tv Confirmation Hearing for Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Day 4 CSPAN March 25, 2022 1:57am-5:51am EDT
"presidential recordings." >> season 1 focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> jim. >> yes, sir? >> i want a report of the number of people that were assigned to kennedy the day he died, and the number assigned to me now. and if mine are not less, then i want them less right quick and if i can't ever go to the bathroom i won't go i promise you i will stay right here behind these black gates.
>> "presidential recordings," find it on the c-span now mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: now the final day of the supreme court confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. the senate judiciary committee hears from members of the american bar association and other witnesses. this is just under four hours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
[gavels] >> good morning, special welcome to the guests who are testifying before us today. and with testimony from outside witnesses, this approach will be no different. the last three days has been long and exhausting for senators, and i'm sure they were much more superjet checks in. i believe she carried her self with grace, humility, thoughtful and for right in her responses. i can't tell you how many people have spoken to me since the end of yesterday's hearing and talked about how she managed to maintain the grace and dignity throughout all of the questioning. ut all the questioning.
i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses starting from the american bar association's committee. three witnesses from the aba, the honorable ann claire williams, mr. joseph drayton and ms. jean veta. i am glad all three are here. i would be remiss if i did not say a word about judge williams. the first judge of color to sit on the seventh circuit and she has a special attachment to notre dame university. she was nominated by president reagan in 1985. in 1999, she was nominated by president clinton to talk about bipartisanship to serve on the seventh circuit. after stepping down from the bench in 2017, she joined a chicago office to advance the rule of law in african nations.
she is a respected leader in the chicago community and i am looking forward to her testimony. these panelists are here to talk about the rating of judge jackson. the committee confines evaluations to qualities of integrity, professional competence and temperament. they unanimously found judge jackson in all of these areas to be deserving of the highest rating. it is exactly but we saw in the last few days from judge jackson. i am looking forward to hearing more about the standing committee's evaluation. let me say a few words about the hearing. i want to salute the man to my right and to your left. i am fortunate to have a republican leader who is such a gentleman and is such a man of high integrity. we were reminiscing about the history of the senate and the
nomination process. we have maintained an honest relationship, no surprises, no stabs in the back. i am a lucky man to have him as my ranking member, thank you, senator grassley. >> mr. chair, i would like to point out that 62 years ago this week, chuck grassley started his political career in the iowa state legislature. i shared a picture with him this week and i believe the picture was him debating iowa statehood, i am not sure. [laughter] >> i reminded him his political career started a year after my mother gave birth to me. >> one year i did something like this, he took a quote from me
and put it in his campaign brochure. [laughter] >> i received telephone calls from iowa democrat saying, what are you doing? do not do it again. i want to thank the members of the republican side, the majority of them handle themselves professionally in the best traditions of the united states senate. i want to thank him for a comment in which she used the term "jackassery," which i had never heard before, and i thank him for that observation. i wish i could say that across the board. on our side of the aisle, i am proud of all of our members, particularly proud of one member who spoke at the right moment, my wife is my go to critic and what is happening in my political life and she said when cory booker spoke yesterday, it
cleared the air and refocused us on what we were doing and why we were here. his statement will go down in the annals of this committee and the united states senate for the impact they had at the moment. i wish i could say that for all of the things that have happened over the last 72 hours but i cannot. some of the attacks on this judge were unfair, unrelenting and beneath the dignity of the united states senate. you can disagree with a senator's vote, a judge's ruling, but to draw conclusions that reflect on them personally and their values and take it to the extreme is unfair, whether the nominee is a democrat or republican. i was so sad by that ended happened over and over and over again. i hope that is not a lasting impression the people have of the work in this committee.
my lasting impression is a judge that sat there through it all, head held high with dignity, determination and strength. a lesser person might affect up and told her family we are the -- might have picked up and told her family we are leaving. it tells me a lot about her character and why the president was correct to maker the next supreme court justice. i want to turn to senator grassley for opening remarks. >> i have no opening remarks. >> that is new. let me turn to the aba panel. i will swear you in. do you confirm the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? left a record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. judge williams, please commence.
you need to turn on your microphone. judge williams: thank you. you were at both of my confirmation hearings, a thumbs up to you, senator grassley and other members. it is an honor and a privilege to appear before this committee. i am a retired federal judge and chair of the committee for federal judiciary. i am joined by jean veta and joe drayton. our vice chair, david brown, deeply regrets he is unable to attend, especially since he was the principal evaluator of judge jackson's d.c. circuit judge and. the standing committee has been asked to present to this committee our peer-reviewed, independent, nonpartisan comprehensive rating on a
professional qualification of a lifetime appointed federal judge. the standing committee is made up of outstanding lawyers from every circuit, with varied backgrounds, professional experiences and practicing in law firms with six to 2000 lawyers. we do not give suggestions on who should be dominated, do not recommend or endorse any nominee. we do not base our ratings on or express any view of the nominee's philosophy, political affiliation or ideology. nonpartisan peer-reviewed evaluations are the hallmark of the standing committee. we began our work on february 25, the day judge jackson was nominated. on march 18, the standing committee voted unanimously that judge jackson earned our highest rating, well-qualified on appointment to supreme court. why? quite frankly, well-qualified
was a rating we were compelled to reach after or exhaustive comprehensive peer review. to get that well-qualified rating, a nominee much be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability, have exceptional breath of experience -- breadth of experience. everyone we talked to, interviewed or had contact with uniformly gave the highest praise, brilliant, beyond reproach, first rate, impeccable, a+. we contacted 2800 judges and lawyers from 50 states, 13 circuits, 94 districts and state supreme court justices, law school deans and bar associations. we focused interviews on those
with first-hand knowledge of her legal abilities. we spoke to federal prosecutors, lawyers who appeared before judge jackson, her judicial colleagues and judges and lawyers that were very familiar with her career before she became a judge. we created three reading groups to examine over 240 of her published opinions and other writings because the principal way supreme court justices communicate is by writing opinions, opinions that touched the lives of people throughout this nation for years to come. two academic reading groups from the university of illinois and stanford, cochaired by each school's dean, 37 academic experts. a reading group viewed the same writings. former law clerks to supreme court justices, justices appointed by both political parties, most have regularly
argued before the supreme court. their words -- strikingly talented, exceptional, respectful. finally, we went beyond what judge jackson does in the courthouse. we looked at the other contributions she has made on the governing council of the american law institute, united states sentencing commission, chief justice roberts' appointment to the services committee, representatives from every organization said again and again, humble, brilliant. the question we kept asking ourselves, how does one human being do so much, so extraordinarily well? reflecting the combined views of more than 250 judges, attorneys and academics, the standing committee concluded judge jackson is well-qualified to serve as an associate justice on
the supreme court. i now turn to jean veta on more specifics on the findings and then joseph drayton with comments on the reading groups and the breadth of judge jackson's experiences. ms. veta: thank you. my name is jean veta and i am the co lead evaluator of the evaluation of judge jackson. in addressing the federal qualifications of nominees, our committee considers three factors. integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. i will address each of these factors in turn and explain why judge jackson readily meets our well-qualified rating. in evaluating integrity, our committee considers the nominee's character and general reputation in the legal -- along
with diligence. we surveyed countless lawyers and judges at every level of the federal judiciary and all regard judge jackson as possessing the utmost integrity. reviewers describe her integrity as beyond reproach, impeccable and of the highest caliber. as one reviewer put it, you write the word integrity and put her initials next to it. another said judge jackson has a well-deserved reputation for the highest level of ethics and integrity. based on these and many other laudatory comments, the standing committee concluded judge jackson plainly possesses the highest integrity deserving of a well-qualified rating. in evaluating a nominee's professional competence, our standards provide a nominee for the supreme court must possess exceptional professional qualifications, including an
especially high degree of legal scholarship, strong analytical and writing ability and overall excellence. judge jackson ably meets this heightened standard. as summarized by one judge, studying her opinions is like a master class in judicial writing. an appellate jurist stated she does a fantastic job of making impenetrable issues understandable. a litigant who lost a case before judge jackson stated, i have appeared before judge jackson many times, both in the district court and d.c. circuit judge in my opinion, judge jackson is one of the very best judges, or for that matter justices, i have ever argued a case in front of. she is brilliant. equally important, she possesses all of the other important attributes of a great jurist. she is practical and intuitive,
and curious and courteous and always impeccably well prepared. given the uniform strength of these and many other comments, the standing committee readily concluded that judge jackson demonstrates the exceptional professional competence expected of a supreme court justice and thus merits a well-qualified rating. finally, in evaluating judicial temperament, the standing committee considers a nominee's compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law. as part of our evaluation, we considered whether judge jackson demonstrated any bias who favored criminal defendants, no judge, defense counsel or prosecutor expressed any concern in this regard and the uniformly rejected any accusations of bias
. for example, with the allegation that judge jackson is soft on crime, one person responded i vehemently disagree. another prosecutor who has appeared multiple times before judge jackson responded by saying such an allegation, "absolutely was not borne out on my experience with her." prosecutors like the others we interviewed said judge jackson is a judge who considers all arguments for coming to a decision. one prosecutor said judge jackson is regarded by his office as a good draw because as he put it, she is a smart judge without any biases, which is all we are asking for. for these reasons, the standing committee found judge jackson clearly meets the well-qualified rating for judicial temperament expected of supreme court justices.
