JUDGE JACKSON, CONGRATULATIONS, WELCOME TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. I THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO VISIT WITH ME IN MY OFFICE AFTER THE PRESIDENT NOMINATED YOU. SINCE PRESIDENT BIDEN NOMINATED YOU TO THE SUPREME COURT, I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING MY COLLEAGUES TO SCHEDULE MEETINGS WITH YOU JUDGE JACKSON, AND THEY HAVE COME OUT. IN ADDITION, I HAVE CONTINUALLY EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR A THOROUGH RESPECTFUL, PROCESS BY THE COMMITTEE. NOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT EVERYONE WATCHING SHOULD EXPECT FROM THIS HEARING AND WHAT THEY SHOULD EXPECT OF THE HEARING. WE WILL CONDUCT A THOROUGH, EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION OF JUDGE JACKSON'S RECORD AND VIEWS. WE WON'T TRY TO TURN THIS INTO A SPECTACLE BASED UPON ALLEGED PROCESS FAULTS. GOOD NEWS ON THAT FRONT, WE ARE OFF TO A VERY GOOD START. UNLIKE THE START TO THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS, WE DID NOT HAVE REPEATED CHOREOGRAPHED INTERRUPTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DURBIN DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENTS, LIKE DEMOCRATS INTERRUPTED ME FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR DURING MY OPENING STATEMENT ON THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS. WHAT WE WILL DO, AS ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT JUDGE JACKSON'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. IN ANY SUPREME COURT NOMINATION, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I LOOK FOR IS THE NOMINEE POSE A -- VIEW OF THE LAW, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, AND A VIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. I WILL BE LOOKING TO WHETHER JUDGE JACKSON IS A DEFENDER OF -- COMMITTED TO THE CONSTITUTION. WE ALL KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE ROLE JUDGES SHOULD PLAY. SOME OF US BELIEVE JUDGES MUST INTERPRET THE LAW AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AND WRITTEN, NOT MAKE A NEW LAW OR SIMPLY FILL IN BACK. THOSE OF US WHO SHARE THAT VIEW THINK THAT, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS AND NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAW AND TO SET POLICIES. NOW THERE ARE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS SHOULD MAKE POLICY. THEY BELIEVE IN A SO-CALLED LIVING CONSTITUTION. THEY THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION'S TEXT AND STRUCTURE DO NOT LIMIT WHAT A JUDGE SHOULD DO. TO THEM, WE SAY IT IS, QUOTE -- TO THEM DECIDING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS IS A QUOTE UNQUOTE, "VALUE JUDGMENT." UNDER THAT APPROACH, JUDGES CAN EXERCISE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT VALUE JUDGMENTS. ONE OF THE LEADING ADVOCATES FOR THIS APPROACH EXPLAINED THAT AS A JUDGE, REACH THE ANSWER THAT ESSENTIALLY YOUR VALUES TELL YOU TO REACH. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO HAVE TRIED TO THIS PHILOSOPHY, THINK THE FOUNDERS REALLY MEANT TO HIDE ELEMENTS. THEN, WITH A BIT OF CREATIVITY, THESE JUDGES CAN ALWAYS FIND THAT ELEMENT. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD JOB DESCRIPTION, INSTEAD FOR LEGISLATORS AND NOT FOR JUDGES. BUT FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS DEMOCRATS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY , ORDERED AGAINST MANY WELL CREDENTIALED NOMINEES THAT WERE DIVERSE PROFESSIONALLY DIVERSE , GEOGRAPHICALLY, DIVERSE RELIGIOUSLY, AND DIVERSE ETHNICALLY. WAS IT RACIST OR ANTI-WOMEN FOR THEM TO DO SO? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WAS. DEMOCRATS DID IT BECAUSE THE NOMINEES DID NOT AGREE WITH LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM, JUST AS REPUBLICANS HAVE OPPOSED NOMINEES BASED UPON THEIR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. THERE ARE LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. IN THE SENATE, WE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME WRITING LEGISLATION. WE ARGUE OVER THE LANGUAGE WE , NEGOTIATE OVER HOW BROAD OF AN -- BROAD OR NARROW CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LAW SHOULD BE. IF WE CAN'T CONVINCE OUR COLLEAGUES TO ADOPT ALL OF OUR IDEAS, WE HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO COMPROMISE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. WE DEPEND ON JUDGES TO INTERPRET LAWS AS WE WRITE THEM. IF JUDGES IMPOSE THEIR OWN POLICY PREFERENCES FROM THE BENCH AND ESSENTIALLY REVISE THE LAWS WE PASS, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR US TO WRITE GOOD LAWS. SOMETIMES WE NEED TO INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT IS VERY BROAD TO GET A COLLEAGUE'S SUPPORT. IF A JUDGE REWRITES A LAW LATER, BECAUSE OF A VAGUE NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS OR EQUITY OR COMMON GOOD, THAT UNRAVELS ALL OF OUR WORK HERE IN THE CONGRESS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ THE LAW AND KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ASK HOW A FEDERAL JUDGE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE LAW COULD REINTERPRET THE WORDS ON THAT PAGE. ALL OF THIS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHY WE MUST CAREFULLY EXAMINE FEDERAL JUDGES' RECORDS, ESPECIALLY SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. JUDGE JACKSON HAS SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, WORKED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND , SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. SHE ALSO SERVED AS THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FROM 2013 TO 2021. SHE SERVED ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT SINCE JUNE OF LAST YEAR. I AM SURE SENATORS WILL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE JACKSON ABOUT HER DECISIONS SINCE JOINING THE D.C. CIRCUIT. AS FOR THE COURT RECORD, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ACCUSATIONS THAT WE CHERRY PICKED SOME OF JUDGE JACKSON'S CRIMINAL CASES. WELL, DON'T WORRY, WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OTHER CASES AS WELL. I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT TO ASK FOR JUDGE JACKSON'S DOCUMENTS FROM HER TIME AS VICE CHAIR OF THE SENTENCING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION IS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY, CREATED TO ADVISE AND ASSIST CONGRESS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT POLICY. UNFORTUNATELY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RELEASED. THAT WILL BE ABOUT 20 YEARS FROM NOW. DEMOCRATS HAVE ARGUED THAT JUDGE JACKSON'S TIME ON THE COMMISSION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF HER EXPERIENCE, THAT SHE WILL DRAW ON AS A JUDGE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE RIGHT ON THAT POINT. THAT IS WHY IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT HER VIEWS WERE AS THE HEAD OF THE COMMISSION, EXPLAINED IN LETTERS TO SENATOR DURBIN, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER TO THIS COMMITTEE REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION AND NOT NECESSARILY JUDGE JACKSON'S OWN VIEWS. THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENT US ROUGHLY 68,000 PAGES OF MATERIAL, BUT MORE THAN 38,000 OF THE 68,000 PAGES ARE REPEATED COPIES OF EMAIL THREADS THAT ARE KEEPING TRACK OF THE TWEETS ABOUT THE GARLAND NOMINATION. THOSE EMAILS CONTAIN JUST ONE TWEET ABOUT JUDGE JACKSON. MORE THAN 13,000 OF THE 16,000 -- 60,000 PAGES ARE JUST LISTS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS NOMINATIONS. THAT LEAVES ONLY 68,000 THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THAT AREN'T OBVIOUSLY USELESS, LIKE ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS WE RECEIVED. BUT, FOR COMPARISON, THE WHITE HOUSE STILL WITHHELD 148,000 PAGES UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS. THAT IS A LOT OF HIDING. THE LIMITED NUMBER OF USEFUL RECORDS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE, SHOWED EXACTLY WHY THE COMMISSION DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DARK MONEY GROUPS ON THE LEFT THAT ARGUE FEDERAL JUDGES SHOULD MAKE POLICY DECISIONS BASED ON JUDGES' OWN VALUES. I TALKED ABOUT THE TROUBLING ROLE OF DARK MONEY GROUPS, LIKE WHAT HAS PLAYED IN THIS ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS. IT IS NOT CRATING SHORT LIST FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN TO PICK POTENTIAL NOMINEES FROM, THE RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGN, CASTING -- ATTACKING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. THEY STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVE PROSECUTORS. WHO ARE TOUGH ON VIOLENT CRIME IN THE FACE OF VIOLENT CRIME WAVES IN CITIES LIKE SAN FRANCISCO, PHILADELPHIA, BOSTON, AND LOS ANGELES. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE NOMINEE BEFORE US? THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE RECORDS INDICATE THAT A COFOUNDER OF THE DEMAND PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN JUDGE JACKSON'S NOMINATION TO JUDICIAL COURT. THE DEMAND JUST AS COFOUNDER EVEN INTERVIEWED JUDGE JACKSON ABOUT THE NOMINATION INTO THE COMMISSION. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT WHAT THE JUSTICE COFOUNDER LEARNED FROM THAT PROCESS AND WHY THEY STRONGLY SUPPORT JUDGE JACKSON. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT ALL BEEN BAD ON THE DOCUMENT FRONT, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE ASKED FOR BRIEFS THAT ARE NOT A VIABLE ONLINE FOR D.C.'S -- ARE NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE THAT JUDGE JACKSON WORKED ON AS AN ATTORNEY. AT FIRST, WE WERE TOLD THEY MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE A FEW WEEKS, BUT TO OUR PLEASANT SURPRISE, WE RECEIVED THEM EARLY APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE HAD ASKED FOR THE DOCUMENTS AS WELL. JUDGING BY TIMETABLES, WE WERE GIVEN THE BRIEFS, THAT REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER SHE WAS ANNOUNCED. THOSE DOCUMENTS CONCERN JUDGE JACKSON'S TIME AS ASSISTANT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER. DEMOCRATS HAVE ACCUSED REPUBLICANS OF VILIFYING NOMINEES WHO REPRESENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. THAT IS JUST NOT THE CASE, AND I THINK THAT IS A VERY UNFAIR ACCUSATION. PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS HAVE ALSO REPRESENTED CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ON APPEAL. THEY WERE APPOINTED BY A SUPREME COURT REPRESENTED DEFENDANT IN AN IMPORTANT TERMINAL LAW CASE, AND HE ALSO REPRESENT AN INMATE IN A FLORIDA DEATH ROW. AND JUSTICE BARRETT REPRESENTED A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT, APPEALING THEIR CONVICTION, WHILE SHE WAS IN PRIVATE PRISON. -- IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. NOW, I HAVE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF NOMINEES, WHOEVER WORKED IN CRIMINAL CASES, THEY ARE BILL OF RIGHTS ATTORNEYS WHO WANT TO PROTECT DEFENDANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THEN THERE ARE WHAT I CALL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS WHO DISAGREE WITH OUR CRIMINAL LAWS. THEY WANT TO UNDERMINE LAWS THAT THEY HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH, AND, OF COURSE, THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. JUST A YEAR AGO -- NO, MAYBE IT IS NOW TWO YEARS AGO -- DEMOCRATS HAD NO TROUBLE OPPOSING NOMINEES BASED ON ARGUMENTS THESE NOMINEES MADE ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS. I CAN READ OFF QUOTES OF DEMOCRATS DOING THAT TO TRUMP NOMINEES BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW , MINUTES FOR THESE OPENING STATEMENTS AND I HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME. ON A FINAL NOTE DURING JUSTICE , BARRETT'S CONFIRMATION HEARING, DEMOCRATS SAID THAT SHE WAS, "A JUDICIAL TORPEDO, AIMING AT PROTECTIONS FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS." WE HEARD THAT ARGUMENT REPEATEDLY. CONSERVATIVES AND ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY LOOKED AT HER RECORD AND LAWS SAID THAT THAT WAS STRICTLY NONSENSE. BUT DEMOCRATS WERE SURE OTHERWISE, WELL, WHEN THAT CASE WAS FINALLY DECIDED, DEMOCRATS WERE PUT IN LAW. I AM SURE THAT WILL NOT DETER ANY OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES FOR MAKING SOME CONFIDENT PREDICTIONS THIS TIME AROUND AS WELL. THE PUBLIC RECORD SHOULD REMEMBER, THEIR TRACK RECORDS AND PERHAPS TAKE THOSE CLAIMS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. THEY WERE WRONG IN THEIR STRONG DECLARATIONS HOW JUSTICE BARRETT WOULD RULE, JUDGE JACKSON, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU ABOUT YOUR RECORD, YOUR VIEWS ON THE LAW, AND YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. THANK YOU. ...