING TO KEEP MY MIND OFF OF DISTRESSED. -- OFF OF THE STRESS. I HAVE A BASEMENT FULL OF YARN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME OVER. [LAUGHTER] ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I TOOK UP NOT TOO LONG AGO THE FIBER ARTS AS THEY SAY. MY MOTHER IS AN EXPERT CROCHET ARTIST. SHE MAKES YOU PIECES OF ALL KINDS. I ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THAT. SHE TRIED TO TEACH ME WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND IT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT. AS I HAVE GONE ALONG IN MY CAREER WANTING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CREDO OUTLET AND ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF HIGH STRESS, I HAVE STARTED PINING FOR SOMETHING TO DO TO EXPRESS MY CREATIVE SIDE. I BOUGHT A BOOK ON CROCHET. I TALKED TO MY MOM. I STARTED MAKING HATS AND SCARVES THEN I MOVED TO KNITTING DURING ONE OF MY CONFIRMATION HEARING SCENARIOS BECAUSE I NEEDED SOMETHING TO KEEP MY MIND OFF OF DISTRESSED. -- OFF OF THE STRESS. I HAVE A BASEMENT FULL OF YARN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME OVER. [LAUGHTER] ...
THAT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT YOU ARE CONNECTING TO THE PEOPLE WHO MEAN A LOT TO YOU. THE CREATIVE OUTLET IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME, BECAUSE IN A CHANGING WORLD, IT IS OUR ABILITY TO BE CREATIVE IN OUR APPROACHES AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT WILL ENABLE US TO DEAL WITH THE RAPID CHANGES THAT HAPPEN EVERY DAY. I VIEW YOU AS A CONSENSUS BUILDER. I KNOW THAT IN YOUR WORK WITH THE SENTENCING COMMISSION, YOU WORK HARD TO COME UP WITH 95% OF THE TIME IN THIS VERY DIVERSE GROUP, THERE WAS CONSENSUS IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK CONSENSUS IS ON WHAT I CHARACTERIZED YESTERDAY AS A VERY IDEOLOGICALLY SPLIT SUPREME COURT? 
JUDGE JACKSON: I THINK CONSENSUS IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MOST ADMIRED ABOUT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR JUSTICE BREYER IS A LAW CLERK TO OBSERVE HIS PROCESS FOR REACHING OUT TO COLLEAGUES AND TRYING TO COLLABORATE IN HIS THOUGHT PROCESS ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF CASES. IT IS SOMETHING THAT I TRIED TO EMULATE WHEN I WAS ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WHICH IS A VERY DIVERSE BODY. I SAW IN THAT CONTEXT THE IMPORTANCE OF TRYING TO REACH COMMON GROUND WITH RESPECT TO YOUR DETERMINATIONS. ...
TO ILLUSTRATE THE KIND OF BROAD SUPPORT THAT THIS NOMINEE HAS, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD TO LETTERS. ONE SIGNED BY 1000 PUBLIC DEFENDERS FROM ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND ANOTHER SIGNED BY 48 PROSECUTORS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. JUDGE JACKSON, I HAVE VERY MUCH ENJOYED TALKING TO YOU. IT WILL BE MY PRIVILEGE TO SUPPORT YOUR NOMINATION. ALOHA. ...
THANK YOU, SENATOR.
I HAVE A LETTER HERE SIGNED BY LETTERS ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN RECORD.
MR. CHAIRMAN? SINCE YOU JUST RESPONDED TO THE LETTER THAT I WROTE AND WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF 10 SENATORS, I WILL POINT OUT THAT IN JUDGE JACKSON'S ANSWER TO SENATOR HAWLEY, SHE SAID THAT HE AND THIS COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ASSESS HER SENTENCING. BECAUSE WE HEARD THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR'S BUT WE DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM THE PROBATION OFFICE. SHE SAID SHE COULD NOT -- WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WE DID NOT HAVE INFORMATION. I'M CONFIDENT EVERYONE WOULD REREAD -- AGREE TO REDACTING OUT INFORMATION THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF THE VICTIM. JUDGE JACKSON HAS TOLD US IT IS RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THOSE CASES. THAT'S WHY 10 OF US HAVE REQUESTED WE HAVE THOSE REPORTS. THERE IS EXPLICIT STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR US TO DO SO THAT IS CITED IN THE LETTER WE JUST SUBMITTED. ...
I DON'T KNOW WHERE OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR CAUCUS STAND ON THE BASIC QUESTION OF HIS NOMINATION. THEY CAN DECIDE ON THEIR OWN AND THEY WILL AND THEY SHOULD THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. I THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE HEADED. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD THINK LONG AND HARD MY FRIENDS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE TO PURSUE THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. WE SPENT TWO DAYS, 15 TO 18 HOURS AND A LARGE PART ON THIS ISSUE. I DON'T BELIEVE THESE PRESENTENCING REPORTS ARE GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S DISPOSITION IF THEY'RE GOING TO REPORT ON THIS ISSUE. -- VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. I DON'T WANT IT WEIGHING ON MY CONSCIENCE THAT I GAVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO RELEASE THIS INFORMATION SO IT MIGHT ENDANGER THE LIVES OF INNOCENT VICTIMS. AM SORRY, THAT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR ME. THE ISSUE BEFORE US YOU HAVE EACH HAD A CHANCE TO HEAR 20 OF TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH THE INDIVIDUAL CAUCUSES ON BOTH SIDES IF YOU WISH. THAT TO ME, IT HAS GONE WAY TOO FAR. WAY TOO FAR. I DON'T WANT IT ON MY CONSCIENCE. ...
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT? I HAVE PROSECUTED LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK IT'S OVER -- HUNDREDS OF SENTENCING'S. WE HAD PRESENTENCE REPORTS. OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THERE ARE THINGS IN THEIR -- THERE SOMETIMES PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO EVEN GIVE A REPORT. THE DEFENSE COUNSEL, OR I IS A PROSECUTOR NEVER THOUGHT THOSE WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. WE ASSUMED THE JUDGES, WE HAD JUDGES ACROSS THE POLITICAL STRIPES WHO READ THEM, KEPT THE CONFIDENCE OF THAT. AS A RESULT, WE KNEW THAT THE REPORTS WERE THOROUGH. AS A PROSECUTOR, I MIGHT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT I NEVER QUESTIONED A JUDGE WHO MIGHT GIVE A DIFFERENT SENTENCE BECAUSE MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROSECUTOR, THEIRS WAS TO SENTENCE. ...
MIGHT I JUST WEIGHING? -- WEIGHT IN? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING RELATIVE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS. AS A PROSECUTOR AND A LAW CLERK, I REVIEWED THOSE WITH REGULARITY AND I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY. LET ME SUGGEST A COUPLE OF THINGS. IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR US AS A COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TO REVIEW MATERIALS THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. I DON'T THINK ONE OF US IS SUGGESTING THAT. THERE ARE MEANS BY WHICH WE CAN REVIEW THINGS IN A CLASSIFIED ENVIRONMENT AND TREAT THEM AS CLASSIFIED, WE HAVE DONE THAT WITH A SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS IN THIS HEARING. SECONDLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WOULDN'T PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF COMFORT NECESSARY, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO REVIEW THEM ON A REDACTED BASIS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BECOME RELEVANT IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE FACTS. NOT ONE OF US WAS TO ENDANGER ANYONE OR TO RENDER PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT IS SENSITIVE IN NATURE. THERE ARE ABUNDANT WAYS AROUND THAT. ...
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE REPORTS IS DANGEROUS TO THE VICTIMS, TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTIONED IN THESE REPORTS, AND UNNECESSARY AT THIS POINT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN REQUESTED BY THIS COMMITTEE AND IT IS MERELY A FISHING EXPEDITION IN DANGEROUS TERRITORY. CLASSIFIED SETTINGS, REDACTED VERSIONS OF THE REPORTS, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMITTEE. SENATOR, I WILL JUST TELL YOU I AM NOT GOING TO BE PARTY TO TURNING OVER THIS INFORMATION AND ENDANGERING THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT PERSON FOR POLITICAL QUEST TO FIND MORE INFORMATION. WE HAVE EXHAUSTED THIS TOPIC. WE HAVE GONE TO IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THIS IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR THIS COMMITTEE. THAT IS MY PERSONAL FEELING, I TAKE IT SENATOR LAHEY MAY AGREE WITH ME. THIS NOMINEE HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE FOR 18 HOURS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S VOTE. YOU CAN DECIDE IN YOUR CAUCUS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO TO GO FORWARD. I HAVE TOLD YOU MY POSITION. I WANT TO PROCEED IF I CAN. I THANK THE NOMINEE FOR WAITING FOR THIS POLITICALLY. I TURN IT OVER TO SENATOR COTTON. ...