because judge jackson easily satisfies the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, it is the ada standing committee's unanimous conclusion that judge jackson is well-qualified to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. thank you. >> thank you. mr. drayton, you are with a law firm and lead evaluator. would you please report to the committee what you found. mr. drayton: ranking member grassley, esteemed senators, i will share perspective related to judge jackson's writings and contributions to shaping the law. various groups of judges, lawyers, administrators and legal scholars confirmed that judge jackson has the ability required by a supreme court nominee to communicate clearly and persuasively in a manner to
harmonize bodies of law and give guidance to lower courts and the legal community. she has done so across a significant range of complex issues. judge jackson has served on the american law institute and their leadership council. an organization impacting -- for close to 100 years third it re-publishes the statements of law. her fellow ali leaders remarked, incredible work ethic, very well prepared. i would describe her competence in this way, thoughtful intelligence. thoughtful superior competence. with regard to judge jackson's service as vice chair on the sentencing commission, created by congress to reduce sentencing disparities, her
fellow -- praised her contributions. the first quote, she was gracious, respectful and wonderful to work with. she remained calm and positive even when debating emotional issues for sentencing policy. she was also very trustworthy, absolutely no bias. second quote, she works hard and is committed to the rule of law. third quote, judge jackson was a strong consensus builder during her time as a commissioner who worked across party lines. judge jackson also served on the united states judicial conference committee which oversees the federal defenders program and administration of criminal justice act. judge jackson listens carefully and when she spoke w andeight
-- and weighed in, she would often sway the whole room. she brings a different viewpoint to the court. brilliant and converse of in many areas of law. i do turn to the observation of our scholarly reading groups. our teams of law professors and legal experts from stanford law and the university of illinois college of law, along with practitioners that include former supreme court clerks, law partners, attorneys and veteran evaluators of supreme court nominees, all of whom were impressed. one reviewer who argues reaching -- ritually before the high court, representative of the collective thoughts of all three reading groups, her opinions consistently reveal a deep commitment to legal process. she identifies and states the relative legal standards and
meticulously applies them. the hallmark of her opinion is thoroughness. no matter how routine the case, judge jackson's opinions precisely described the applicable standard and context. painstakingly explains the application of the legal standards. her opinions are also structured. she at all times -- her reason for reaching the decision. her opinions show no favoritism or bias. this type of, is representative and consistent across all reviewers and provides insight into judge jackson's approach. in conclusion, judge jackson's leadership in the legal profession, reputation among such leaders, remarks from each of these groups consisting well over 60 of the top legal minds
and our country, further supports that judge jackson as a preeminent member of the legal profession with outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience merits the highest rating of the american bar association, the rating of well-qualified to serve on the united states supreme court. >> thank you. i also want to acknowledge judge williams and the contributions of stanford and the university of illinois in this process. i want to make a note that virtually everyone involved was doing it on a volunteer basis to serve the needs of the profession. i would also like to establish one other point. i believe judge williams said some 2800 people were contacted, interviewed in this process, represented virtually everyone who came in contact with her professional career who was available to question. it strikes me that this is the
kind of scrutiny that is rare but was done in a professional and complete way. here is the question i have to ask. over the last several days, we have had a handful of senators argue that judge jackson is out of the mainstream when it comes to sentencing, particularly sentencing cases of child pornography. this was stressed over and over and over again. during the course of your interviews of 2800 people who came in contact with her, would such an assertion have arisen during the course of your questioning, people able to observe whether they felt on a professional level there was any truth at all to the charge? judge williams: you said 2800
people we spoke to or interviewed, we cast a very wide net, so we contacted 2800, what we spoke with 250 judges and lawyers who had first-hand knowledge. we do not just rely on someone saying she has a good reputation. we find out what the basis of that is. had they worked alongside her? have they been on a committee with her? with respect to those issues, i will turn to joe drayton, who actually spoke to various prosecutors about the issue because it never came up in any of the interviews we conducted. mr. drayton: we did speak to various prosecutors, the majority of them in child porn cases, none of them felt she demonstrated bias in any way.
i can share a few remarks from the people i personally spoke to. one prosecutor said, i did not observe any bias and the judge was fair to all sides in connection to sentencing in all aspects. another prosecutor said judge jackson displayed competence and integrity throughout the proceedings. her rulings were recent. we ask questions relating to bias, defendants, government and we found no bias. chair durbin: one of the senators on the other site tweeted they felt her sentencing in these child pornography cases and sexual abuse cases endangered children. those were his exact words, endangered children. would that have come out during the course of your interviews with all 250 judges and
professionals who had contact with her? would such a thing have emerged from your questioning? mr. drayton: if someone felt that way, it would have come out in our interviews. we have a confidential process that allows us to have transparent communications. we did not find any evidence of that. chair durbin: no evidence? mr. drayton: no evidence. judge williams: not just the individuals who were listed there that the nominee selects, but beyond that, to test her ability, to test her integrity, to test her ability to be a fair and impartial jurist, and it never came up in any group. chair durbin: the assertion was made over and over and over again that judge jackson was
soft on crime when it came to prosecution versus defense, that her background as a public defender, the fact she would consider representing a detainee being detained at guantanamo bay raised a question on whether she was soft on crime. i assume that means releases people who would be a danger to the community. did you find any evidence from all the people you interviewed of that assertion? judge williams: none whatsoever. jean veta did most of the work in that area. ms. veta: mr. chairman, in response to the question you raised, we heard consistently from not only defense counsel but prosecutors how unbiased judge jackson is. we heard phrases like, doing things by the books. one prosecutor described the sentencing hearing involving a
very high profile, sensitive national security matter. what she said was, it was classic judge jackson. she said i had my sentencing manual, judge jackson had her sentencing manual, we went page by page and it was a very complicated legal issue that they were trained to work their way through. what this prosecutor said was judge jackson put both parties through their cases. what really impressed this prosecutor was after oral argument, judge jackson took a recess, went back to chambers, and when she resumed the bench, came back with a sentence that was more in favor of the government and what more impressed the prosecutor was the judge's ruling included arguments that had been made both by the defense and the prosecutor's during oral arguments.
it is not as if she came into the hearing with her mind made up. she listened to what counsel on both sides said and came up with a sentence that the prosecution was quite happy with. chair durbin: from what i gather, and let me turn to senator grassley, the facts and the observations of 250 professionals belie two of the major criticisms that emerged over the last few days in front of this committee in terms of the sentencing standards being used by judge jackson in very sensitive cases involving exploitation of children, as well as her general approach against prosecution and defense and criminal cases lead those who were her contemporaries and who work with her on a professional basis to conclude she met the highest of legal standards. that is what obviously led to your conclusion.
