Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate Sens. Graham Durbin on Supreme Court Nomination  CSPAN  March 31, 2022 6:59pm-7:42pm EDT

6:59 pm
it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on cspan2. ♪ number of senators come to the floor discussed the nomination to replace steven breyer on the supreme court. next republican lindsey graham announcing his intention to vote against her appointment. he is followed by majority whip dick durbin and rhode island democrat sheldon whitehouse. both of whom encourage the college to support the nominee. this is about an hour. >> this morning, i am going to announce my decision on judge jackson's nomination to the supreme court. i will oppose her and vote no. my decision is based upon her record of judicial activism,
7:00 pm
flawed methodology regarding child pornography cases, and i believe judge jackson will not beai deterred by the plain meang of the law when it comes to liberal causes. i find judge jackson to be a person somewhat worked hard to achieve the current position. her record is overwhelming in its lack of a steady judicial philosophy and a tendency to achieve outcomes in spite of what the law requires or common sense would dictate. after a thorough review of judge jackson's record and information gained at the hearing from an evasive witness, i now know why judge jackson was the favorite of a radical left and i will vote no. : : vote no. in the area of child pornography , there's been an explosion in this country of child pornography on the internet. in 2021, groups that follow
7:01 pm
sexual abuse of children on the sexual abuse of children on the 2021 gruesome followed groups of children reported 49-point $3m reports of individual accessing, information regarding child photography on t the internet as card from 100,000 - 229-point $3m in 2021, and there are expense congress estimated it that there are 85 million images and videos and other files involving sexual exporting children on the internet and now why is this important. this is a video choice for the child pornographers, it is not the mail, as you can see, the internet is where these people go in a matter of minutes they can download hundreds if not thousands of images and videos of the most disgusting abuse of children and my goal is to deter
7:02 pm
that, nondiscounted. add judge ketanji brown jackson sentencing method i'll miss it in her methodology might be missus the personally she's offended by the behavior that we are all talking about but as a judge, she has an opportunity to deter the behavior of going on the internet and downloading it images of exploited children and every time that she has an opportunity and she refuses to exercise it and why is judge ketanji brown jackson sentencing so different and in possession cases, she gives 29.2 months, the average national 68 months, and distribution of childy, pornography, the sentences 79.9 months the minimum 60 month is what have to give, and the average nationally they tell me, is 135 months in the length of
7:03 pm
possession of child pornography, by judge ketanji brown jackson, is 57 percent less than the national average in the area of this region is 40 percent less than the national average and why, under the senate entered sentencing guidelines a judge, choose can enhance the center based on the fact that the perpetrator use the internet, at why we do we want that as anhe enhancement, we wat to deter the use of the internet when it comes to child pornography plus is already 85 million images and videos of children being abused and that is the venue of choice. so instead of deterring that behavior, judge ketanji brown j jackson routinely said that she will not hold that against the perpetrator. i think that is a mistake, she was basically said that is so easy in a matter of minutes to push button and download a bunch of files seems to me, and unfair
7:04 pm
way to send somebody and she also took of the table the senate enhancement for them in a number of the volume of child pornography being possessed or distributed and i think that is absolutely backward us and what we should be doing it, that every time that you match the button and you download an image of a child being exploding on the time in jail so go up and that should be held against you predict accessing the internet should be due toward, not ignored so what i have to say is that the national center for exploited children the report of the 2020, data, there's a 35 percent increase and child judge ketanji brown jackson he abuse material in a single year and 29-point $3m reports last year that people accessing child pornography on the internet at least 85 million images and files on the internet when it comes time to sentences people
7:05 pm
judge ketanji brown jackson will not impose additional punishment for the fact that the volume involved in the fact that they are using the internet, the venue of choice and the more you develop, the more that you go to jail is my view pretty i'm going to work with senator cawley and holly and i think she's making k terrible mistake of not enhancing the sentencing based e volley because every clip on the computer is destroying life and we should be deterring the use of the internet when it comes to child pornography and judge ketanji brown jackson chooses not to and when it comes to the volumes being held against you, the more you abused children, the more in your possession, the more that you distribute a longer you go to jail andso the reason that her numbers are so low, is because of that methodology. we don't access, we are making the problem worse and i think that her approach to this issue, is absolutely wrong •-ellipsis all deterrence and i will be