I WANT TO TURN TO CRIME AND SENTENCING. IN ANY OF THE CASES WHERE YOU HAVE SENTENCED AN OFFENDER BELOW THE GUIDELINES, HAS THAT OFFENDER GONE ON TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME AFTER GETTING RELEASED FROM PRISON? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. WHEN JUDGES SENTENCE, THEY OFTEN IMPOSE TERMS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE. THERE ARE TIMES IN WHICH WHEN A PERSON IS ON SUPERVISED RELEASE THEY REOFFEND. THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN THEY DON'T. EVEN AFTER THE TIME OF SUPERVISED RELEASE, THE COURT DOESN'T CONTINUE TO HAVE ANY WAY OF TRACKING OR KNOWING WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO REOFFEND, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COME BACK TO THE SAME COURT OR THE SAME JUDGE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. WHEN JUDGES SENTENCE, THEY OFTEN IMPOSE TERMS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE. THERE ARE TIMES IN WHICH WHEN A PERSON IS ON SUPERVISED RELEASE THEY REOFFEND. THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN THEY DON'T. EVEN AFTER THE TIME OF SUPERVISED RELEASE, THE COURT DOESN'T CONTINUE TO HAVE ANY WAY OF TRACKING OR KNOWING WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO REOFFEND, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COME BACK TO THE SAME COURT OR THE SAME JUDGE. ...
SO YOU DON'T HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS TO KNOW IF ANY WHEN YOU HAVE SENTENCED BELOW THE GUIDELINES HAS REOFFEND IN THE FUTURE? JUDGE JACKSON: DO I HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS? I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO EVERY OFFENDED WHILE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER ANY OF THEM WERE GUIDELINE SENTENCES, BELOW GUIDELINE, OR ABOVE GUIDELINE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: DO I HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS? I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO EVERY OFFENDED WHILE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER ANY OF THEM WERE GUIDELINE SENTENCES, BELOW GUIDELINE, OR ABOVE GUIDELINE. ...
I KNOW YOU HAVE ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS LAST TWO DAYS ABOUT SENTENCING AND SEX CRIMES. DID YOU EVER SENTENCE AN OFFENDER ABOVE THE GUIDELINE'S RECOMMENDATION? JUDGE JACKSON: I'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT -- NO I HAVE SENTENCED OFFENDERS -- I KNOW I HAVE SENTENCED OFFENDERS TO THE GUIDELINES IN THE CATEGORY OF SEX CRIMES IN GENERAL. I KNOW I HAVE GIVEN 30-YEAR SENTENCES FOR AT LEAST ONE OFFENDER, ALMOST 30 YEARS, 29.5. I HAVE GIVEN I BELIEVE A 12-YEAR SENTENCE TO SOMEONE AT THE AGREEMENT OF ALL OF THE PARTIES, WHICH WAS A SENTENCE THAT WAS A PART OF HIS PLEA AGREEMENT. I'M NOT REMEMBERING THE OTHERS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT -- NO I HAVE SENTENCED OFFENDERS -- I KNOW I HAVE SENTENCED OFFENDERS TO THE GUIDELINES IN THE CATEGORY OF SEX CRIMES IN GENERAL. I KNOW I HAVE GIVEN 30-YEAR SENTENCES FOR AT LEAST ONE OFFENDER, ALMOST 30 YEARS, 29.5. I HAVE GIVEN I BELIEVE A 12-YEAR SENTENCE TO SOMEONE AT THE AGREEMENT OF ALL OF THE PARTIES, WHICH WAS A SENTENCE THAT WAS A PART OF HIS PLEA AGREEMENT. I'M NOT REMEMBERING THE OTHERS. ...
I UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE SENTENCED IN A LOT OF CASES. I WANT TO RETURN BRIEFLY TO THE HAWKINS CASE. WESLEY HAWKINS WAS CONVICTED OF A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE IN 2014. THE SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALLED FOR A SENTENCE OF 97 TO 1221 MONTHS, OR 8 TO 10 YEARS FOR. YOU SENTENCED HIM TO THREE MONTHS. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS CASE AND YOUR THREE-MONTH SENTENCE OF WESLEY HAWKINS. BUT YOU GOT ANOTHER CRACK AT HIM IN 2019, JUDGE. IN 2019 YOU SENT WESLEY HAWKINS BACK UNDER CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF PRISONS FOR SIX MONTH WITH RESTRICTIONS ON HIS COMPUTER USAGE. THAT IS TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN CUSTODY YOU SENTENCED HIM TO IN 2013. WHAT DID WESLEY HAWKINS DO IN 2019, JUDGE?
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T REMEMBER, SENATOR. I HAVE A LOT OF DEFENDANTS I HAVE SENTENCED WHO ARE ON SUPERVISION WHO VIOLATE CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION. IN OUR SYSTEM, SOMEONE LIKE MR. HAWKINS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CRIME, THE EGREGIOUS CRIME THAT HE COMMITTED, WAS LIKELY ON A VERY LONG PERIOD OF SUPERVISION, AND DURING THAT TIME HE WOULD LIKELY BE UNDER COMPUTER RESTRICTIONS FOR 10, 20 YEARS OR SOMETHING WHERE HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH THE COMPUTER, AND A PROBATION OFFICER IS MONITORING SOFTWARE ON THE COMPUTERS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE THESE KINDS OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED. AND THAT RESTRICTS THEIR ABILITY TO ACCESS CERTAIN INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET. AND SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR A PROBATION OFFICER TO REPORT VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE NOT JUST IN THIS AREA, BUT ACROSS ALL CRIMES. AND THEN THE COURT HAS TO DETERMINE HOW TO HANDLE THAT. AND YOU COULD IN FACT SEND SOMEONE BACK TO JAIL FOR VIOLATING CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE THAT ARE NOT THEMSELVES CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THE COURT SAYS IN THEIR SUPERVISION ORDER I AM IMPOSING A 20-YEAR, WHATEVER IT IS, SENTENCE OF SUPERVISION, AND DURING THIS TIME YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS YOUR COMPUTER, ETC., ETC. IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT, IT WOULD NOT BE ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, BUT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF MY ORDER, AND WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE COURT ON VIOLATION, THE COURT HAS FACTORS THAT WE LOOK AT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO TREAT THAT ESSENTIALLY AS THE KIND OF VIOLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO GO BACK TO JAIL. ...
JUDGE, YESTERDAY WE HAD AN EXTENDED CONVERSATION OF YOUR SENTENCE OF KEY HODGES. THAT SENTENCE OCCURRED IN 2018. YOU HAD VERY DETAILED RECALL. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT IS THE ONLY TIME ANYONE HAS ASKED YOU ABOUT MR. HODGES'S SENTENCED. YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED REPEATEDLY ABOUT THE HAWKINS CASE. HE HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR DAYS ON END. THIS RESENTENCING HAPPENED IN 2019 AND NOW YOU ARE SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF IT. LET ME SEE IF I CAN REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. THIS IS THE ORDER YOU SIGNED, JUDGE, ON APRIL 17 2019. AND IT SAYS THAT YOU CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROBATION OFFICE TO RETURN HIM TO A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR 180 DAYS AND TO ENGAGE IN VARIOUS KINDS OF COMPUTER MONITORING AND SEARCH. THAT IS YOUR SIGNATURE OVER THERE, JUDGE. YOU REALLY DON'T REMEMBER
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, THAT IS A VERY COMMON THING THAT JUDGES DO. I'VE SENTENCED OVER 100 PEOPLE, AND SUPERVISED RELEASE, WHICH IS THE KIND OF POST-INCARCERATION CONDITION THAT JUDGES ORDINARILY IMPOSE, IS SOMETHING THAT IS DONE ON A STANDARD FORM, WHICH IS WHAT THAT IS -- ...
I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE DONE A LOT, JUDGE, NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN THE CENTERPIECE OF YOUR HEARING THE LAST TWO DAYS DO YOU REALLY EXPECT THIS COMMITTEE TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS HAWKINS CASE WHEN IT CAME BACK BEFORE YOU?
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, SENATOR, I DO EXPECT YOU TO BELIEVE -- …
WELL, I DON'T FIND YOU CREDIBLE, JUDGE. IT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR DAYS AND YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT MORE THAN ANY OTHER CASE YOU HAVE EVER HAD. I JUST DON'T FIND IT CREDIBLE THAT YOU WEREN'T PREPARED FOR THAT MATTER IN 2019. YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK? I THINK HE GOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AGAIN AND HE WOULDN'T HAVE IF HE HAD GOTTEN 8 TO 10 YEARS THE FIRST SENTENCING. LET'S TURN TO YOUR WORK FOR DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY. FIRST OFF, LET ME JUST ASK, DO YOU THINK MOST DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY WERE MOSTLY TERRORISTS OR MOSTLY, I DON'T KNOW, INNOCENT GOAT FARMERS? 
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THE PEOPLE AT GUANTANAMO BAY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, AND ARE THEREFORE CLASSIFIED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS ENEMY COMBATANTS. …
DO THINK AMERICA WOULD BE SAFER OR LESS SAFE IF WE RELEASED ALL THE DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 9/11 WAS A TERRIBLE ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY, AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY THAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IT HAD, DESIGNATED PEOPLE AS ENEMY COMBATANTS AND SENT THEM TO GUANTANAMO BAY. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO SAID THAT ANYBODY WHO WAS SO DETAINED COULD SEEK REVIEW OF THEIR DETENTION, AND AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, MY ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO MAKE ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN SERVICE TO THE COURT THAT WAS TRYING TO ASSESS BASED ON THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO IT BY THE SUPREME COURT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE WERE ADEQUATELY CLASSIFIED, WHAT THE LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, HOW THESE PREVIOUS PETITIONS WERE GOING TO BE PROCESSED. THIS WAS A SERIES OF OF LEGAL CHALLENGES IN A NOVEL ENVIRONMENT THAT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND LAWYERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WERE ENGAGED IN HELPING THE COURT TO EVALUATE SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IN THIS TIME OF EMERGENCY. ...