that she is unanimously well-qualified to serve on the supreme court. judge williams: you are correct. sen. grassley: i think you will find my tone differently than when i have questioned aba, i have been critical of your involvement in this process. i hope you understand -- maybe some of your folks have not been allowed long enough to know my history of criticizing the aba. does it remain the aba's policy to keep confidential the names of the people interviewed, as well as material dealing with analysis of nominees? is this information available to the judiciary committee? judge williams: senator grassley, that is our policy. the names are kept confidential.
the heart of it and the reason is because we want candid, honest statements from those who we interview. if people knew their names would be associated with their comments, nobody would answer our calls. and if our deliberations were shared openly again, even if we did not name a name, one might be able to identify who made particular statements. the whole key of the aba investigation -- sen. grassley: i think i am satisfied with what you said. just give me some justification without having that information that interviews are not stacked for or against a nominee. please give a short answer.
judge williams: the evaluators take what i think is almost like a sacred oath to conduct nonpartisan questioning, to get to the bottom line, to make sure individuals are able to be free to answer the questions that we pose. jean, you might want to comment more on that. sen. grassley: i think you answered that ok. what i need to hear from you, accepting the legitimacy of everything you told me to this point, would there be anything wrong with people interviewing -- for members of this committee seeing that material in a confidential environment? judge williams: there would be a problem with that, senator. sen. grassley: if two people know about anything in washington, d.c., it is no
secret. judge williams: you are right about that. sen. grassley: you gave judge jackson a well-qualified rating, but most recently gave justice amy coney barrett a minority well-qualified rating. beside the reading groups, one objective groups of scale do you use? judge williams: first, if i could make one point, judge barrett received a well-qualified rating. when the majority votes well-qualified or qualified, if it is a majority vote, the rating is well-qualified. we use the same standard for each nominee and we follow the process with justice barrett.
i was not on the committee at the time. certainly, our report is a matter of public record. the bottom line is she received a well-qualified rating from this committee. sen. grassley: give me a rough idea of the objective measurements. judge williams: her analytical skills were excellent, if i recall, from the report. you can refer to that report. our rating was well-qualified. sen. grassley: why did you choose to limit your review of her record to her over 240 published opinions on the district court? judge williams: you mean judge jackson? we focused on published opinions, other writings, we had the reading groups focus on those. we did not delve into the other
orders, many of those were short. many of those did not give us sufficient -- many of the orders were short, i guess that is the easiest way to say it. the published opinions that people view, we felt were more important to review. we also consulted with academic committees and our practitioners group. we felt those writings that were published would be most appropriate. ms. veta: senator grassley, on that point, published opinions in the legal community or relied upon more so than unpublished opinions. it was those opinions she was putting out there for the legal community. sen. grassley: i might have one
question to submit to you for answer in writing. chair durbin: thank you. >> welcome to the members of the panel. i do not know any of you and i do not know your backgrounds, so i do not know if any of you have been involved in the sentencing proceeding. judge williams: i have many times because i served on a district court for 13 years. >> when a federal sentencing proceeding is going on, the judge involved, you in the case of your own courtroom, gives recommendations to what sentence should be imposed from several different sources during the sentencing proceeding, is that correct? judge williams: that is correct. >> one of those sources is the u.s. attorney's office. judge williams: yes. >> they are the prosecutors. judge williams: yes. >> do they customarily ask for
higher sentences? let me go back. the others who offer recommendations to the court on the defense counsel? judge williams: yes. >> the defense counsel will offer recommendations on behalf of the defendant, correct? judge williams: yes. >> the court is also served by the probation department in all of this and the probation department also makes recommendations? judge williams: yes, in a presentence report, senator. >> of those three, is a customarily the prosecutor's office that makes the highest sentencing recommendation? not every time, but for the ordinary course of events in a sentencing? judge williams: i cannot agree with that statement, senator. you are asking me about cases,
generally. >> yes. judge williams: that was not my experience. it was a mix. sometimes the probation officer would make a recommendation higher than the prosecution. sometimes the prosecution's recommendation, the defense did not object if it was lower than what the defense recommended. >> you rarely saw a recommendation lower. judge williams: the sentencing guidelines are an instrument the judges use. the sentencing guidelines -- a defendant is identified by their criminal history. if you have no convictions, you start out as a 1. you look at the crime itself and there are various factors that at the numbers up and you look at the criminal history number and look at the offense number and it gives you a guideline range. that is what judges take into
account, along with what the prosecutor says, the defense counsel says and probation officer says. >> is the recommendation of the united states attorney's office the appropriate benchmark by which to measure a judge's sentence? judge williams: not in my opinion. i think all of those factors we identified are critical in that judge making a decision. >> yes. thank you very much. chair durbin: senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know a lot of hard work went into what you have produced. i want to ask a question, generally about the american bar association. i have been a member of the american bar association in the past. frankly, on occasion, i have been troubled by some of the public advocacy of the american
bar association on behalf of of the legal profession that did not represent my views. i am looking for example at the website of the american bar association and under a heading, it says what is new in washington. the aba president wrote a letter to the secretary of homeland security urging temporary protected status for people who are refugees from ukraine. that is obviously a matter of great public interest. some of the areas that the aba president has also opined on, for example, opposing certain provisions of florida legislation, florida senate bill 1843 and house bill1557, which concerns parental rights in education. that is obviously another matter
of ferment is public interest and discussion in the press and elsewhere. finally, i will mention, because there is a long list but i am trying to give you specifics that hopefully frame my question , there is also a position where the aba is asking for migrants who come across the southwestern border and claim asylum, to provide them lawyers. as you know, there have been 2 million border encounters in the last year alone. obviously, whether or not taxpayers should be required to provide lawyers for people who are not citizens of the united states and are claiming asylum is a controversial matter. i would like to know -- how should people understand aba's
role when it comes to speaking to these matters? are you a public advocacy association? if so, people should be able to understand that some of the opinions you render in terms of judicial qualification should be understood in a larger context. i would appreciate if you took a stab at answering my maybe not well formed question, but i think you get the drift. judge williams: i definitely get the drift. senator, it is important for me to make clear, the only action that the aba takes with respect to the standing committee is appointing members of the committee. we stand alone. the only function that we have is peer reviewed evaluation. we do not stand for the american bar association in the sense
that you made, the positions you outlined, and that is purposeful. it is purposeful that we do our work in rating nominees and to not have anything to do with the policies of the american bar association. both jean and joe have served on the committee longer and might want to comment on that. ms. veta: as judge williams said, we are apart from the aba. i understand the questions you are raising about aba policies and would invite you to ask those of the president of the aba, because as judge williams said, our committee has nothing to do with those policies. >> you are representing the aba, correct? ms. veta: we are representing the standing committee of the federal judiciary committee of the american bar association. >> that is part of the aba, right? ms. veta: we are appointed by the president of the american
bar association but that is the only interaction we have with the aba. >> in times past, the aba has appeared to be, frankly, a partisan during some judicial confirmation proceedings i have participated in during the past and it is a cause for concern. i am not suggesting that is happening today and i take your testimony at face value. i know you have done a lot of hard work and i appreciate that, that is important. your voice is important. but i think one of the things that senator grassley perhaps alluded to in past supreme court nomination proceedings, it appears the american bar association has taken sides, so to speak, in controversial
nominations. i am not suggesting that is the case today but that causes concern about whether we should take the testimony of the standing committee at face value or whether you are a combatant in the political battles that rage here in washington sometimes over judicial nominations. judge williams: senator, just let me say there has been no communication with our committee with the aba about any of our work. mr. drayton: i will follow-up to say we are trained to be independent. we take an oath among our committee members to be independent and we focused on the three criteria -- integrity, judicial temperament. we focus on the record of the nominee, the writings of the
nominee and the feedback we get from the lawyers and judges that practiced with the nominee, against the nominee and administer justice alongside the nominee. >> mr. drayton, i know part of the questioning of the judge had to do with sentencing that senator durbin and others brought up. did the aba review the memorandum as part of the investigation? mr. drayton: we reviewed the publicly available records with a sampling of her sentencing, including the child pornography case and the -- sex offense cases. we looked at whether she did in fact in some cases look at sentencing statistics of other judges. we looked at the record and she did not appear to favor either side. >> you said publicly available.