7:06 pm
watching the hawk for future nominees during the sentencing to see if they follow this model because the model judge ketanji brown jackson has created is one where the more that you do, it i could use the internet where all of the child pornography lies, t held against you and i believe it should be in every clip, every download, means that you go to jail longer in the world that i want to create. and the other area of concern, one horrible bay, remember thisb this is 911 and so this bay, the combatants and captured the war on terror and nine was a public defender i think for four or five and detainees and that is noble thing that i have no problem with somebody public defender anywhere in the country, defending very
7:07 pm
unpopular people and people there deserve representation but what i found during this representation, is that a ralph in the defense of get known detainees accused president bush and seem to be war criminals and that is - somebody in charge for held as an enemy combatant as being part of the enemy force, that's an accusation is your own government that i think that by the end of the language of the left, you can vigorously defend anyone captured as an enemy combatant or potentially crime his heroism and that is a noble thing but when you use the language that was in a brief, and she said i really don't remember that i have a hard time believing that you put your name and a brief and because the president of the united states, a war criminal and that is not about defending somebody,
7:08 pm
approached war on terror legal brief, she wanted to 90 united states ability to hold get known detainees under the law of war indefinitely there's about 37 or three bills that have never been charged and wend know who the until and the evidence reported there were killers committed to the jihad is because none of the law were, once the petitioner has been reviewed by the federal courts of course grew the government as a person, the immunity combatant there's no requirement to release him judge ketanji brown jackson to the position as an advocate that we could not hold them and indefinitely creating a dilemma we have to trust me with a crime go pretty because of these
7:09 pm
much as warriors cause to destroy our way of life and if you charge them with a crime, fine, you don't have to make a choice in the reason they're still in detention is that we have chosen republicans and democrats to hold these people off the battlefieldon who've accepted judge ketanji brown jackson's legal reasoning, that also will us as nation rise to defend ourselves and i think that approach was the most extreme view of representation in this area and i think that it understanding of the work was rent we are fighting criminals, these are not governors these are people whond committed jihad us because we kills all of the good in the next area, is immigration.
7:10 pm
31 percent of the people that have been detained since the beginning of the war got back to the fight and i will introduce that at the hearing and next weekend some senior leadership of different governments, or get known detainees have only gone back to the five actually upon back and served in the taliban government does raining oppression on the telephone people also think this is crime were fighting, your robin towards for this rival good against evil. i thank you so you have not noticed, this country is being invaded by illegal immigrants and right after taking office, president rupp biden will back every policy regarding solomon
7:11 pm
deportations off and basically destroy the regime created by president trump that gave us the lowest number of illegal crossings in this country i 30 or 40 o years at the end of 2020 and now everybody, we are setting new records and why because the policies that existed during the administration, be reversed by president biden being overwhelmed and the worst is yet to crime if the biden administration and the cdc, does away with the ability to deport illegal illuminance under title 42, of the public health presenting a threat to covid-19, then you will see the numbers go up even further and there will be thousands, 18 - 20000 people a day coming across work from countries with low vaccination rates so when it comes a legal separation, policy matters and when judge ketanji brown jackson district court judge, there was
7:12 pm
a case brought by new york versus - who was the acting dhs secretary under t president trup and roommates road new york, an activist group. as a holy coming from a lack of a better federal five bunch of liberal billionaires this group and that chain receiving money probably smokes file the lawsuit arguing that the trump decision to depart under x abided immigration authority, people who have been here two years or less, to change obama policy actually fully implement the authority given to dhs secretard
7:13 pm
they decided the full two years anybody here two yearswo and unr the category in question, couldw be deported with expedited procedures many of the quick turnaround and this was the authority given by the congress dhs director and obama did not use it but trump decided to do it make the road new york and mental liberal groups suited the trump policy change could i was a judge general the trump decision in statute in question is said that the secretary hasn't solved and revealed this question, use expedited deportation for people to use less time the statute could not been radically are looking went