SO NO OPINION ON WHETHER AMERICA WOULD BE SAFER OR LESS SAFE IF WE RELEASED ALL DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO BAY?
 JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, AMERICA WOULD BE LESS SAFE IF WE DON'T HAVE TERRORISTS OUT RUNNING AROUND ATTACKING THIS COUNTRY, ABSOLUTELY. AMERICA WOULD ALSO BE MORE SAFE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. THIS IS THE WAY OUR SCHEME WORKS. THIS IS HOW THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE ALL LOVE OPERATES. IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO IN A TIME OF CRISIS. AS JUSTICE GORSUCH SAID, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SUSPENDED IN TIMES OF CRISIS. THE GOVERNMENT STILL HAS TO FOLLOW THE RULES. AND SO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS MAKE SURE THAT IN TIMES OF CRISIS, THE GOVERNMENT IS FOLLOWING THE RULES. ...
LET'S TURN TO THE ACTUAL CASES. HOW MANY OF THESE TERRORISTS AT GUANTANAMO BAY DID YOU REPRESENT?
JUDGE JACKSON: WHEN I WAS DEFENDER, FOUR CASES WERE ASSIGNED TO ME IN OUR OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CASES CAME INTO THE OFFICE IN TOTAL, BUT -- …
YOU PERSONALLY HAD FOUR? JUDGE JACKSON: I WAS ASSIGNED TO THEM ALONG WITH ANOTHER DEFENDER WHO WORKED ON THE SAME CASES. SHE WAS MORE SENIOR. SHE DID ALL OF THE FACT GATHERING RELATED TO THE CASES, AND AS AN APPELLATE DEFENDER, I WORKED ON THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I WAS ASSIGNED TO THEM ALONG WITH ANOTHER DEFENDER WHO WORKED ON THE SAME CASES. SHE WAS MORE SENIOR. SHE DID ALL OF THE FACT GATHERING RELATED TO THE CASES, AND AS AN APPELLATE DEFENDER, I WORKED ON THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ...
DO YOU EVER REPRESENT ANY OF THE DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY WHEN YOU WERE NOT A PUBLIC DEFENDER? JUDGE JACKSON: ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO I REPRESENTED WHILE I WAS IN A FEDERAL DEFENDER, HEIS CASE GOT SPUN OFF AND TAKEN UP BY A LAW FIRM. LAW FIRMS AROUND THE COUNTRY WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN THIS WORK -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO I REPRESENTED WHILE I WAS IN A FEDERAL DEFENDER, HEIS CASE GOT SPUN OFF AND TAKEN UP BY A LAW FIRM. LAW FIRMS AROUND THE COUNTRY WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN THIS WORK -- ...
I'M WELL AWARE OF WHAT LAW FIRMS WERE DOING AT THE TIME. 
JUDGE JACKSON: I LEFT THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, I JOINED A LAW FIRM, AND ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I HAD REPRESENTED WAS NOW AT THAT LAW FIRM. THEY HAD HIM AS A CLIENT -- ...
MR. AL-SALAM.
JUDGE JACKSON: AL-QATANI.
COINCIDENTALLY HE AND YOU WENT TO MORRISON AND FOERSTER.
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, SENATOR.
WHAT ABOUT MR. AL- SALAM?
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T RECALL WHAT HAPPENED WITH MR. AL-SALAM.
YOU WERE LISTED AS COUNSEL FOR FOUR YEARS WITH MORRISON AND FOERSTER. ) WHAT HAPPENS -- JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU LEAVE ANYPLACE, FIRMS OR GOVERNMENT SERVICE, YOU HAVE TO LET THE COURT KNOW OR THEIR RECORDS -- THEIR RECORDS REFLECT WHERE YOU ARE IN THE SYSTEM AND NOT SO MUCH THE CASE CAN IN TERMS OF THEIR ADDRESS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU LEAVE ANYPLACE, FIRMS OR GOVERNMENT SERVICE, YOU HAVE TO LET THE COURT KNOW OR THEIR RECORDS -- THEIR RECORDS REFLECT WHERE YOU ARE IN THE SYSTEM AND NOT SO MUCH THE CASE CAN IN TERMS OF THEIR ADDRESS. ...
TO GO BACK TO MR. AL-QATANI, JUST COINCIDENTLY, SMALL WORLD, HE WENT TO MORRISON AND FOERSTER AT THE SAME TIME YOU DID AND YOU REPRESENTED HIM AND HE FILED MULTIPLE MOTIONS ON HIS BEHALF. JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS AT THE SAME TIME -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS AT THE SAME TIME -- ...
BUT HE DID FILE MULTIPLE MOTIONS FOR HIM.--YOU DID FILE MULTIPLE MOTIONS COULD
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS MULTIPLE, BUT HE WAS STILL AT THE HABEAS STAGE OF THE PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN HE CAME, BECAUSE THE PARTNERS WHO TAKE UP THE CASE WERE IN LOS ANGELES I WAS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY CONTACTED ME TO SAY, OH, WE SEE ON THE DOCKET YOU PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED IN AN YOU ARE NOW WITH OUR FIRM, WILL YOU ASSIST US WITH LOOKING AT THESE BRIEFS, WORKING ON THESE BRIEFS? THERE WERE MANY LAWYERS WHO WERE WORKING ON THE FILINGS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. ...
AFTER YOU LEFT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, DID YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR REPRESENTATION OF ANY OTHER CLIENT YOU HAD HAD IN THE PUBLIC OFFENDERS OFFICE? --PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE? JUDGE JACKSON: I DIDN'T CONTINUE MY REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND. I LEFT THE DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND PICKED UP MR. QATANI AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES I TALKED ABOUT AND THERE WERE NO OTHERS I REPRESENTED IN THAT WAY. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DIDN'T CONTINUE MY REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND. I LEFT THE DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND PICKED UP MR. QATANI AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES I TALKED ABOUT AND THERE WERE NO OTHERS I REPRESENTED IN THAT WAY. ...
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CONTINUATION. YOU REPRESENTED HIM AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AS WELL, AND YOU ARE TELLING US THAT IT'S REALLY PERSON YOU REPRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND IN PRIVATE PRACTICE--THE ONLY PERSON THAT YOU REPRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC OF HUNTER'S OFFICE AND IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.
JUDGE JACKSON: YES. ...
YOU DIDN'T CONTINUE ANY PRO BONO WORK FOR MURDERERS OR RAPISTS OR ANYONE ELSE, BUT YOU DID REPRESENT GENEROUS AT GUANTANAMO BAY? --THIS TERRORIST AT GUANTANAMO BAY? JUDGE JACKSON: WHEN I GOT TO THE FIRM AND THEY TOLD ME THIS CASE WAS THERE AND THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON THE CASE, THEY ASKED ME AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP OF THE FIRM, WHICH IS WHERE -- WAS MY PRACTICE, IF I WOULD HELP REVIEW AND WORK ON SOME OF THE BRIEFING THEY WERE SUBMITTING ON HIS BEHALF GIVEN MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE CASE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WHEN I GOT TO THE FIRM AND THEY TOLD ME THIS CASE WAS THERE AND THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON THE CASE, THEY ASKED ME AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE GROUP OF THE FIRM, WHICH IS WHERE -- WAS MY PRACTICE, IF I WOULD HELP REVIEW AND WORK ON SOME OF THE BRIEFING THEY WERE SUBMITTING ON HIS BEHALF GIVEN MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE CASE. ...
WERE YOU REPRESENTING HIM PRO BONO AT MORRISON AND FOERSTER? JUDGE JACKSON: THE FIRM TAKES ON PRO BONO REPRESENTATIONS, WHICH MEANS THE PERSON IS IN PAIN.
JUDGE JACKSON: THE FIRM TAKES ON PRO BONO REPRESENTATIONS, WHICH MEANS THE PERSON IS IN PAIN.
LET'S TURN TO YOUR AMICUS BRIEFS. YOU HAD TWO BRIEFS ON GUANTANAMO CASES, ONE AT A THINK TANK, ONE FOR FORMER JUDGES. SOMETIMES THE CLIENTS SEEK OUT LAWYERS, SOMETIMES THE LAWYERS SEEK OUT THE CLAIM. WITH EITHER OF THOSE AMICUS REEFS, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN SEEKING THE CLIENT OR SUGGESTING THE IDEA FOR THE AMICUS BRIEF IN THE FIRST PLACE?