i have heard the chairman talk about his concerns about public distribution of some of the sentencing memorandum. you did not review all of judge jackson's sentencing memoranda, only a portion, is that correct? judge williams: perhaps i can clarify. the presentence report is highly confidential. >> you did not review that? judge williams: it is highly confidential because of the rights of the individual defendant. we could not review the presentence report. secondly, they were not transcripts of all the hearing stared if we had a transcript of the hearing, we could review that. there are memos filed, those are public. what position the prosecution takes, the defense text, that is available in public record. we did as much as we could. >> the only point i was trying
to make is you did not have access to everything in her record but you did have access to what was public, is that correct? judge williams: yes. we thought that was sufficient. mr. drayton: a substantial amount of the record. >> you had me until you said you thought that was sufficient. how'd you know if you did not get access to the rest of the record? mr. drayton: we spoke to prosecutors and defense attorneys and they give us their thoughts and opinions. they said she calls balls and strikes, she is fair. folks talk, they mingle, they are out at bars and her reputation is stellar. we pressed hard, we asked questions. >> that is especially true in my experience of the legal profession.
these people you talk to are anonymous to us, they have been unnamed for the reasons judge williams describe? mr. drayton: correct. >> thank you very much. chair durbin: senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for your good work. we have heard from some of our colleagues on the others of the aisle. there was a mix of questioning that somehow the judge would have a personal agenda of her own that she would bring to the court. after hours of listening to her answer questions, i think it is pretty clear to me and anyone who watched the hearing that that just is not true. you did a careful review of her background and her record and i assume you were able to watch some of the hearings. i do not think you were sequestered during the hearing.
is there anything in her record or in the answers she gave before the committee that will make you believe she will be anything but it on partial, evenhanded justice? judge williams: number 1, signer, we were not glued to the hearings, we were preparing for our testimony. there is nothing that has come to our attention to change our well-qualified rating. >> very good. i was in the arena as a prosecutor, in my case, hundreds of thousands of cases and supervising hundreds of lawyers. it is always easy for anyone to step back and pick apart any case. you can say someone is too tough, which i have heard, or you can say they are too weak,
which i have also heard. your review and actually talking to the people who worked with her and appeared before her are really quite important. this is the same kind of review you have done for other justices regardless of the political party of the president, is that correct? mr. drayton: correct. >> one of the things i brought up with her yesterday was that of her over 500 opinions, nearly 600 opinions, she only had a 3% reversal rate. in one case she and i discussed, she actually wrote an opinion of a d.c. circuit reversal, the u.s. supreme court reversed the d.c. circuit judge and sided with her unanimously and clarence thomas wrote the
opinion. i think it is an interesting twist about people having agenda and a judge calling things as they are. in general, when it comes to reversal rates, is that something you look at? would you be alarmed if she had a high reversal rate as opposed to what we see here? judge williams: we certainly look at reversal rates and i think mr. drayton can comment on the reaction of our reading groups who looked specifically at those cases, as well in what their conclusions were. mr. drayton: first, senator, the conclusions were the cases where she was reversed she was looking at unsettled legal questions and thus they were questions of first impression. when they looked at her analysis, they found her analysis to be reasonable. they felt she had difficult
questions of statutory interpretation. they felt her record was excellent given the fact that less than 2% effort cases were reversed. >> very good. i wanted to thank you for your good work. i read some of the comments of some of the people you interviewed, but i guess i will end with that. she is one of the brightest legal minds in the country. we have a lot of smart people, but she is brilliant. studying her opinions, my favorite, it is like a master class in judicial writing. finally, which is very important after the hearing yesterday, judge jackson has the perfect temperament for a judge. with that, i will thank you. chair durbin: senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do not think anyone has ever
said about us that we have the perfect temperament for a senator. [laughter] >> no comment. >> thank you. i want to first of all thank you for the hours and hours and hours and energy you have put into this work that the aba does. i know how thoughtfully and carefully you view somebody's record, also to sift through the different opinions that you encounter, having been in the arena, as senator klobuchar says. people go at each other in the courtroom. and in litigation. that can leave scars,
animosities that sometimes are elicited when you do this kind of report. what i find amazing is nobody has a bad thing to say about judge jackson. nobody says -- mr. drayton: that impression is correct. you talk about prosecutors, we talk about the defense counsel, many defense counsel are former prosecutors. when we speak to these attorneys, they have a different perspective. it is surprising. that unanimously, the bar appreciates judge jackson, says she has high competency, integrity and competency.
ms. veta: we talk to lawyers and judges around the country and what was remarkable was how consistent they were in their comments about how everyone gets a fair shake. >> i think that is really what comes through, everybody gets a fair shake. she listens so intently and carefully to everyone who comes into her courtroom and that seems to be the hallmark of her professional career. then she listens well to people and assesses fairly the grievances they make. let me talk about this. i do not think, if i were to ask most judges, they would know how to answer the question of what is your judicial philosophy?
you do not ask people to evaluate her judicial philosophy, do philosophy, do you? that seems so amorphous and issue you wouldn't be able to evaluate? ms. veta: that is correct for two reasons. what is a judicial philosophy and how would we measure it? instead we focus on criteria that people do understand. that is because the nominee have the requisite integrity, and judicial temperament? sen. blumenthal: a couple of last questions. if you were given more time to do this assessment -- you have done it very thoroughly and carefully -- you feel you have been given enough time and you
had access to enough information and records, there is no question in your mind that there is nothing missing here that you would have wanted to see? ms. veta: there is no question in my mind that there is a subject we missed. i feel very comfortable with the review we did. it was comprehensive. it was nonpartisan. it reached out to people and asked probing questions on particular topics we knew that there had been allegations about and none of them handout. instead we got -- none of them panned out. instead we got that she meets the criteria that she is well-qualified. judge williams: i agree. to give you an idea, when the president mentioned when justice breyer stepped down, our committee immediately went into action. we already had all of the email addresses of all of the judges, federal judges, throughout the
country. we were ready to hit the button as soon as we knew who the nominee was. there was nothing more that we could have done. we are absolutely convinced we covered it. we cast a wide net for that purpose. we have circuit representatives that know the judges and law deans in their area, so circuit representatives are comfortable and those in their circuits are comfortable with them and we are confident that we covered the landscape. mr. drayton: i agree as well, senator. sen. blumenthal: i appreciate your candor and completeness of the work you've done. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member grassley, for your testimony and your work. i take very seriously my constitutional obligations and
responsibilities with respect to advice and consent on behalf of my constituents in georgia and want to just engage you and interrogate the work that you've done and the conclusions you've drawn. you are here under oath, correct? and you conducted a robust review of the nominee's professional record, correct? you interviewed colleagues, counsel, all who had argued cases before her, correct? you convened reading groups that undertook a comprehensive review of her public decision, is that correct? please, judge williams, what were your conclusions with respect to the nominee's reputation for integrity? judge williams: outstanding, excellent, superior, superb.