7:14 pm
for an activist judge is all about, as is the case, exhibit a law was written mostly terms saying that the decision of the secretary is unrevealed and solely in the hands when it comes to using expedited removal for people here to t hear san vicente will against the trump ministration. and she basically said this was arbitrary and rakes of discriminated just contact for the authority that the cross framers and the judicial branch and by contempt she is talking about the congressional act and the congressional act was designed to tell judges the dhs secretary has discretion through solely an unreviewable and she found the concept offensive so
7:15 pm
instead of following the plain letter of the law, she did legal gymnastics dividing is a trump ministration and when she said, the statute created contempt for the authority to the constitution's framers invested in the judicial branch what she is saying is all be dart if i'm going to be limited by congressional acts tells me that i cannot do what i want to do plaintiff in case was from the radical left and she rolled for them and spite of the plain meaning of the statute is he was overturned by the dc circuit court in the corner said, verily liberal court, more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision hiabout the scope of expedited removal within the statutory bounds for the secretaries
7:16 pm
independent judgment the forceful play unreviewable discretion, my successful terms is august judgment to make a decision exquisitely to agency discretion and she ignored the plain meaning of the statute in the language and yet to get a result she wanted in the district courtai of appeals coud hardly be a more defendant expression of congressional intent, that is activism on steroids it makes managing our immigration problems even worse when you have activist judges that ignore the law and take discretion away given t by congress to the executive branch is they don't like the outcome and that is in fact premier definition of judicial activism and i find in her judging desire to get an outcome no matter what
7:17 pm
she has to do to get out outcome, she will pursue it in this is the case we could have not written it more clear just went around the result she wanted. she is, the first african-american female to the supreme court, she however, saw the first african american female that had potential to be on the supreme court. janice rogers brown was nominated by president bush, 43, to be in the dc circuit court of appeals for the premier like judge ketanji brown jackson was nominated to and she is from alabama, daughtersh and daughter sharecroppers growing up in
7:18 pm
alabama during the jim crow era and she moved to california as a teenager and she one observing the california supreme court signal mother, raising children. then in june 2005, she was confirmed it to the dc court 56 - 43 vote was after they broke a filibuster by vitamin predicate policing answer and others he was nominated in 2003, and her nomination was told for two years. here's what senator schumer said he, brown was the least worthy pick the president has made for the fellow court is based on the record and when the presence most ideological extreme judicial nominees and 2005, if the president nobody like janice brown believes that the new deal
7:19 pm
for the 21st socialist will be fight. here's what then send her biden said only getting filibuster her, he said, i can assure you there will be a very difficultst fight and she probably would be filibuster if she were nominated to the supper imported so to my democratic colleagues, as you celebrate judge ketanji brown jackson potential renters into the course, as those of us on the committee asking questions of judge ketanji brown jackson's judicial philosophy how she sentences people and why liberal completing the tank on issues like this, sons highlights watch you my democratic colleagues, stop the ascension an african-american conservative nominated by president bush when he came her potential of being
7:20 pm
on the supreme court, merge into filibuster and consider her ideology unacceptable to conservative so if you're a conservative company, color and women, it is okay to use her ideology against you if you question the ideology and judging ability of a liberal african-american, the nominee, you are races in those days are over for me. i very little respect for what is going on in modern america to the judges, one was nominated by president bush 43. i highly qualified man, hispanic to be on the court and he fell victim in the filibuster we companies in the 2003, era, he
7:21 pm
did not make it through the - and justice janice rogers brown, two years delayed when she was being considered for month one court, joe biden or joe said, she will be filibuster very very likely pretty so we live in a world where if you are a person of color, woman in your conservative, everything is burning. fair game and if your personal color in the h liberal, how dare anyby question it the use of the same standard to get you that was used against the other nominee. i don't accept that. to the liberal media, comparing this hearing isn't absolute - nobody in the republican side of
7:22 pm