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, SENATOR. …
WERE EITHER OF THOSE DONE ON A PRO BONO BASIS? JUDGE JACKSON: YES, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE GROUP IN A LAW FIRM HAS PAID CLIENTS AND ALSO HAS PRO BONO CLIENTS. THE BRIEFS THAT I WORKED ON WERE ON -- ONE BRIEF WAS 20 FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES WHO WANTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT IN THE BOUME DDIENE CASE AND THE SUPREME COURT AND ONE OF THEM WAS A PARTNER IN MY LAW FIRM, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE PRESIDING IT -- IDEA IT WAS AND SHE WANTED OUR GROUP TO WORK ON THE BRIEF. THE OTHER WAS NOT JUST ONE THINK TANK, IT WAS THE CATO INSTITUTE, THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT, AND IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF NONPROFITS WHO WANTED TO MAKE ARGUMENTS IN ANOTHER CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TAKEN UP RELATED TO THESE ISSUES. ALL OF THIS WAS NOVEL, AND A A LOT OF ISSUES WERE BEING EVALUATED BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY DURING THIS TIME OF CRISIS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE GROUP IN A LAW FIRM HAS PAID CLIENTS AND ALSO HAS PRO BONO CLIENTS. THE BRIEFS THAT I WORKED ON WERE ON -- ONE BRIEF WAS 20 FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES WHO WANTED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT IN THE BOUME DDIENE CASE AND THE SUPREME COURT AND ONE OF THEM WAS A PARTNER IN MY LAW FIRM, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE PRESIDING IT -- IDEA IT WAS AND SHE WANTED OUR GROUP TO WORK ON THE BRIEF. THE OTHER WAS NOT JUST ONE THINK TANK, IT WAS THE CATO INSTITUTE, THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT, AND IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF NONPROFITS WHO WANTED TO MAKE ARGUMENTS IN ANOTHER CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TAKEN UP RELATED TO THESE ISSUES. ALL OF THIS WAS NOVEL, AND A A LOT OF ISSUES WERE BEING EVALUATED BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY DURING THIS TIME OF CRISIS. ...
YOU HAVE DONE PRO BONO WORK ON BEHALF OF DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY. HAVE YOU EVER DONE PRO BONO WORK FOR THE VICTIMS OF TERRORISM? JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH CASES IN MY LAW FIRM. I WAS IN A GROUP OF LAWYERS THAT WAS OFTEN APPROACHED TO ASK, WOULD YOU FILE A BRIEF FOR SOME GROUP. I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANY VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ASKED OUR FIRM TO TAKE A CASE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH CASES IN MY LAW FIRM. I WAS IN A GROUP OF LAWYERS THAT WAS OFTEN APPROACHED TO ASK, WOULD YOU FILE A BRIEF FOR SOME GROUP. I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANY VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ASKED OUR FIRM TO TAKE A CASE. ...
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE IS AND HOW YOU CHARACTERIZED THEM. I WILL REMIND YOU THAT THOSE WITH THE RESIDENT, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS. SENATOR GRAHAM SAID YOU CALLED THEM WERE CRIMINALS. YOU DISPUTED THAT AND SENATOR DURBIN HAS DENIED THAT AS WELL. I WILL CONCEDE YOU DID NOT USE THOSE EXACT WORDS, BUT YOU DID SAY THAT THEY COMMITTED ACTS THAT CONSTITUTED WAR CRIMES. I'M SORRY, I GOTTA CONFESS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING SOMEONE IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND SAYING THEY COMMITTED ACTS THAT CONSTITUTED WAR CRIMES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE TO ME? 
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, I WILL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN YOU FILE A HABEAS PETITION UNDER OUR LAW, YOU CAN'T FILE IT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. THE WAY OUR LAW WORKS, YOU HAVE TO FILE IT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. THAT'S THE WAY IN WHICH YOU ARE ABLE TO FILE A HABEAS PETITION. WHOEVER IS THE EXECUTIVE AT THE TIME BECOMES THE NAMED PARTY IN THE BRIEF. AND A HABEAS PETITION IS LIKE A COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL CASE. IT IS MAKING ALLEGATIONS TO BEGIN THE LITIGATION ABOUT THE PERSON'S DETENTION -- ...
BUT, JUDGE, OFFICIAL CAPACITY, PROCEDURAL CAPACITY, ALL OF THAT IS GOBBLEDYGOOK. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CALLING SOMEONE A WAR CRIMINAL AND SAYING THEY COMMITTED ACCEPT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.
JUDGE JACKSON: WITH RESPECT, SENATOR, THEY WERE NOT SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, NOT MAKING ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS. IN FACT, OVER THE COURSE OF THE CASE, THE NAMES CHANGED. LATER ON THE HABEAS PETITION BECAME AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA, BECAUSE HE THEN BECAME THE EXECUTIVE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE HABEAS PETITION -- ...
I'M WELL AWARE THE NAMES CHANGED, PROBABLY CHANGED FROM BOB GATES TO DONALD RUMSFELD AS WELL. THEY WERE NOT THE ONES OVERSEEING THE GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU FILE THE SUIT AND HE SAID THEY COMMITTED ACTS THAT CONSTITUTED WAR CRIMES. I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU EXPECT THIS COMMITTEE TO SAY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING SOMEONE IS A WORKER MIDDLE AND THAT THEY COMMITTED WAR CRIMES. -WAR CRIMINAL AND THAT THEY COMMITTED WORK COMES. JUDGE JACKSON: WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO BAY, IT WAS AN ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE USE OF TORTURE. WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ALLEGATION, YOU BRING IT UNDER LAWS THAT THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE CRIMES OF WAR. THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH THE LAW WORKS. IF YOU ARE WRITING A HABEAS PETITION AND YOU SAY UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, MR. KHATAMI WAS TORTURED, THAT ALLEGATION IS MADE UNDER A LAW THAT SAYS THAT THERE WAS A WAR CRIME THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THAT TORTURE AND ANYONE -- YOU ARE MAKING THAT ALLEGATION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SUE THE UNITED STATES, THE ACTUAL PETITION IS NAMED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS LEADING UNITED STATES AT THE TIME. LATER IN THE COURSE OF THIS IT MOVED FROM PRESIDENT BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, TO PRESIDENT OBAMA. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL. IT IS ABOUT THE ALLEGATION THAT UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF HE HAD BEEN TORTURED IN THE LEAD UP TO HIS DETENTION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO BAY, IT WAS AN ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE USE OF TORTURE. WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ALLEGATION, YOU BRING IT UNDER LAWS THAT THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE CRIMES OF WAR. THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH THE LAW WORKS. IF YOU ARE WRITING A HABEAS PETITION AND YOU SAY UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, MR. KHATAMI WAS TORTURED, THAT ALLEGATION IS MADE UNDER A LAW THAT SAYS THAT THERE WAS A WAR CRIME THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THAT TORTURE AND ANYONE -- YOU ARE MAKING THAT ALLEGATION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SUE THE UNITED STATES, THE ACTUAL PETITION IS NAMED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS LEADING UNITED STATES AT THE TIME. LATER IN THE COURSE OF THIS IT MOVED FROM PRESIDENT BUSH, DONALD RUMSFELD, TO PRESIDENT OBAMA. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL. IT IS ABOUT THE ALLEGATION THAT UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF HE HAD BEEN TORTURED IN THE LEAD UP TO HIS DETENTION. ...
I DON'T KNOW, JUDGE, SOUNDS LIKE A DEBATE ABOUT HOW MANY TERRORISTS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN TO ME.
THANK YOU, SENATOR COTTON. I ASKED CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM NINE OFFICIALS DEFENDING JUDGE JACKSON'S GUANTANAMO RECORD, INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON, AND THE HEAD OF THE UNITED STATES. SENATOR BOOKER. ...
THANK YOU. JUDGE, AFTER ME ONLY FIVE TO GO. I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS RIGHT AWAY. I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS I WANT TO SAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOT A SURPRISE GIVEN THE HISTORY THAT WE ALL KNOW NOT A SURPRISE, BUT PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT OF A DISAPPOINTMENT, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID IN THIS HEARING. THE WAY YOU HAVE DEALT WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE A JUDGE AND I AM A POLITICIAN. YOU HAVE SAT WITH GRIT AND GRACE AND HAVE SHOWN US JUST EXTRAORDINARY DEMEANOR, DURING THE TIME WHEN PEOPLE WERE SAYING THINGS TO YOU THAT WERE OUT OF THE NORM. I HAD TO ASK SOME OF MY MORE SENIOR COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDEN.T. 1000 PIECES YOU HAVE BEEN OVER -- JUDGE JACKSON: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ...
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND AT THE--IS THAT THESE CASES TAKE DAYS, WEEKS, SOMETIMES MONTHS.
JUDGE JACKSON: TO SIGN IN A CASE? YES.
THANK YOU, SENATOR BOOKER. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AND HAVE THE LAST FIVE SENATORS ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.
JUDGE, I WANT TO CONTINUE WHERE WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY. AND TRY TO GET TO THE ESSENCE OF THIS TENSION BETWEEN JUDICIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. YOU HAVE TESTIFIED AND STOP ME IF I GET THIS WRONG, THE JUDGES SHOULD STAY IN THEIR LINE -- LANE. ONE OF YOUR DEFINITIONS OF STAYING IN YOUR LANE IS THAT JUDGES DON'T MAKE POLICY. AM I RIGHT?\
JUDGE JACKSON: YES, THAT IS CORRECT. …
THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN OR HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING. WE HAVE A JUDICIALLY CREATED DOCTRINE WITH NO TEXTUAL BASIS EITHER IN THE CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE CALLED SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. THROUGH SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, OUR FEDERAL COURTS LET'S JUST NARROW IT DOWN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN ITSELF THE AUTHORITY TO READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION UNENUMERATED UNMENTIONED RIGHTS. NOT READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SAY THERE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. BUT THESE ARE UNMENTIONED UNENUMERATED. ISN'T THAT MAKING POLICY? JUDGE JACKSON: THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS REVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRE INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T JUST ON THE TEXT IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT. DUE PROCESS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE WORDS DUE PROCESS DO APPEAR IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS COVERED BY THAT PROVISION? ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS REVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRE INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T JUST ON THE TEXT IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT. DUE PROCESS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE WORDS DUE PROCESS DO APPEAR IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS COVERED BY THAT PROVISION? ...