those were the comments of virtually everyone we interviewed. sen. ossoff: judge, that is substantial praise. i want to clarify that you're not here in an advocacy or partisan role? judge williams: we are not. we are doing pure review, which -- peer review, which means we get all of the information and then relay that information to the senate judiciary committee as it applies to the standards that we use to measure a nominee. sen. ossoff: as the organization has undertaken such reviews of past nominees nominated by presidents of both parties? what were your conclusions regarding judge jackson's professional competence based on this review? ms. veta: that she has the highest degree of professional competence and is admired by both the bench and bar as a
result of her keen intellect, strong analytical skills, and clarity and sophistication in her writing. sen. ossoff: thank you. mr. drayton, you undertook as part of this review analysis based on these interviews raised on the review of the nominee's record and the assessment of her overall professional competence and qualifications? what were your conclusions? mr. drayton: correct. she has the highest attribute when it comes to professional competence. sen. ossoff: thank you, mr. drayton. what were the conclusions of the reading groups, judge williams, that were convened to assess her conventional history? judge williams: i will let mr. drayton focus on that, but it was of the highest caliber. mr. drayton: correct. the reading groups found her writing was meticulous, she
considered all arguments, she made a roadmap of her arguments that the layperson could understand. they looked at her reversals and they found that she was reasonable, they found that she took sound legal positions, and in areas of law they looked at how she also had her record supported by the supreme court in one of her reversals. the reading group, who are the top legal minds in the united states, felt that she was a phenomenal writer, and they felt that she was well-qualified, in their opinion based on her writing, to be part of the united states supreme court. sen. ossoff: my final question, if i can move down the venture beginning with you, your organization, did you encounter in this review any derogatory information or testimony that raised serious questions about the nominee's integrity,
qualifications, or impartiality? ms. veta: we did not. judge williams: absolutely nothing. mr. drayton: not a thing. sen. durbin: i recognize senator whitehouse for the few remaining moments of his time and we will try to establish if senator blackburn is available after him. if she could reach out to us and let us know if you will be contacting us virtually. sen. whitehouse: i would like to ask judge williams, are you familiar with the phrase asked and answered? judge williams: i am. sen. whitehouse: under what circumstances would the phrase asked and answered come up? judge williams: when a witness is asked a question then continues to be asked the same question there would be an objection by opposing counsel, and that objection would be sustained.
sen. whitehouse: the role of the judge is to do what? judge williams: the role of the judge is to monitor the trial, to monitor, to make sure that the evidence is coming in and is properly admitted. when i say administer, something like ask and answered, if we allowed counsel to ask the same questions over and over we would never conclude the trial. judges manage trials. that is part of the critical role of a judge. sen. whitehouse: thank you, your honor. sen. durbin: thank you to the panel, senator blackburn has informed us she will not be participating in this panel. i want to thank you for your service today you gave today, your testimony, your dedication in helping the american people better understand the qualifications of nominee judge jackson. >> if i can say in response to
senator whitehouse, we can only dream that our proceedings here in the legislative branch were as efficient, orderly, and relied upon nonhearsay information like you did in your courtroom, judge. thank you very much. judge williams: may be, senator, you need a judge in the chamber. [laughter] sen. corbyn: we have one. a retired supreme court justice. sen. durbin: we have to do a little bit of logistical work. these 10 witnesses are from five from the majority and five from the minority. when they arrive we will call on them alphabetically, alternating between majority and minority.
i will go through the list of witnesses. it appears -- first i will start with the majority witnesses. representative joyce beatty, ohio's third congressional district serves as the chair for the congressional black caucus. risa goluboff, forgive me if i did not pronounce it right. the dean of the university of of law. wade henderson, the president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. richard rosenthal, the childhood friend of judge jackson. captain frederick thomas, national president of the national organization of black law enforcement executives, also known as noble. minority witnesses include attorney general steve marshall of alabama -- i hope he is here. professor jennifer mascott of
george mason university's antonin scalia law school. eleanor mccullen, petitioner in the case of mccullen versus coakley. keisha russell, counsel at first liberty. and alessandra serano from operation underground railroad. before you all get comfortable i will swear you in. i will ask each of you if able please rise or raise your right hand. do you or from the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect that all of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. we will alternate between majority and minority and try to do this alphabetically. the staff starts with congresswoman beatty. be sure to punch the button so that we can hear you. judge beatty: good morning, chairman, ranking member grassley, members of the committee. i am the chair of the congressional black caucus, representative for ohio's third district and proud hbcu graduate. it is an honor to appear before you to express my strong, unwavering support for the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to the supreme court of the united states. as the nation has learned in these hearings, judge jackson is an exceptionally qualified jurist of unimpeachable character.
as chair of the congressional black caucus i speak on behalf of of 59 members of congress, including 28 black women and 31 black men. together, representing 17 million black americans and 82 million americans. for over two centuries since our country's founding, the court consisted exclusively of white men. of the 115 justices, 108 have been white men. judge jackson would be only the sixth woman and first black woman to serve on our nation's highest court. if confirmed she would shatter a glass ceiling that many americans, including those who fought and died for voting rights, a more perfect union, and a just america believed that they would never live to see it broken. as a black woman myself, i urge
this body to remember judge jackson's confirmation vote must not be isolated to her gender or race. instead, i urge you to closely examine her credentials and sterling judiciary record. to me, they read like a story book for a perfectly prepared jurist to sit on the nation's highest court. she is grounded in value, love of god, and country, and academic excellence. in my recent conversation with her, it became immediately clear why president biden chose her. her life experience, education, and reverence for the rule of law clearly demonstrate she has been preparing for this moment her entire life. senators, this week quoted dr. king.
as i am reminded to paraphrase, king said give us the ballot so we can put judges on the bench who will do justice and love mercy. judge jackson will do exactly that. sadly but not surprisingly, judge jackson has been the subject of unfair attacks. these bad faith efforts exist despite a resume that arguably surpasses those of previous nominees. i remind this body and america just last year judge jackson was confirmed by this body on a bipartisan vote to serve on the d.c. circuit court, and that she clerked for justice breyer, whose very seat she is being considered for. judge jackson's confirmation will send a message to black women and little girls like my granddaughter leah, whose
mother is the first black woman to serve on the court of appeals. her first known president was a black man and now she sees a black female vice president.if a guidance counselor tells her that your goals are too high, she will remember how judge jackson soared against adversity is one of our nation's brightest legal minds. i want to be crystal clear. judge jackson will be a judge that will serve all of america and all of america can be proud of. watching judge jackson sit at this very table displaying poise, grace, courage, and brilliant snow matter what was thrown at her reminds me the heroes whose shoulders she stands on. from ida b wells, to rosa parks, to the first black woman to argue at the supreme court, the
first black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. these heroic americans and judge jackson remind me of this phrase, senators, never limit yourself because of others' limited imagination. never limit others because of your own limited imagination. lastly, the congressional black caucus often called the conscience of the congress is encouraging senators did deep into their hearts and minds to root out any unconscious bias or discrimination as this process moves forward. cbc stands with judge jackson to make sure she will be treated with dignity and respect she deserves. let's change america and confirm her with a bipartisan vote. sen. durbin: appreciate you being here this morning. now we have the attorney general of the state of alabama.