information using judge justice brennan doing something that was even made, you question her high school - nobody took a bunch of garbage made it seem like only bill crosby and his teenage years, crazy stuff, but when we did as judge ketanji brown jackson and explained the reasoning in the cases involving child pornography, and when we went after her judicial philosophy and had to be printed just because the judge seldom would answer a question but to me if you're going to be nominated for supreme court, for lifetime appointment, you should
7:23 pm
be expected to ask hard questions and not expect to have your life destroyed if you don't see a difference between the two hearings, then you are blinded by your desire to get an outcome and here's wheret were at and 2022, the only person qualified to go to the supreme court as an african-american woman, is a liberal you could be equally qualified as a conservative but you need not apply because the ideology disqualifies you. that is not exactly the advancement that i was hoping we would have an american in 2022 so the judge jackson, and i will vote no and i find her sentencing methodology, to reinforce and take the terms of the most heinous offenses off the table, statement that she made in the senate hearings, showed a tilted sense of
7:24 pm
compassion i'm sure she does not like the behavior and feel sorry for the kids, but every time she had a chance to increase punishment, for the volume of homaterials, in the hands of the perpetrator she chose not to do that and i think she should and going to the internet and to her downloading a bunch of files it to enhance punishment or just too easy to destroy lives. >> comes immigration coming is the most egregious case that i've ever seen quite frankly i judge ignoring the plain meaning of the law to get a result they wanted and when it comes to the war on terror, i think that her position that she wanted her country to take would make us less safe in the language of the left and calling bush war criminals is more about the politics and it does the merit of the argument s&l and we know
7:25 pm
why she was the preferred pic of the radical left and we now know why they went after michelle gilese somebody actively supported even though she had been liberal, highly qualified a commonsensesi person. and now i understand better add that is why voting no to my democratic colleagues, i work with you when i can but this is a breach too far. >> the democratic, i listen carefully to the presentation by my colleagues and friday, senator graham of south carolina predict wanted to come to the floor to make it clear that he did not tell you the whole story. in fact in some ways he didn't even get close. who is this judge judge ketanji brown jackson now could she even
7:26 pm
be considered for the supreme court if she is the preferred pic of the radical left. well let's take a look at her background, an extraordinary story of daughter of two public school teachers and the daughter of a father who decided he was going to go to law school. basically stopped working full time and his mother supportedr the family and she was a little girl at the time and she members that will because the law books deck on the kitchen table and she would command as a little girl and bring her coloring books and to sit next to her daddy while he was studying for law school. he would go on to become a lawyer family members, policeman, when wrinkles turned out to beer the chief of police miami she grew up in a very ambitious and determined orderly family and she certainly had respect for family ties for lawe
7:27 pm
debate team in high school, one of the trips took her from florida up to the campus of harvard university. she believed that this just might be the answer to our graves in québec to her high school sat down with her high school counselor said to this young black woman, you are shooting to high and i don't want your heart to be broken read and think about other schools and don't think about the harvard university school. luckily she ignored the advice that applied and was accepted. digital the story before the hearing having on the campus and not sure that the right decision in looking around and sing different world than the one she grew up in a much different group of people than she was used to and socializing with predict and she must have sought in the face because as she was
7:28 pm
walking across the campus one day an african-american woman saw her and looked at her and said, persevere. persevere. just that simple word, captured everything for her and she did and she persevered with her education and learn the harvard law school and she's an outstanding student at the law school so much of the sheep camp clerk for the federal district court in such a good job that she was promoted to become circuit court clerk and that the ultimate price for any graduate law students, clerk to a justice in the supreme court judge ketanji brown jackson, what an irony that she worked for judge stephen breyer who is time created a vacancy in which she seeks along the way the sentencing commission she worked in the public defender's office, and she became federal district court judge and cleared by this
7:29 pm