BUT WHEN THEY DO IT, AREN'T THEY MAKING POLICY?
JUDGE JACKSON: SENATOR, THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW TO THE EXTENT THAT SOMEBODY ARGUED TO THE COURT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS WITHIN THE ROLE OF THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT MEANS, WHETHER THE PERSON IS CORRECT THAT WHAT HAPPENED WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CASE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. THERE IS AN INTERPRETIVE FUNCTION THAT IS A PART OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THERE ARE POLICY DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE MADE BY VOTE AND ABSOLUTELY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS PEOPLE GET TO DECIDE THINGS. THE QUESTION AND THE DIFFICULTY IS WHEN YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT AND A CONSTITUTION THAT DOES PROTECT CERTAIN RIGHTS AND IT DOES SO IN A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THOSE RIGHTS WHATEVER THEY ARE ENUMERATED OR NOT MIGHT BE THINGS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE DISAGREED WITH. THAT'S THE TENSION. THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DEMOCRACY AS WE DO AND PEOPLE VOTE AND SHOULD ABSOLUTELY, WE ALSO HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS CERTAIN RIGHTS AGAINST THE MAJORITY WILL ABOUT THOSE THINGS. ...
THE RUB IS, THESE ARE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS. THEY ARE READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION.
JUDGE JACKSON: YES.
WHAT TROUBLES ME, I'M NOT SAYING I DISAGREE WITH THE RIGHTS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS CREATED. I DON'T THINK WE TALK HONESTLY ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THOSE RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO COMMENT, I THINK YOU ALREADY HAVE. WHEN PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED YOUR APPOINTMENT OR AT LEAST SHORTLY BEFORE, HE TALKED ABOUT I WANT A JUDGE THAT IS GOING TO READ NEW RIGHTS INTO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE NINTH AMENDMENT. I'M SURE SOME AMERICANS ARE SAYING THAT'S A GOOD, BUT YOU HAVE A LOT OF AMERICANS SAYING WAIT A MINUTE, THE SUPREME COURT ISN'T ELECTED. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, CHIEF OF STAFF RON KLAIN WROTE AN OPINION PIECE AND HE SAID HE HOPES AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE THAT I HOPE THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERVENE WHENEVER THE NATION'S CONSCIENCE AND LAWS NEED A JOLT IN A PROGRESSIVE DIRECTION. THAT'S POLICYMAKING. DO YOU APPROVE THAT STATEMENT?
 JUDGE JACKSON: IT'S DO I AGREE WITH THAT'S POLICYMAKING? ...
WITH WHAT THE CHIEF SAID.
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S A POLITICAL STATEMENT MADE BY SOMEONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE APA IN YOUR OPINION WHICH YOU HAVE TO DO EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS PASSED THE STATUTE.
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS. THE APA IS PRESUMPTIVELY APPLICABLE TO EVERY SITUATION IN WHICH AN AGENCY IS EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION. THAT'S THE FIRST THING. IT'S ALWAYS THERE AS A BACKGROUND RULE. D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE SAID CONGRESS HAS TO BE PRECLEAR WHEN IT DECIDES TO EXCLUDE THE APA WHEN IT SAYING I'M GIVING YOU DISCRETION BUT YOU CAN DO THIS ARBITRARILY HOWEVER YOU WANT. IN OTHER PLACES IN THE IMMIGRATION STATUTE THAT SETS UP EXPEDITED REMOVAL, CONGRESS SAYS WE ARE EXCLUDING THE APA. WE ARE TELLING YOU WITH RESPECT TO THIS KIND OF DISCRETION, THE APA DOESN'T APPLY. SO HERE I HAD THESE TWO STATUTES AND THERE ARE CANONS OF INTERPRETATION THAT SAY YOU SHOULD TRY TO GIVE A FACT TO ALL OF THE WILL OF CONGRESS. SHE TRIED TO READ STATUTES SO THEY GO TOGETHER IN A WAY IF YOU HAVE THESE TWO DIRECTIVES AND THERE'S ALSO D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE LOT. ...
I HAVE TO STOP YOU. I'VE GOT IT.
JUDGE JACKSON: LET ME JUST SAY I AGREE REVERSED ME. THEY DISAGREED WITH MY INTERPRETATION AND THAT'S THE WAY OUR...
LET ME ASK THIS LAST QUESTION. THIS IS A QUESTION BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE. CAN WE AGREE THAT IF COCAINE IS COCAINE, THAT CRACK COCAINE IS EQUAL IN ITS DANGER TO POWDERED COCAINE? ARE YOU WITH ME? JUDGE JACKSON: I THINK SO. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I THINK SO. ...
ONE IS NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE OTHER. IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN THE SENTENCING RULES SHOULD BE THE SAME?
 JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S A POLICY MATTER FOR CONGRESS. YOU COULD MAKE THEM DIFFERENT IF YOU WANT TO. …
BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE. HIS CRACK COCAINE MORE DANGEROUS THAN POWDER OR LESS OR THE SAME? JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S A POLICY DETERMINATION. THAT'S WHAT POLICYMAKERS DO. THEY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THESE THINGS AND DECIDE WHAT IS MORE DANGEROUS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT'S A POLICY DETERMINATION. THAT'S WHAT POLICYMAKERS DO. THEY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THESE THINGS AND DECIDE WHAT IS MORE DANGEROUS. ...
WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN? JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE SEEN EVIDENCE THROUGH THE SENTENCING COMMISSION THAT THE TWO COMPOSITIONS ARE CHEMICALLY SIMILAR. SO SIMILAR AS TO BE INDISTINGUISHABLE. THE COMMISSION FOR VERY MANY YEARS AS A POLICYMAKING BODY INDICATED ITS VIEW THAT THEY SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT AND LOBBIED CONGRESS CONCERNING THAT AND CONGRESS MADE A DETERMINATION ABOUT IN THE POLICY REALM MAKING IT 18 TO ONE INSTEAD OF 100 TO ONE WHICH IS WHAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I HAVE SEEN EVIDENCE THROUGH THE SENTENCING COMMISSION THAT THE TWO COMPOSITIONS ARE CHEMICALLY SIMILAR. SO SIMILAR AS TO BE INDISTINGUISHABLE. THE COMMISSION FOR VERY MANY YEARS AS A POLICYMAKING BODY INDICATED ITS VIEW THAT THEY SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT AND LOBBIED CONGRESS CONCERNING THAT AND CONGRESS MADE A DETERMINATION ABOUT IN THE POLICY REALM MAKING IT 18 TO ONE INSTEAD OF 100 TO ONE WHICH IS WHAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN. ...
NOW, SENATOR PADILLA.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THIS HEARING, JUDGES ARE THE ONLY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHO ARE REQUIRED TO WRITE OUR OPINIONS. TO EXPLAIN OUR DECISIONS. I HAVE LONG BELIEVED IN THAT CAPACITY THAT ARE CLARITY AND LANGUAGE MATTERS. WE ARE EXPLAINING THE LOTTA PEOPLE. -- THE LAW TO PEOPLE. PEOPLE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY THROUGH THE WORDS OF JUDGES, SO THEY DO MATTER. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WHETHER IT IS SOMETHING LIKE COPYRIGHT, THE KIND OF CASE OR A PATENT CASE OR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE. NEW TECHNOLOGIES DO INTERSECT WITH WHAT THE LAW SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IN STATUTES. AS FAR AS STATUTES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR JUDGES WHO ARE DOING THEIR DUTIES TO INTERPRET THE LAW THAT CONGRESS MAKES UPDATES TO THE CHANGES -- STATUTES TO TRACK THE MODERN INNOVATIONS. WHAT HAPPENS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IS SIMILAR TO WHAT I SCRIBED EARLIER ABOUT CASES IN WHICH THE COURT ANALOGIZE HIS BACK -- ANALOGIZE HIS BACK TO THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES FOR THINGS LIKE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. WHAT QUALIFIED AS A SEARCH THAT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THOSE WORDS WERE WRITTEN AND DETERMINES WHETHER THAT SAME KIND OF VIOLATION IS AT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNOLOGY TODAY. THE COURT HAS DONE THAT WITH RESPECT TO SEARCHES REGARDING CELL PHONES, POLICE ACCESS TO GPS DATA, TRACKING TECHNOLOGY THAT IS PUT ON VEHICLES. BECAUSE THESE DISPUTES DO COME UP. I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ENCOURAGE CONGRESS TO HELP US BY ENSURING THAT NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE ADDRESSED IN STATUTES THAT WE INTERPRET. ...