judge marshall: thank you for the ability to testify. i'm steve marshall and i'm am the attorney the state of alabama. i am here for an experience of dedicated prosecutors that are concerned about the direction our country is headed as it relates to law & order. this is well acquainted with the wave of lawlessness that has swept across our nation in the past few years leading to a surge in crime, including a horrific spike in homicides, unseen since the 1990's was that this week presents an important opportunity to discuss the role that judiciary plays in the criminal justice system and the effect that judges' decisions have on public safety. one supporter, and executive director of an influentia group that support city funding the police at a moment when there has been an effort to
reform our broken criminal justice system signaled the commitment to pursuing criminal justice reform at the highest level. i strongly disagree with the assessment that our criminal justice system is broken, but the observation that disappointment may be well intended by this administration. judge jackson described it as a fundamental redesign of our system. as we know from history, the united states supreme court can absolutely transform criminal justice for better or for worse. the senate must now do its due diligence to ensure that the ideology of the anti-incarceration and anti-police movement that the biden administration has increasingly embraced is never permitted to make its way onto our supreme court. as detailed in our written testimony criminal justice advocacy groups have repeatedly highlighted judge jackson as the jurist focused on serving the
most vulnerable and giving a voice to the voiceless, referring all -- also to the socioeconomic defender population as evidence of bias in a broken system. while overlooking the convenient reality that the race and socioeconomic status of a crime victim is often identical to his or her offenders. the bureau statistics found that the offender was of the same race or ethnicity as the victim in 70% of violent offenses involving black victims and 62% of violent offenses involving white victims. that same report showed that the largest percentage of violent crime victims were from households with annual incomes of less than 20 $5,000 annually. another study on crime victims found that the overall risk of violent victimization is highest among persons who are younger, male, black, living in the poorest households, and living in urban areas. these voices matter too. judge jackson' is now if law if
article gives me no assurance that she would give voice to the voiceless victims of sex crimes. in that note she questioned the sex offender notification requirement, a commonsense public safety measure that this body passed with bipartisan support and that the public overwhelmingly approves. remarkably, the word victim did not appear once in her analysis. promoting the false credence that the american criminal justice system is unfair, a reference that judge jackson used in the opening line of a 2020 opinion, undermines justice itself, denigrates the rule of law, impedes the ability of law enforcement to protect and serve, and impairs the ability of prosecutors to keep violent criminals behind bars. all of this is most detrimental to the very voices that judge jackson claims to speak for. i have heard nothing this week to alleviate my fears that judge jackson believes a fundamental redesign is needed
in our justice system and she would be so inclined to use her position on the court to this end. for this reason i respectfully oppose her nomination. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. i ask that my written testimony be accepted for the record. sen. durbin: without objection. thank you attorney general marshall. ms. goluboff: i have known her personally since 1998 and i followed her career since that time. i taught constitutional law and legal history at the university of virginia and served as the dean of the school of losses 2016 and i'm speaking in my personal, not professional capacity, and my testimony is not based on the views or positions on the university of virginia. it is my personal view of a scholar placing judge jackson in a broader historical perspective and context of god in the judicial role. my conclusion is that the supreme court nomination will
benefit enormously from the keen intelligence and impeccable integrity, broad experience, and intellectual open-mindedness of justice jackson. before i return to the main portion of my testimony let my ask for a brief reflection on the historic nature of this appointment. it was 56 years ago that the senate had judge jackson's role model to be the first -- that she shares just modly's birthday is a happy coincidence. that she shares her status as a trailblazer is more than that. it is causal. she and we would not be here without judge motley and others like her who pave the way. i have three main points. judge jackson is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court of the united states. a few numbers, she holds two degrees of latin honors from harvard university, served as a law clerk to three federal judges, nominated by presidents of two parties, confirmed by
bipartisan votes of the senate three times to federal office. she has accumulated 26 years of legal experience, seven in private practice and 19 in public service, including two years as a federal public defender and six as -- and nine as a judge on to federal courts. the abbreviated description makes clear that judge jackson will bring enormous distinction to the supreme court and highlights how her varied experience will enrich her own opinions as a justice and collective deliberations of the court. judge jackson has represented clients from well resourced corporations to the unpopular is her robust embrace of the vocation to serve and her commitment to the rule of law and an adversarial system in which every party is entitled and criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled to advocacy. her insights to the district court will enhance
understanding. this brings me to my second point about the salutary judicial approach judge jackson has valid out of shared experience. as a trial judge she showed deep respect for precedent and has written about the judge's role in the constitutional scheme as a simultaneously crucial and modest. accordingly, her opinions are based on precedent and committed to the rule of law. they are fact-based, pragmatic, open-minded, analytical. of 500 cases judge jackson has decided, environmental, criminal charges, employment discrimination, business disputes, she has found in favor of plaintiffs and defendants. for individuals, nonprofits, businesses, and the government. one cannot presume what judge jackson's ruling will be based on the parties for -- party's affiliation. what remains constant across the
opinions is judge jackson's commitment to applying presidents to the facts before her and maintaining procedural consistency, reasoning with common sense and humanity, and in doing justice with the parties ruling with the rule of law. these place judge heartland in the mainstream of the american judicial tradition. my final point is personal and scholarly about the connection between judge jackson and justice breyer for who she and i both clerked. judge jackson is her own judge and -- that said, to similarities they are highlighting. justice breyer and justice jackson share deeply held patriotism which they absorb from family members who dedicated their professional lives to public service. justice jackson believes as justice breyer in the value of the american constitution. judge jackson like justice breyer has been interested in hearing the views of others and
sharing her own. she has worked with lawyers across the political spectrum and found consensus with her colleagues on the sentencing commission and d.c. circuit judge. after justice breyer announced his retirement i reflected that the lessons he taught me are ones i rely on every day. the attitude for dialogue, optimism, open heartedness, and joy. sen. durbin: the next person to testify is professor jennifer mascott of george mason university and test khalil law school. ms. mascott: it is an honor to appear before the committee to discuss the nomination as the hearings have so far
demonstrated that judge jackson has a wealth of experience and is well respected. my testimony will focus on the constitutional doctrines applicable to the role of the court within our constitutional system and judicial philosophy. as the preamble states, the constitution was ordained by the people to establish justice to form a more perfect union and the nomination process under consideration today demonstrates the success of that effort. the constitution's instructions include two critical frameworks for liberty. federalism, the division of power with significant freedom retained by the people and their critical institutions like family and religious bodies, and the horizontal separation of power across three distinct ranges. the federal structure is the primary protection of the two that lays the groundwork for the enumerated limited nature that any branch of the federal
government may exercise. the constitution doesn't empower the federal government to enact any law in any form. article one sets forward enumerated limited powers that only those legislative powers herein granted in that power making body of the u.s. congress. it makes federal action difficult and cumbersome and serving as a brake on the federal government's ability to regulate people within its enumerated areas. one interpretation of the proper role of these safeguards is a critical component of one's understandings of the role of each federal branch and is critical to understanding judicial philosophy. the components of federal power are front in center, that article three extends to constitution, federal laws and treaties under them, and certain categories of controversies. as discussion demonstrates it discuss applications of the text and rule of law, not shifting policy preferences, cultural norms, or extensions from
governing texts. the pre-limited authorizations involve concrete cases and disputes and ensure that they are not charged with general responsibility of natural policy or opinions on legal questions and particularly when deciding cases under federal laws and the constitution. the article three judge must interpret and apply the text and limit the power of cases and controversies that suggest caution in the imposition of remedies. in article three nominee's judicial philosophy should reflect deep awareness of implementation. the number of supreme court before this body that previously testified, the most consistent with the costal tool -- constitutional role of judge seeks to identify the ordinary meaning of the relevant legal, became law. originalism is the identification of original public meaning at the time of ratification consistent with constitutional provision such as article seven providing that the
constitution will become governing law as its ratification by the conventions of nine states. judges take a constitutionally required oath to be bound by the constitution and the laws of the united states made pursuant thereof. finally, the constitution provides for a finely grained amendment process of substantially challenging hurdles. this process cannot be overcome by cultural norms apart from constitutional texts. original public meetings to identify the meaning of constitutional limit text at the time of given effect is consistent with these principles and the statutory interpretive framing ologies is consistent with these constraints. as article seven gives authority to the constitutional texts, article one section seven indicates statutes of governing effects enacted by congress and the president. the texts of those enacted laws, the publicly understood texts at the time governs the proper interpretation of the laws.
