THANK YOU. JUDGE JACKSON, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 11,107 MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SERVED AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1994 MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SERVED AS MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. ONLY 115 MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SUIT -- HAVE SERVED AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PAIRED THE POSITION WITH WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN NOMINATED IS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT, AND THAT IS WHY THE SENATE IS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. BECAUSE THE JOB MATTERS IMMENSELY. SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. IN FACT, WHEN BUSH WROTE WASHINGTON WAS NOMINATED IN 1798, HE WAS CONFIRMED THE NEXT DAY. WHAT CHANGED? WELL, WHAT CHANGED US STARTING IN THE 1960'S AND 1970'S, THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE IN OUR SOCIETY CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. THE SUPREME COURT BECAME A POLICY-MAKING BODY RATHER THAN A MERELY JUDICIAL BODY. JUST A MOMENT AGO, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR SAID WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE SUPREME COURT'S PLACE IN OUR DEMOCRACY. STARTING IN THE 1960'S AND 1970'S, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN OUR PLACE WAS TO SET ASIDE THE DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS OF THE PEOPLE AND INSTEAD MANDATE THE POLICY OUTCOMES THEY THEMSELVES SUPPORTED. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WANT THE SUPREME COURT TO BE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES GET FRUSTRATED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. WHEN THEY CANNOT PASS GUN-CONTROL LAWS BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT THEM, THEY WANT ELECTED JUDGES TO MANDATE THOSE SAME LAWS INSTEAD. LAW AFTER LAW THAT THEY CANNOT GET TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED IT IS MUCH SIMPLER TO CONVINCE FIVE LAWYERS IN BLACK ROBES THAN TO TRY TO CONVINCE 330 MILLION AMERICANS. THAT IS WHY SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARINGS HAVE BECOME SO CONTENTIOUS, IS BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS ARROGANT INTO ITSELF A RESPONSIBILITY THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE IT. WHICH IS TO MAKE CONTESTED POLICY DECISIONS AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHAT SHOULD THIS HEARING BE AND WHAT SHOULD IT NOT BE? YOU HAVE HEARD A NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS QUITE CLEAR ON WHAT IT SHOULD NOT BE. THIS WILL NOT BE A POLITICAL CIRCUS. THIS WILL NOT BE THE KIND OF CHARACTER SMEAR THAT SADLY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE GOTTEN VERY GOOD AT. AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I WAS DOING MY WEEKLY PODCAST AND WAS ON WITH A NOTED LIBERAL INTELLECTUAL WHO MADE A COMMENT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, WELL, BOTH SIDES DO THIS, BOTH SIDES SMEAR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. AND I WAS FORCED TO LAUGH OUT LOUD AND SAY, LOOK, I UNDERSTAND THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD TALKING POINT, IT JUST HAPPENS NOT TO BE TRUE. IT IS ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE, THE DEMOCRATIC AISLE, THAT WENT SO INTO THE GUTTER WITH JUDGE ROBERT BORK THAT THEY INVENTED A NEW VERB, TO BORK SOMEONE. IT IS ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT WITH JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS WAS SO REPREHENSIBLE THAT AS THE PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATED HIM ROAD AT THE TIME, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO CLARENCE THOMAS IS JUST PLAIN HORRIBLE COME ALL THE GROUPS WHO TRIED TO BEAT HIM UP ON ABORTION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAVE COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK AND ARE TRYING TO DESTROY A DECENT MAN. THIS IS AN UGLY PROCESS AND ONE CAN SEE CLEARLY WHY SO MANY GOOD PEOPLE ARE LEFT TO STAY OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE. AS JUSTICE THOMAS OBSERVED IN THAT HEARING, WHAT HAPPENED THERE WAS, TO USE HIS WORDS, A HIGH-TECH LYNCHING. AND I WOULD NOTE THE CHAIRMAN WHO PRESIDED OVER THAT DISGRACE WAS JOE BIDEN. AND THEN MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE REMEMBER THE CONFIRMATION HEARING OF BRETT KAVANAUGH, ONE OF THE LOWEST MOMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMITTEE. WHERE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE SAT ON ALLEGATIONS, DID NOT REFER THEM TO THE FBI, DID NOT ASK FOR INVESTIGATIONS, HID THEM AND THEN LEAKED THEM AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE COMPLAINANTS. AND WE BEGAN A CIRCUS THAT FEATURED SPARTACUS MOMENTS, FEATURED SUCH NUTS AS MICHAEL EVAN ALREADY -- AVENATTI, WHO CNN DESCRIBED AS A POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, BEFORE HE BECAME A FELON IN RECENT MONTHS. JUDGE JACKSON, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOUR HEARING WILL FEATURE NONE OF THAT DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR. NO ONE IS GOING TO INQUIRE INTO YOUR TEENAGE DATING HABITS. NO ONE IS GOING TO ASK YOU, WITH MOCK SEVERITY, DO YOU LIKE BEER? BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY THIS HEARING SHOULD BE NON-SUBSTANTIVE AND NON-VIGOROUS. IN THIS HEARING, THIS COMMITTEE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FOCUS ON ISSUES, FOCUS ON YOUR RECORD, FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE, TO DO OUR VERY BEST TO ASCERTAIN WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE YOU WOULD BE. AND A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, IT IS NO LONGER THE CASE THAT SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ARE MERELY ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS, THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY, WELL, IF THE JUSTICE IS QUALIFIED, THE SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM. THERE WAS A TIME THAT WAS THE CASE. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ABANDONED THAT STANDARD LONG AGO. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, THEN SENATOR JOE BIDEN, HE WAS PERFECTLY HAPPY TO VOTE AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS, SOMEONE UNQUESTIONABLY QUALIFIED, PERFECTLY HAPPY TO VOTE AGAINST ALITO, SOMEONE QUALIFIED, AND INDEED EVERY MEMBER OF OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WHO WAS HERE AT THE TIME PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRST EVER FILIBUSTER OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ON PARTISAN LINES WITH JUST AS NEIL GORSUCH. THEY DID SO FOR SOMEONE UNQUESTIONABLY QUALIFIED, BUT THEY HAD A POLITICAL AGENDA AND SO EVERY ONE OF THEM HAPPILY FILIBUSTERED JUSTICE GORSUCH. LIKEWISE, IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE. WE WILL SEE DEMOCRATS IN THE MEDIA SUGGEST THAT ANY SENATOR SKEPTICAL OF YOUR NOMINATION, THE QUESTIONS YOU VIGOROUSLY, OR DARES TO VOTE AGAINST YOU MUST SOMEHOW HARBOR RACIAL ANIMUS. IF THAT WERE THE STANDARD, I WOULD NOTE WE ARE SITTING ON A COMMITTEE WERE MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, SENIOR DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE, HAPPILY MUSTARD JUST -- FILIBUSTERED JUSTICE BROWN, NOMINATED TO D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE AND THEY DID SO PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PREVENT JUDGE BROWN FROM BECOMING JUSTICE BROWN, THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN. JOE BIDEN WAS AMONG THE DEMOCRATS WHO FILIBUSTERED THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN NOMINATED TO THE DECEASED. SENIOR DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ALSO FILIBUSTERED MIGUEL ESTRADA. AS THE STAFFER SENATOR TED KENNEDY SAID IN WRITING AT THE TIME, THE DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERED MIGUEL ESTRADA "BECAUSE HE IS HISPANIC." THEY WERE EXPLICITLY RACIAL, IF YOU DARE, IF YOU ARE HISPANIC OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND YOU DARE DEPART FROM THEIR POLITICAL ORTHODOXY, THEY WILL CRUSH YOU, ATTACK YOU, SLENDER YOU, FILIBUSTER YOU. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. IT IS ABOUT ISSUES AND SUBSTANCE, AND HAVE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN DURBIN AND HE QUOTED PAUL SIMON WHEN HE SAID, HISTORY WILL JUDGE "DID SHE RESTRICT FREEDOM OR DID SHE EXPAND IT?" I AGREE WITH THAT PAIRED THE REASON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT IS IT IS INTEGRAL TO PROTECTING OR TAKING AWAY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND IT COMES TO FREE SPEECH, THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD INQUIRE, WILL YOU PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS' SPEECH, TO SAY UNPOPULAR IDEAS, TO SAY IDEAS THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SAY BUT YOU NONETHELESS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY? WILL YOU PROTECT FREEDOM OR RESTRICT? WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, WILL ADJUST AS VOTE TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE TO LIVE ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONSCIENCE OR WILL A JUSTICE VOTE TO CRUSH RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND STRIP THOSE RIGHTS AWAY? THEY SECOND AMENDMENT, WILL A JUSTICE VOTE TO DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND DEFEND YOUR FAMILY, DEFEND YOUR CHILDREN OR WILL A JUSTICE ROLLOVER TO THE DEMOCRATS THAT WANT TO DISARM CITIZENRY? THE RIGHT TO LIFE, WILLIE JUSTICE PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, THE RIGHT OF STATE LEGISLATURES TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE, PROTECT UNBORN LIFE, STOPPING ABOMINATIONS LIKE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION OR WILL A JUSTICE DO HER JOB AS A SUPER LEGISLATOR, STRIKING DOWN ALL SUCH RIGHTS? SCHOOL CHOICE, WILL A JUSTICE PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF KIDS TO GET A QUALITY EDUCATION OR WILL A JUSTICE LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH AND SHUT DOWN SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY? CRIMES, WE ARE SEEING MURDER RATES, CRIME RATES SKYROCKETING ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IN SIGNIFICANT PART BECAUSE OF POLITICS, ATTORNEYS, DEMOCRATIC EFFORTS TO ABOLISH THE POLICE. AND PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC EFFORT TO ABOLISH THE POLICE IS NOMINATING JUSTICE THAT CONSISTENTLY SIDE WITH VIOLENT CRIMINALS, RELEASE VIOLENT CRIMINALS, REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE LAW, AND THAT JEOPARDIZES INNOCENT CITIZENS. SO ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE FAIR GAME. WILL YOU FOLLOW THE LAW? WHAT DOES YOUR RECORD INDICATE? WILL YOU PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF RACE, PARTY, VIEWS? THAT IS WHAT THE FOCUS OF THIS HEARING SHOULD BE ...