YOU ARE RIGHT, JUDGES AND CONGRESS ARE NEVER DONE DOING HOMEWORK. ON MONDAY, WHICH FEELS LIKE SO LONG AGO, I SUGGESTED IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT BY THE END OF THESE HEARINGS, AMERICA WOULD KNOW JUST HOW QUALIFIED YOU ARE TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. OVER THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THAT. AND HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW YOU AS A PERSON. THEY HAVE HEARD FAMILIES JOURNEY. EVERYTHING THAT YOUR NOMINATION REPRESENTS. I ALSO SAID ON MONDAY THAT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS BEAR REPEATING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. JUDGE WITH YOUR HELP, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ONCE AGAIN SOME OF YOUR INCREDIBLE CREDENTIALS. YES OR NO, AFTER LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU SERVE AS A LAW CLERK FOR A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, AND A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
 JUDGE JACKSON: I DID, SENATOR. ...
DID YOU PRACTICE LAW FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE BECOMING A JUDGE?
JUDGE JACKSON: YES.
DID THAT INCLUDE TIME IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND TIME IS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER?
JUDGE JACKSON: IT DID.
HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU SERVED AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE?
JUDGE JACKSON: EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS. AND A CIRCUIT SINCE LAST JUNE.
AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, HOW MANY OPINIONS DID YOU WRITE?
JUDGE JACKSON: AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, I BELIEVE I WROTE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 560. …
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THAT WAS VERY MOVING. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOUNG PEOPLE. I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. I DO IT A LOT FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE ARTICULATED. I HOPE TO INSPIRE PEOPLE TO TRY TO FOLLOW THIS PATH BECAUSE I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. BECAUSE I LOVE THE LAW. BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL INVEST IN OUR FUTURE . THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE FUTURE, SO I WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN DO AND TO ANYTHING. -- THEY CAN DO AND BE ANYTHING. I WILL TELL THEM WHAT AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID TO ME ONCE. I WAS WALKING THROUGH HARVARD YARD MY FRESHMAN YEAR. AS I MENTIONED, I WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL AND I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HARVARD UNTIL MY DEBATE COACH TOOK ME THERE TO ENTER A COMPETITION AND I THOUGHT THIS IS A GREAT UNIVERSITY. IT WAS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES I HAD SEEN AND I SAID MAYBE I WILL APPLY WHEN I'M A SENIOR. I GET THERE AND WHOA, SO DIFFERENT. I AM FROM MIAMI, FLORIDA. BOSTON IS VERY COLD. IT WAS ROUGH. IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING I HAD KNOWN. THERE WERE LOTS OF STUDENTS THERE WHO WERE PREP SCHOOL KIDS LIKE MY HUSBAND [LAUGHTER] WHO KNEW ALL ABOUT HARVARD AND THAT WAS NOT ME. I THINK THE FIRST SEMESTER, I WAS REALLY HOMESICK. I WAS REALLY QUESTIONING DO I BELONG HERE? CAN I MAKE IT IN THIS ENVIRONMENT? I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE YARD IN THE EVENING AND A BLACK WOMAN I DID NOT KNOW WAS PASSING ME ON THE SIDEWALK. SHE LOOKED AT ME AND I GUESS SHE KNEW HOW I WAS FEELING. SHE LEANED OVER AS WE CROSSED AND SAID PERSEVERE. I WOULD TELL THEM TO PERSEVERE. ...
THANK YOU, JUDGE JACKSON. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOPE. I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU DO INSPIRE. YOU ARE AN INSPIRATION AND I WILL ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE CLOSING WORDS OF MY COLLEAGUE AND MY BROTHER SENATOR BOOKER THAT I ALSO REFUSED TO LET ANYONE STEAL MY JOY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ...
CENTER TELL US? -- TELUS?
SENATOR BOOKER IN HIS CLOSING COMMENTS, I COULD ONLY THINK AND THEY WERE VERY POWERFUL THAT IF YOU LIKE HIS, HOW MUCH YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE MINE ON THE SUBJECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. [LAUGHTER] BEFORE I DO THAT, YOU HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME HERE. DO YOU HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE IN MATTERS OF COPYRIGHT AND PATENT PROTECTION? JUDGE JACKSON: I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I DID A TRADEMARK CASE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I DID A TRADEMARK CASE. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I ACTUALLY DON'T. I HAVEN'T BEEN WORKING ON OR LOOKING AT OR DEALING WITH SENTENCING POLICY FOR A LONG TIME NOW. IN MY WORK AS A JUDGE, WE'RE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL CASES NOT SYSTEMS OR CRIME ORGANIZATIONS AND POLICIES RELATED TO THEM. ...
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY AFTER WE COOL TEMPERATURES. PEOPLE HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE RULINGS THAT WE HAVE TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE COMPLEXITY AND RECOGNIZE THAT CONGRESS IS PART OF THE SOLUTION. NOW ON THE WEIGHTY SUBJECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH COPYRIGHT PREEMPTION UNDER SECTION 3018? JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I HAVE NOT WORKED WITH THAT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: NO, I HAVE NOT WORKED WITH THAT. ...
I WOULDN'T HAVE EXPECTED YOU TO. I WON'T GET INTO PATENT QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO REQUIRE US GETTING RID OF SHAMBLES OF JURISPRUDENCE WE HAVE. IT'S A COMPLICATED FIELD, WE HAVE A LOT OF MIXED SIGNALS. MY COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON THAT. IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY WORKS ITS WAY UP TO YOU ALL IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE HOUR IS LATE AND I INTEND TO YIELD BACK SOME OF MY TIME. I FELT LIKE THIS MORNING WHEN I WENT THROUGH SOME OF MY COMMENTS, I MENTIONED LAW-ENFORCEMENT. I TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF YOUR DECISIONS THAT GAVE ME PAUSE, MAINLY BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER ATTACK. IT NEEDS TO BE HELD TO A HIGH STANDARD. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS FOR NEARLY 22 YEARS MAKING SURE THAT WHEN I WAS A TOWN COUNCILMAN THAT WE DID SOMETHING AUDACIOUS AND SPENT A LOT OF MONEY IN GETTING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN A SMALL TOWN FULLY CERTIFIED MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND HOW TO DE-ESCALATE, GET ENGAGED IN THE COMMUNITY AND REDUCE CRIME. AND IT WORKED. NOW, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK IT'S FASHIONABLE TO ATTACK THE POLICE. TO DEFUND THE POLICE. THERE'S INCREASING DATA THIS SUGGESTS THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LOUDEST ABOUT THAT OR BECOMING THE LEAST SAFE. YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES I THINK YESTERDAY AND MORE TODAY ABOUT YOUR METHODOLOGY. THE UNITED STATES VERSUS JENKINS , IS THAT ROUGHLY FRESH IN YOUR MIND? A CRIMINAL PLEADED GUILTY TO ASSAULTING A LAW OFFICER. IT WAS HIS THIRD CONVICTION. THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED 30 MONTHS. THE DEFENSE RECOMMENDED 21 MONTHS. YOU DECIDED TO GO WITH AN 18 MONTH SENTENCE. JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T RECALL, I WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THE RECORDS AND SEE THE PROBATION OFFICE'S AS WELL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T RECALL, I WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THE RECORDS AND SEE THE PROBATION OFFICE'S AS WELL. ...
THAT AGAIN IS SOMETHING I WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. UNLESS YOU IMMEDIATELY RECALL, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO GO INTO DETAILS. THE OTHER IS UNITED STATES VERSUS WEEKS. A SIMILAR SITUATION. 24 MONTH REQUEST FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONVICTION ON ASSAULTING AN OFFICER AND YOU GAVE THEM 12 MONTHS. DOES THAT RING A BELL? JUDGE JACKSON: WEEKS HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPEARANCES AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO HIS CASE, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE FILE TO RECALL. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: WEEKS HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPEARANCES AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO HIS CASE, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE FILE TO RECALL. ...
I FEEL LIKE AGAIN BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE RENDERED SOME 100 SENTENCES OVER TIME, I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU, BUT IT IS AN AREA AND WE WILL SUBMIT IT AS A QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SO MAYBE YOU CAN REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AND TRY TO GET BACK ON THAT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO PLACE A PRIORITY ON. WE HAVE SO MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY NOW. THAT ARE HAVING A HARD TIME RECRUITING PEOPLE AND RETAINING PEOPLE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE RETIRING. NOT EVERY POLICE OFFICER IS AN ANGEL. SOMEBODY IN MY OFFICE WAS TALKING ABOUT HER BROTHER, SHE HAD A LOT OF CONFIDENCE. SHE WAS HERE TO TALK TO ME ABOUT POLICE REFORMS AND I BELIEVE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLICE OFFICERS LIKE YOUR BROTHER AND YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS WERE GOOD PEOPLE. PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE HAVE THESE ASSAULTS THAT ARE INCREASING THAT WE HAVE JUST PUNISHMENT BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO THAT FOR THE PROTECTION NOT ONLY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BUT THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE. I'M GOING TO YIELD BACK TIME BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE TWO OTHER PEOPLE. I THOUGHT YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS. I TRIED TO BE HERE, I HAD AN EMERGENCY AND HAD TO LEAVE, BUT I'VE TRIED TO BE HERE. I THOUGHT THAT YOU PRESENTED YOURSELF WELL AND THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE. THAT DEMONSTRATES CERTAIN TEMPERAMENT OR POISE. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE YOUR HEAD. AT LEAST OVERTLY, YOU HAVE DONE VERY WELL AND YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT. IT'S NOT EASY HERE TO BE COMFORTABLE. THERE'S 22 OF US AND IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN REALLY COME AT US. YOU HAVE ONE ARM TIED BEHIND YOUR BACK AND I'M SURE THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE TONUMBER OF THINGS YOU LIKE TO SAY BUT TIME DID NOT ALLOW. I WANT TO COMMEND YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR DAUGHTER, WHO HAS BEEN GLOWING EVERY TIME YOU HAVE TALKED AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU SENATOR. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU SENATOR. ...