judge jackson like higher nominees has reticulated contextualism commitment to these methodologies hinges on their practice. when asked about judicial philosophy judge jackson declined to identify commitment to a philosophy and instead focused on a multistep effort highlighting steps looking at briefs, looking at records, congressional intent, purpose, and precedent. it is challenging to discern a approach on the supreme court based on service on a federal district court, but hesitance to commit to a judicial philosophy could lead flexibility for the interpretation of various approaches during supreme court service and judge jackson's interpretation during her methodology suggests more reliance on legislative history and textural sources and sources than that used by texturally committed jurist like justice scalia, justice thomas, and justices barrett, justice
kavanaugh, and justice gorsuch. her body of work suggests she may have a different view than a traditionally applied originalism in the recent decision involving a conflict in the congress and executive branch. the determination that was later reversed by the d.c. circuit judge that cause of action outside the judicial role. despite weighing constitutional principles, the role of senate, interpretive philosophy, and consideration of nominees the interpretation of law consistent with original textualism is important to maintain limits on governmental power and preserve liberty. thank you for the opportunity. sen. durbin:sen. durbin: wade henderson, president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. mr. henderson: i am the president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil
and human rights, a national coalition of more than 230 organizations dedicated to building and america as good as its ideals. thank you for inviting me to share our coalition's strong support for the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson as an associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. by any standard she is an exceptionally qualified nominee. when confirmed, judge jackson will make history as the first black woman to serve on the supreme court and it will have been 55 years after civil rights lawyer thurgood marshall was confirmed as the nation's first black supreme court justice. we have waited far too long for this day, but we are nonetheless overjoyed that it has finally arrived. judge jackson's presence on the court will matter tremendously. we know that a more racially diverse court includes the perspectives of communities who
have been traditionally excluded from seats of power, and that judges from different demographic and legal backgrounds infuse more viewpoints into their deliberations. importantly, a diverse court helps communities trust that judicial decisions are not biased in favor of a select few. as you have heard this week, judge jackson will be the first public defender on the court and first justice with any significant criminal defense experience since justice marshall. this is vital. public defenders played pivotal role in our legal system protecting the constitutional rights of people who cannot afford lawyers. they remain vastly underrepresented on the federal bench. institutions that we entrust to safeguard our democracies, including the supreme court, must work for everyone. it is imperative for the federal
judiciary to be made up of fair-minded judges and justices who are committed to civil and human rights of all and to reflect diverse experience. our communities depend on the federal courts to administer justice and importantly to recognize injustice from the perspective of many. judge jackson, who has a commitment to defending the constitutional rights of all, is exactly who we need on the supreme court. as the district court and circuit court judge, judge jackson demonstrated her evenhanded approach to the law. her record is immense. while we may not always agree with her decisions, her commitment to follow the law and the measured ways in which she has approached the law has been remarkable. judge jackson's impressive record, on and off the bench, demonstrates that she is a fair-minded arbiter of justice, and it is why the civil and human rights community has so
strongly endorsed her. last week, the leadership conference sent a letter to senators signed by nearly 200 national organizations calling for her confirmation. we know that her distinguished career, her collegiality for all she encounters, or remarkable judicial temperament, and her demonstrated commitment to equal justice make her the perfect choice. 57 years ago tomorrow, dr. king and thousands of foot soldiers arrived in montgomery, alabama after marching from selma in their quest for voting rights. decades later this historic moment represents yet another step in our nation's long march towards a more inclusive democracy. as dr. king said that they, the ark of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. today we must recognize judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court will bend that arc
a little more. all of us are impacted by decisions of the court and can be confident justice jackson will continue to do her part to keep the sacred promise of our courts and our country. thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions. sen. durbin: thank you, mr. henderson. the order is different here. the next witness is eleanor mccullen. ms. mccullen: mr. chairman, ranking member grassley, members of this wonderful committee, my name is eleanor mccullen and i am honored to be with you today as you consider the nomination of judge jackson to the supreme court. i also would like to say i am grateful for all of your service to our country. i have dedicated my life and
service to empowering women as a sidewalk counselor. i was also the lead plaintiff in an important free-speech case, the: versus coakley -- mccullen versus coakley. i would like to touch on two topics that are near and dear to my heart. the first, the importance of empowering and supporting pregnant women who feel alone and without options. two, the importance of confirming judges committed to preserving one of america's most cherished freedoms, the freedom of speech. for over 20 years i have served as a sidewalk counselor, and i offer hope, help, and love to the boston women and their families. so many women i have met believe that their only choice is to end
the life of their baby. it is in that moment of isolation and fear that i have the privilege of offering a different choice. one that empowers and encourages the woman to know she is fully capable of becoming a mom and pursuing a job and going to school and having a successful and happy life. when i see a woman approaching, coming down commonwealth avenue, i always say good morning, i'm eleanor. how can i help you? it is a powerful moment when a woman looks at me and our eyes connect and she stops to talk. it is in that moment that i promise her she will never walk her journey alone. of course, women often share with me their fears and concerns
about their pregnancy. i honor their concerns and i say i understand. that is a challenge. i also know you can do it with support, and i will support you with all my kinds of support. i will stand with you throughout the nine months and beyond. i will hold your hand. i am able to provide the mothers whatever resources they might need in that moment, including medical care, financial support. of course, they come to our house. of course, baby clothing and bassinets. i have had many, many, many baby showers. helping them financially to go back to school. i stick with the mothers and their families for as long as they need my help. for me, it is a joy to be able
to offer women love and kindness no matter what time of night or day they might call and need me. being able to watch the children grow up, children who would not be here had the mother not stopped to talk to me, this is an incredible privilege. in the midst of this joy i know firsthand the pain of being unable to serve women when the government tries to violate our right to free speech. in 2007 massachusetts enacted a buffer zone. it was a law prohibiting pro-life speakers from coming within 35 feet of the entrance of an abortion facility. as you might imagine this prevented us from being compassionate and serving women and their babies because the law prevented us from having quiet,
intimate conversations with them. i quickly realized that if i wanted to continue supporting women and babies as a sidewalk counselor i had to challenge the law. even though i never thought i would be part of a lawsuit in that i couldn't compromise or allow massachusetts to rob americans of our constitutional freedoms. i stood for women, i stood for the babies, and for every american's right to free speech regardless of their views on life and abortion. i was deeply saddened to find out that judge jackson while in private practice advocated in favor of massachusetts' previous buffer zone law in her amicus brief on behalf of abortion clinics. she and her colleagues maligned pro-life counselors,
characterizing us in ugly and false ways. her misrepresentations certainly don't describe me or any of the sidewalk counselors i have worked with over the years. indeed, the entire reason that i challenged the buffer zone law was because i did not want to shout from a distance, or come across as a woman with no compassion. thankfully, in 2014 all nine justices of the supreme court ruled that massachusetts' buffer zone did violate the first amendment. when a woman is alone, sidewalk counselors walk with her in that moment. when a child is minutes from losing his/her life, sidewalk counselors serve as their voice.
the unborn have no voice. as americans we will disagree on many important issues, but that is the beauty of why our constitution protects free speech and allows each of us to speak truth with love. my hope is that this will remain upheld. i will ask justice jackson that she will continue to uphold all americans first amendment freedoms. i would like to end with a story that happened this week. i was home and the telephone rang. a woman said, eleanor? i said, yes. she said i'm glad to talk with you.
i was just looking through my baby book of my three month old little girl. underneath the picture of the baby was my card. my card that i give out at hope, health, and love and she pasted that in the album under the baby picture. that was my card and number and she called me. she said rose is now 18. she is graduating from high school, she is on her way to college, and i want to thank you for being there that day in january and you talked to me. i have to tell you, rose is the joy of our life. in conclusion, you might ask, why am i so passionate about supporting mothers and free speech? well, it is called love.
love, you can't argue with that. thank you so much for listening. sen. durbin: thank you for being here today. we appreciate it. mr. richard rosenthal. mr. rosenthal: chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the honor of appearing before you today. a few weeks from now i will marry my fiance anna, and today i get to testify in the support of the nomination of my lifelong friend judge ketanji brown jackson to be on the supreme court, so i feel especially blessed these days. and, get well soon, dad. i love you. i have known catania brown jackson for 38 years. we met in 1984 as students in a public junior high school in miami, florida. i was 12 and she was 14. we were friends right away.