committee, this judiciary committee, f this was the fourth time before the committee anytime that she appeared, bipartisan support includingat e senators and ultimately the opportunity of a lifetime, the fill a vacancy in the supreme court pretty and for and i first want to commend my republican colleague chairman could not be any luckier sitting in the chair next to him lastly, a strong gentleman faithful republican, and he ishe a gentleman and we were determined it to make this hearing the least judicial nomination to the supreme court different than some that have gone before and i need to commee republicans on the committee, there are 11 of them, the majority of this republicans are tough probing questions as they should, they never got personal and they never raise their voice
7:30 pm
and there were respectful throughout the majority of it and i'm sorry to say that there were some exceptions on the side of the aisle but i think that the hearing by large was a good hearing and despite a few differences which i'll cover in a minute and at the end of the day, couldad not help to leave e hearing just witnessed a moment in history much as the first african-american to aspiring supreme court, but also a pillar of strength to the hearing. .. have scom up to me everywhere i've gone since that hearing and said the same thing, how did you sit through that? how could you put you want with that? i said to them, think about her sitting in front of her husband and her daughters, some of the things that were said about her, said again this morning on the senate floor. she came out a pillar of
7:31 pm
strength, grace, and dignity under pressure. i looked up at that table i looked up at that table judge, if you stood up this moment and said enough, i'm taking my family we are out of here. i would understand but she never did, she never wavered. she was solid as iraq. that is why it is my honor to support her and believe she is going to make history. some of the things they said were outrageous. this case they want to make about her sentencing guidelines when it comes to crimes involving children and child pornography, what did she say about it? she said they were horrible and despicable crimes but she did not just say it before the committee whent she was under assault. this is what she said in front of her cases. united states. the case involving the sexual misconduct toward children.
7:32 pm
the true nature of these offenses judge ketanji brown jackson said how they affected the children here tormented for nearly a decade when you lived on and off ofs their mother. that is a substantial portion of their childhood. these are two carry the burden no child should have to shoulder pretty burden of protecting themselves from a man charge with care but instead exploited them. she went on to say this family has been torn apart she said to the defendant by your criminal actions. you sought on the faces of those women, you heard and their voices the impact of your acts on these real victims are still struggling to recover to this day, makes you work crimes among the most serious criminal offenses this court has ever sentenced. does that sound like she is soft onon crime? does that sound like she did not remember she is a mother of daughters and cared for the impact those crimes have on children and family? not in any way whatsoever.t
7:33 pm
you draw much different conclusion if you just listen to the arguments being made recently here on the floor. and it would be an unfair conclusion the bottom line as far as i am concerned is this. but they have left out in the presentation is critical to the very truth of their allegations. judge ketanji brown jackson's in the mainstream of sentencing when it comes to these cases. seventy-eight -- 80% of federal judges divert from the guidelines as she is in some cases. and let me add, her accusers have been voting for federal judges proposed by president trump right and left who do exactly the same thing she does. i asked consent to enter into the record "new york times" article of march 25, 2022. entitled jackson's critics back judges with like rulings.
7:34 pm
>> without objection. >> it tells a story and the story is very clear. we have a situation in the country were we have not upgraded child pornography and sexual misconduct statutes in years. across the board 70 -- 80% of federal judges take the same position as judge ketanji brown jackson the so-called deviations from the guidelines has become commonplace as i said the overwhelming majority of federal judges are doing this. is there event problem? there is the problem is we have not upgraded the statute. we bear responsibility for this. the decision was made with for the supreme court these guidelines would not be mandatory. it was a decision joined by anton scalia, the originalist, the conservative. i put the burden back on congress and we have not picked up that responsibility. so, you say to yourself if she were so soft on crime, it surely
7:35 pm
would have shown up in other places. let me tell you what happened the american bar association did a review of her career as a prosecutor, as a defender on the bench, they interviewed 250 individual judges, prosecutors defense lawyers other counsel who would work with her. and i asked point blank justice and williams who led this investigation did you hear from anyone who said she was soft on crime? that she somehow was not in the norm when it came to sentencing? none, not one. 250 people interviewed not one came up with it. all we have heard against hers comes out of the males of three or fouror people in the committe and that is it. there is no record for. how did the american bar association grade her when it's all said and done? unanimously well-qualified. unanimously well-qualified.