WE HAVE COME FULL CIRCLE TO THE END. LIKEWISE, I DO NOT INTEND TO USE ALL OF MY TIME. I WANT TO ECHO THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY SENATOR TILLIS. YOU HAVE CONDUCTED THESE HEARINGS WITH EXTRAORDINARY POISE, STRENGTH, GRACE UNDER PRESSURE. YOU HAVE HAD A LOT OF POISON THROWN AT YOU AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED WITH SUBSTANCE AND TRUTH. IT HAS SHOWN THROUGH NOT JUST IN THIS ROOM, BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD. I HAVE TWO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. ONE QUESTION, AS I NOTED I WANTED TO ADDRESS REGARDING WAR POWERS, AND I WILL YIELD TO THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIR. WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS MORNING, JUDGE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO SPEECH , EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY. I BRIEFLY WANT TO TOUCH ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. MY GREAT GRANDPARENTS CAME TO THIS COUNTRY FLEEING ANTI-SEMI'TIS HIM -- ANTI-SEMITISM IN EASTERN EUROPE. MANY FIRST AMERICAN STORIES INVOLVED FLIGHT FROM PERSECUTION. GLEEFULLY -- BRIEFLY, I WOULD ASK YOU TO TOUCH UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROOTS AND SIGNIFICANCE IN OUR GOVERNMENT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. JUDGE JACKSON: AS YOU MENTIONED, FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WHICH PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PREFERRING RELIGION OVER ANOTHER , IS FOUNDATIONAL. IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT MANY PEOPLE ORIGINALLY CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT. PEOPLE WHO FLED FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND WANTED TO FOUND A COUNTRY IN WHICH EVERYONE COULD BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE AND NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT ENCROACH, IMPINGE, BURDEN THAT RIGHT. IT IS A CORE FOUNDATIONAL RIGHT. IT IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. YOUR FAMILIES STORY IS VERY SIMILAR TO MANY FAMILIES WHO MOVED TO THIS COUNTRY FOR THAT REASON. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: AS YOU MENTIONED, FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WHICH PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM PREFERRING RELIGION OVER ANOTHER , IS FOUNDATIONAL. IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT MANY PEOPLE ORIGINALLY CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT. PEOPLE WHO FLED FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND WANTED TO FOUND A COUNTRY IN WHICH EVERYONE COULD BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE AND NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT ENCROACH, IMPINGE, BURDEN THAT RIGHT. IT IS A CORE FOUNDATIONAL RIGHT. IT IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. YOUR FAMILIES STORY IS VERY SIMILAR TO MANY FAMILIES WHO MOVED TO THIS COUNTRY FOR THAT REASON. ...
WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY THE -- DECISION. NEW YORK TIMES V SULLIVAN. IN WHICH THE COURT ESTABLISHED A STANDARD BY WHICH LIBEL AND DEFAMATION CLAIMS BY PUBLIC FIGURES WOULD BE JUDGED. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STANDARD IS THAT FALSE STATEMENTS MUST BE MADE KNOWINGLY, THAT THE PARTY MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT MUST KNOW THAT IT IS FALSE, AND MUST MAKE SUCH KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENTS WITH MALICE. AM I CORRECT THAT IS THE STANDARD?
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE IT IS KNOWINGLY, OR WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH. AND THAT THAT STANDARD IS THOUGHT OF AS ACTUAL MALICE, YES. …
IS THERE ANY OBLIGATION IN LAW YOU ARE AWARE OF TO ACCURATE REPORTING, OR ACCURATE PUBLICATION WHERE THERE IS NOT MALICE OR WHERE THERE IS NOT ONE OF THE COMPONENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE SULLIVAN'S? -- SULLIVAN CASE? 
JUDGE JACKSON: IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, I KNOW THE STANDARD RELATED TO THE SULLIVAN CASE DOES PERTAIN TO PUBLIC FIGURES. IF A PUBLIC FIGURE IS NOT INVOLVED, THERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD IN TERMS OF LIABILITY FOR INACCURATE, OR DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: IN EVERY CASE, I APPLY THE METHODOLOGY THAT I HAVE LAID OUT IN ORDER TO ENSURE I AM RULING IMPARTIALLY AND CONSISTENT WITH MY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. IN THE PART OF MY METHODOLOGY THAT ADDRESSES MY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, ONE OF THE THINGS I DO, AS JUDGES DO, IS DECIDE WHETHER I HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE MCGANN CASE WAS NOT A WAR POWERS CASE. THE MCGANN CASE, I DETERMINED IN THAT OPINION, AND JUDGE BATES HAD DETERMINED IN A PRIOR OPINION, WEIGHT THE QUESTION OF LAW. THE QUESTION ESSENTIALLY WAS WHETHER THE SUBPOENA THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE HOUSE HAD TO BE RESPONDED TO BY THE PERSON WHO RECEIVED IT OR WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DID NOT HAVE TO RESPOND. THAT IS A QUESTION OF LAW THAT COURTS ANSWER ALL THE TIME IN RESPECT TO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF SUBPOENAS. IN THE WAR POWERS REALM, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR COURTS TO DECIDE. BUT, THERE MAY ALSO BE POLITICAL QUESTIONS. IT WOULD DEPEND. A POLITICAL QUESTION, IF THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVER SOME EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY THAT WAS NOT GOVERNED BY LAW BUT WAS IN THE DISCRETION OF EITHER OF THOSE BRANCHES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THEY GOT TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS. SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN WAR TO MOVE TROOPS OR DO THAT KIND OF THING, THAT WOULD NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW. IT WOULD DEPEND ON EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT WAS BEING ASKED TO DO AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD JURISDICTION. UNDER MY METHODOLOGY, THAT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THING I WOULD HAVE TO CAREFULLY EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER I COULD RULE. ...
ME CLOSE WITH THIS COMMENT. YOU HAVE CONDUCTED YOURSELF WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL AND GRACE THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS IN SOME WAYS A LONELY PLACE FOR YOU TO SIT THERE, UNDER THE LIGHTS, FACING QUESTIONS, MANY OF THEM SUBSTANTIVE, SOME OF THEM LASSO. MANY OF THEM CONSTRUCTIVE, SOME OF THEM MEAN SPIRITED AND DISTRACTED. YOU HAVE HANDLED IT ALL EXTRAORDINARILY WELL. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TWO DAYS. I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DO. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, AND RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING AND CHEERING YOU ON. AT THIS VERY MOMENT. IN HOMES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE INSPIRED BY YOU AND YOUR EXAMPLE WHO ARE SHARING YOU ON. NOT JUST THAT, THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, ALL OVER THE WORLD WHO ARE WATCHING THESE PROCEEDINGS AND SEEING WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AMERICA. AFTER SOME YEARS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DOUBT ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR, IN MY OPINION. PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE WATCHING THIS AND SEEING WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AMERICA, WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE, WHAT VALUES THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR. I THANK YOU PROFOUNDLY FOR THE SERVICE YOU HAVE RENDERED THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE AND IN THIS HEARING. WITH SEVEN MINUTES REMAINING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW YOU WILL REMAIN FOCUSED THROUGH THE END. I HAVE NO DOUBT SENATOR BLACKBURN HAS RESPONSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR IT I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. ...
SENATOR BLACKBURN?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU. WE TALKED ABOUT ABORTION AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT BILLS SEEKING TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO SURVIVE ABORTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY SAY THAT THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE ABORTION. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO LET A BABY DIE IF THAT BABY UNINTENTIONALLY SURVIVES AN ABORTION? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. ISSUES LIKE THE ONE YOU HAVE RAISED ARE IN THE COURT SYSTEM NOW. AS A RESULT, AS A NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT, I AM NOT ABLE TO OPINE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR NOT OF THE KINDS OF LEGISLATION YOU MENTIONED. …
ONE OF THE MAIN FACTORS THE SUPREME COURT IS CONSIDERING IS DECIDING WHETHER TO UPHOLD ROE WITHIN ALL OF THIS AND WITH PRECEDENT. AS IF ALL OF THIS IS A SETTLED ISSUE OR NOT. SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE ON THIS ABOUT WHETHER IT IS TO AN ABORTION OR AN EFFECTIVE ABORTION AND IF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LIFE OF A BABY THAT SURVIVES THAT ABORTION. THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL BE DECIDED BEFORE YOU GO TO THE COURT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF CHILD PREDATORS. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL AND I ARE WORKING ON LEGISLATION, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR HAS GOT LEGISLATION THAT DEALS WITH TECHNOLOGY. I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONING. IT IS JUST A YES OR NO. DO YOU BELIEVE CHILD PREDATORS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD? 
JUDGE JACKSON: I DON'T HAVE A CONTEXT FOR THAT. …
GOING BACK TO THE COMMENT ON THE SENTENCING COMMISSION. AS YOU SAID THAT'S NOT ALL CHILD PREDATORS WERE PEDOPHILES. 
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE THAT ALL CHILD PREDATORS ARE DANGEROUS, THAT THE BEHAVIOR THEY ENGAGE IN IS HORRIBLE, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE COURT AND BY CONGRESS IN SETTING THE PENALTIES FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR. …
IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES? JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE THE STATEMENT YOU REFERENCED WAS A PART OF A HEARING BEFORE THE SENTENCING COMMISSION IN 2012. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: I BELIEVE THE STATEMENT YOU REFERENCED WAS A PART OF A HEARING BEFORE THE SENTENCING COMMISSION IN 2012. ...
A MEETING, YES.
JUDGE JACKSON: WHAT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION DOES IS IT REVIEWS EVIDENCE ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS.
AS I SAID YESTERDAY, THE CHILDREN THAT ARE VICTIMIZED, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OFFENDER AND A PEDOPHILE. OR, A PORNOGRAPHER. I DO THINK IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT GUN RIGHTS. VIOLENT CRIME IS RAMPANT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT DURING THE LAST YEAR IT IS MAKING PEOPLE REALLY NERVOUS. I PULLED SOME STATS. IN 2021, -- MAJOR U.S. CITIES EXPERIENCED A 44% INCREASE IN HOMICIDES SINCE 2019. OVER A DOZEN CITIES SET NEW HOMICIDE RECORDS IN 2021. A LOT OF FAMILIES NO LONGER FEEL SAFE, SO THEY ARE BUYING GUNS AND AMMO. TRYING TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY PROTECT THEMSELVES. IN TIMES LIKE THIS, I THINK WE ARE REALLY FORTUNATE THAT THE FOUNDERS AFFORDED SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT. VERY QUICKLY, WALK ME THROUGH WHAT CURRENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT SAYS ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. CURRENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT SAYS THAT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN THE HOME AND THE OPINION FOCUSES ON THOSE -- ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. CURRENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT SAYS THAT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN THE HOME AND THE OPINION FOCUSES ON THOSE -- ...
YOU AGREED IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT ONLY RESERVED TO -- BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THAT KEEP TRYING TO SAY IT IS ONLY RESERVED TO MILITIAS. BUT IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, YOU BASE THIS ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HELLER. JUDGE JACKSON: YES MA'AM. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: YES MA'AM. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ESTABLISHED IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. ...
I WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS ASKED YOU THAT THIS ENTIRE TIME. ANOTHER QUESTION, I HAVE ASKED OTHER TRADITIONAL NOMINEES THAT ARE COMING TO US FOR THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SATISFACTORY ANSWER FROM ANYBODY. WHY IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND YOU AGREE, WHY IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THIS RIGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETIONARY ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE BY A LOCAL OFFICIAL? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SUPREME COURT IS LOOKING AT THAT VERY ISSUE IN A CASE BEFORE IT RIGHT NOW. AS A NOMINEE FOR THE COURT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT I NOT SPEAK TO IT BECAUSE THE COURT IS DECIDING THIS QUESTION. IT HAS A PENDING CASE. ARGUMENT HAVE OCCURRED RELATED TO IT. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SUPREME COURT IS LOOKING AT THAT VERY ISSUE IN A CASE BEFORE IT RIGHT NOW. AS A NOMINEE FOR THE COURT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT I NOT SPEAK TO IT BECAUSE THE COURT IS DECIDING THIS QUESTION. IT HAS A PENDING CASE. ARGUMENT HAVE OCCURRED RELATED TO IT. ...
SHOULD OTHER UNENUMERATED RIGHTS BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME -- HAVING TO GET A LICENSE? SHOULD SOMEONE THAT WANTS AN ABORTION HAVE TO GO BEFORE A GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT? BECAUSE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS ENUMERATED IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHY SHOULD ED HAVE TO HAVE AN EXTRA BURDEN? ...
I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, IT IS WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IS LOOKING AT. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRACTICE AND THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT I AM NOT SPEAKING TO ISSUES THAT ARE LIVE. ...
LET ME MOVE ON. I WANT TO TURN TO SOME OF THE SENTENCING DECISIONS. PARTICULARLY, YOUR DECISION TO GRANT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. YOU HAVE AN UNMISTAKABLE PATTERN OF RELEASING CRIMINALS WITH DANGEROUS BACKGROUNDS INTO THE COMMUNITY. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SEEMED TO EXACERBATE THE TREND. TO NAME JUST A FEW, YOU USED THE PANDEMIC AS JUSTIFICATION TO RELEASE A SENTINEL DRUG DEALER, A BANK ROBBER ADDICTED TO HEROIN , A CONVICT WHO MURDERED A U.S. MARSHAL. AT A TIME WHEN VIOLENT CRIMES, INCLUDING HOMICIDE ARE SPIKING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND WE ARE FACING AN OPIOID EPIDEMIC DRIVEN IN LARGE PART BY THE TRAFFICKING OF SENTINEL ACROSS OUR BORDER, HOW CAN YOU STAND BY YOUR DECISION THAT THESE OFFENDERS DO NOT POSE A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU SENATOR. THE STATUTE THAT ALLOW FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE ARE POLICY DETERMINATIONS THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE TO PERMIT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES AND STAGES IN THE SYSTEM TO SEEK RELEASE. PEOPLE WHO ARE DETAINED AFTER THEIR FINAL SENTENCING CAN SEEK SOMETHING CALLED COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. PEOPLE WHO ARE DETAINED BETWEEN WHEN THEY HAVE AND CONVICTED AND WHEN THEY ARE SENTENCED SEN. ...
TIME IS GOING TO RUN OUT AND WE DO HAVE -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKED SO MUCH. HERE'S A STACK, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU FOUGHT FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. THERE WERE 1561 THAT WERE DETAINED IN D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND YOUR STATEMENT, AND THIS WAS IN THE OPINION THAT YOU ISSUED, U.S. VERSUS WIGGINS, YOU STATED, "EACH AND EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CUSTODY SHOULD BE RELEASED BECAUSE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC." IN THAT SAME OPINION, YOU LAMENTED THE FACT THAT YOU AS A FEDERAL JUDGE WERE LIMITED IN YOUR ABILITY TO ORDER THE UNIVERSAL RELEASE OF CRIMINALS BACK ON THE STREETS. I AM SHOCKED THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR POSITION. PEOPLE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CRIME IN THE STREETS. DO YOU STAND BY YOUR POSITION THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO RELEASE ALL OF THOSE PRISONERS BACK ONTO THE STREETS? 
JUDGE JACKSON: THAT WAS NOT MY POSITION. IN THAT OPINION, UNITED STATES VERSUS WIGGINS, I STARTED OFF BY EXPLAINING THAT GIVEN THE PASSIONATE -- COMPASSIONATE RELEASE SYSTEM AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, IT WOULD SEEM AS THOUGH THAT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY COMPELLING SENT -- CIRCUMSTANCE. TWO SENTENCES LATER, I SAY WE CAN'T RELEASE ANYONE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO THE LEASE. -- TO RELEASE. EVEN IN WIGGINS, I DECIDED HE HAD TO REMAIN INCARCERATED. NOTWITHSTANDING HIS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION. THE SENTENCE THERE I DID SAY, BUT I SAID IT TO LEAD TO MY STATEMENT, WHICH WAS THE ACTUAL RULING IN WHICH I SAID WE ARE NOT RELEASING EVERYBODY. ...
TO LAMENT THAT YOU WERE LIMITED IN YOUR ABILITY TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF ALL, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES -- THAT IS A JUDGMENT ISSUE. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES THE CONCERN. LET ME GO TO CRITICAL RACE THEORY. YOU WERE ASKED YESTERDAY ABOUT A SPEECH YOU GAVE IN APRIL, 2015 WHEN YOU HAD STATED, AND I AM GOING TO QUOTE YOU, THAT -- WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SENTENCING, IT MELDS TOGETHER MYRIAD TYPES OF LAW, INCLUDING CRITICAL RACE THEORY. YOU TOLD SENATOR CRUZ, I THINK IT WAS, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT DECISIONS REGARDING SENTENCING POLICY. YOU SAID, "I WAS TALKING ABOUT POLICY DETERMINATIONS. NONE OF THAT RELATES TO WHAT I DO AS A JUDGE." I TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU DON'T MAKE POLICY DETERMINATIONS WHEN YOU ARE MAKING SENTENCING DECISIONS AS A JUDGE. SO TODAY, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY, YOU SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE. YOU SAID, "I HAVE AT TIMES IDENTIFIED VARIOUS ENHANCEMENTS THAT I HAVE DISAGREED WITH AS A POLICY MATTER. BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF A SENTENCING JUDGE IN OUR SYSTEM." GIVEN THAT YOU ADMITTED YOU MADE POLICY DETERMINATIONS IN SENTENCING, AND YOU STATED YOU CONSIDER CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN SENTENCING POLICY, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, DO YOU CONSIDER CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN YOUR SENTENCING DECISIONS AS A JUDGE? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. CRITICAL RACE THEORY, ANY ACADEMIC THEORY IS NOT CONSIDERED IN MY SENTENCINGS. IT NEVER COMES UP IN SENTENCING. IT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE SPEECH IN 2015. ...
JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU. CRITICAL RACE THEORY, ANY ACADEMIC THEORY IS NOT CONSIDERED IN MY SENTENCINGS. IT NEVER COMES UP IN SENTENCING. IT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE SPEECH IN 2015. ...