7:36 pm
does not sound the same person just described, does it? because it isn't. what you heard on the floor here is a mischaracterization of her record i am sorry to say it is unfair and i wish it would not of been part of the record today. what about guantánamo? i have some serious differences with the senator from south carolina on guantánamo. hundreds of detainees have been sent to montano before the war on terror began many of them should have been there. but hundreds and hundreds of 'r presidents, republican and democrat. we're now down to 39 detainees. we are spending over $10 million for each one of them each year at guantanamo bay. and when it comes to the resolution of who was responsibleme for 911, families have come and testified before us. they have waited over 20 years and they still do not have an answer. they understand guantánamo bay
7:37 pm
is not leading to justice, it's not answering the basic factual questions. so, what is her situation? why would she dare to call a republican president of the united states a war criminal? what was she thinking? well, it sounds like a terrible charge until he read the facts. effects what she presented a brief and the brief referred to a body of law known as the alien tort statute. the person she was representing ins this brief was arguing that he was tortured, mistreated at guantanamo bay. until he filed a claim in when you do that you sue the president of the united states and the secretary of defense. they were the named defenders and included president bush but with the senator from south carolina failed to disclose, was that as that case was winding
7:38 pm
its way through the administration changed. if there was an allegation of war crime against president bush was the same allegation that was made with the administration changed in the change to barack obama. to argue this was a personal charge against the president of the united states as a war criminal is a gross exaggeration and unfair on its face. there under the tort statute for the allegations that were made that was not her decision that was a decision of congress to write the specifics of the alien tort statute. the third point i want to make his immigration. yes we have challenges in immigration i think we all know it. but to blame her and say she is somehow responsible for the invasion you saw the crowd of people come across the border, is really unfair. what happened to us there is a lawsuit filed challenging a trumpet decision of policy. she was asked to rule on it.
7:39 pm
and she ruled in one direction the deal was taken she was reversed at the circuit court. now according to the senator who just made the presentation, evidence she's in the pocket of the radical left comes to immigration evidence george is somehow controlling her decisions. it is preposterous. fact of the matter is if you look at almost 600 decisions handed down by judge ketanji brown jackson you will find a small, small percentage thatse will actually reverse. if you are looking for a second case to build the theory she is on the radical left, i don't think you found the first. she has a balanced approach. she has ruled for and against democrats and republican presidents, she has shown the kind of bounce we expect in the supreme court. i would say this notion that somehow joe biden has chosen someone who is radical is a
7:40 pm
shame. she is not. she is as solid as they come. and her testimony, her appearance before the committee prove that over and over again. i also want to stab nothing into south carolina judge she was in the finals but was not chosen b, the president. in fact president biden has asked that d she be promoted frm the federal district court to the federal circuit court and i would like to get that done asha quickly as we can. i think judge childs is very deserving of the opportunity she certainly is a good jurors. but the choice by president biden was clear and it was the right choice. these charges that somehow she is soft on crime because she's an african-american woman and a public defender lie the actual record of this woman. we should all be judged on our records. this notion we are asked to identify ourselves by it labels we know that story, 100 of us sat on this side of the chamber and senate.
7:41 pm
were attached labels we embrace and some we don't embrace. but most people will say not going to judge you by your label going to judge you by your record. if you judge ketanji brown jackson by her record, the fact this was the fourth time she appeared before the judiciary committee admitted prove the three previous times serving on the commission and so many other things you'll know an outstanding and a stellar record but you know it almost has to beat. if you want to be the first you have to be the best. she is the best despite some of the thingsod have been thrown at her today and other places. the american people came out of that hearing felt better and stronger about her h nomination tthem before the hearing began. because evidence of the strengths that she brings to this nomination and the value that she will bring to the supreme court, yield the floor precooked metal president the reason i am here is to announce my intention to vote for


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on