38 years later we still remain dear friends. from the very first day that i met ketanji in she was special. in my entire life i have never met anyone like her. in junior high and at our large public high school, could tonja was -- ketanji with seemingly everywhere and everything. the president of the student body, the graduating senior voted most likely to succeed. in our debate program she was the national champion in her event. she was the one student who stood out as universally loved and admired by everyone. her fellow students, teachers, and administrators alike. ketanji's incandescent brilliance was obvious to all of us from day one, but even more importantly she has always been one of the kindest, warmest, most humble and down-to-earth people i've ever met.
all of this while possessing boundless charisma, drive, maturity, and grace.for all of these remarkable characteristics to somehow reside in the same one person, i suppose you can understand why everyone who knows ketanji believes she was destined for greatness. i can go on and on describing her amazing qualities, but let me relate to stories from our high school days. ketanji wasn't just a supernova national champion from our debate club, though she was. she was the unofficial leader of our tightknit debate family, acting basically as a student coach and mentor for younger students. outside in the grassy area between the schools hallways, we would sit crosslegged on the ground in rapt attention while ketanji would explain the keys to success. in particular the need for preparation, poise, discipline, and hard work.
she was a born leader. no matter how high she would climb, she always through ladders to the rest of us and helped us on our upward climb to the best of our ability. for a few weeks ketanji's past and my past overlap as we served as law clerks for judges on the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit. she was finishing her one-year appellate clerkship and i was beginning line. for those few weeks i confessed that i felt a surge of excitement and satisfaction because i accomplished something ketanji had accomplished. ketanji has never been about comparing herself to anyone else's accomplishments. she sets her own goals and works tirelessly to achieve them. in the nearly 40 years that i have known ketanji, i can't remember her saying an unkind word to anybody, or even an unkind word about anybody. that is not her nature and not
how her amazing parents raised her. that leads me to my second story about high school. the fall of 1987i was a sophomore and ketanji was a senior. in our latin american history class i sat next to her, but on this day her chair was in the. the school principal came on the pa system and announced that a handful of the senior class had been accepted to harvard college, a huge achievement for our large often underfunded public high school. at the moment that the principal announced ketanji's name she walked into the classroom. the entire classroom left to its feet, exploded in applause, and ran over to ketanji to embrace her. it was one of the most genuine, heartwarming moments i had ever seen. every student was so happy for ketanji and proud of her accomplishments. no one was jealous or resentful, and nobody was surprised because she was ketanji.
for decades later the president of the united states has nominated ketanji to be a supreme court justice. it seems fitting. this is what great americans are supposed to do. they are supposed to achieve great things. ketanji brown jackson is a great american. personally, i feel blessed to have been born in a country that can produce such an extraordinary person. my parents have great memories as jews who escaped nazi germany. they with my parents reiterated what an amazing country this is because in america everyone can succeed. my parents and grandparents were right. in america a great person like the honorable ketanji brown jackson can indeed succeed and ascend to a position of great trust and responsibility. members of the senate, by confirming this extraordinary woman to a seat on the supreme court you will honor everything
that is good and right about america. for the good of our country and the good in our country, i hope that you will. sen. durbin: thank you, mr. rosenthal. ms. russell: i'm a constitutional lawyer at first liberty institute. first liberty is a national legal organization with the mission to ensure religious liberty for all americans. i am also the daughter of jamaican-born parents and a former elementary school teacher at atlanta public schools. i am here to explain how critical race theory may impact the judicial philosophy including the fulfillment to uphold the constitution and remain impartial and uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary. it is a subset of critical theory that began with emmanuelle in the 1970's. it rejected the enlightenment and age of reason on which the american republic was
founded. it treats that all human relationships are between the oppressor and oppressed. it helped establish totalitarian ideologies like marxism and nazi-ism. that racism exists as a systemic and structural force. crt teaches that racism is embedded in the economy and education system and demands whiteness as the norm. number one, believing that america was founded on racist ideals is wrong and incompatible with a judge to uphold the constitution. crt claims that it was promoting racism and slavery. historians have debunked this as false. america's founders were divided on the issue of slavery and many
founders were abolitionists. the core ideas of freedom and equality and independence in the constitution sparked movements that led to the eventual elimination of slavery and jim crow. crt is erroneously and a giants to the civil rights movement and some assert that dr. king was a critical race theorist but he was not. king would argue that the head of the alabama police and southern racists were violating the principles of the american founding, but critical race theory argue the opposite. that he was the fulfillment of the american founding because america was founded to perpetuate white supremacy. ultimately you cannot expect someone who described critical race theory to perfect the constitution. it is not worth defending. it would completely contradict the oath that a justice takes. number two, a judge that embraces critical race theory that america must embrace racism cannot be an impartial judge.
racism is the result of individual feelings of superiority and prejudice and there is no doubt that laws will further erase society. racism must first be alive in the individual before it can be alive in society. when unaddressed presidents meets power there will be an unintended pregnancy that will give birth to the evil of racism. you cannot address racism by encouraging racist behavior. one advocate recently declared that the only remedy to prevent discrimination is discrimination. the oppressed group must be granted advantages in society to the detriment of the oppressor group to address past injustices. crt removes the principle of equality before the law that is necessary for justice decision-making. consider how crt philosophy can influence the judge's criminal
sentencing if a judge believes that the only way to correct racism is to provide advantages. this would create -- a justice who embraces crt views may not have impartiality. the justice must uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary and cannot do so she considers racism in her decision-making. racism does not determine the outcome of any minorities educational, professional, or economic accomplishments. my own testimony as a reflection of this truth. i am a first-generation american and the daughter of jamaican-born parents and despite the fact that my parents came to this country to build a lie from the ground up my parents still raised many successful children. crt doesn't acknowledge that we are all individually responsible for the lives that we live and success that we
obtain. crt makes race that proved dominant -- the predominant relevant factor. she cannot uphold the oath if she believes the constitution and principles of american founding are inherently racist and flawed. neither can a judge administer justice independently of she holds a philosophy that correcting racism is affording oppressed classes more than oppressed classes. -- for these reasons first liberty opposes the nomination. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. sen. durbin: next, captain frederick thomas. capt. thomas: good morning.
i bring you greetings on behalf of the executive board, members, and constituents of noble. my name is frederick thomas and i'm the national president of noble and current captain for the office in baton rouge, louisiana. i've served more than 30 years in the law-enforcement profession and 26 years in the louisiana army national guard. i'm a military combat veteran who served in support of operation iraqi freedom. the organization that i represent is noble and the mission is equity in the administration of justice and public service to all communities and to serve as the conscience of law enforcement by being committed to justice by actions. that consist of chief executive office and command officers from federal, state, country, county,
municipal law enforcement agencies in criminal justice practitioners. to provide written testimony in the nomination of kentaji brown jackson. general jackson brings a long resume including her background in public service, federal public defender and a federal judge for the district of columbia. throughout her career, joe jackson has demonstrated deep knowledge and respect for law -- judge jackson has demonstrated deep knowledge and respect for law.
endorsing judge jackson. she has a unique perspective on the needs of law enforcement through the association upper family members in the profession. judge jackson has two officers, one was a detective for the miami county and the other for miami police apartment. in addition, it is our opinion that the relation with the complexity challenges and opportunity within law enforcement divides perspective on criminal justice issues that can reassess through the supreme court. in evaluating in track record, other law enforcement organizations that based on the
facts and apply to laws. she has been twice confirmed as a full senate as recently as 2021. she was also confirmed in 2010 as vice chair of the u.s. citizens commission. it is hoped that she will receive a bipartisan support for the most nominations to the nation's highest courts. in closing, this is a watershed moment. in our nations history. she is a stellar nominee with a extraordinary background. she is clearly qualified and served on the united states supreme court.
we are honored to endorse a nominee of the statute who is confirmed in citing legal cases impacting the lives of all people of our country. we encourage the student body to consider our nomination to the senate or. thank you for the invitation to appear today and your kind attention. thank you. sen. durbin: thank you, president thomas. our last witness is ms. sereno, who i believe is going to join us by virtual webex. let's hope that it is connected. ms. sereno: good morning. members of the committee, nelson mandela once said --. the people who sexually exploited and abused children must be held accountable, not
only to society but to their victims. incarceration and sex offender registration are wasting all these criminals responsible for their despicable acts. child pornography or child sexually abused material is a horrific crime that placed victims among actual the sexual abuse. i work for operation underground world word, a nonprofit organization that partners governments here and around the world to help victims of child exploitation get the care and support they desperately need. operation underground railroad helps train foreign law enforcement and entities who may be in contact with potential victims in how to identify, investigate. i recently joined this organization in december of 2021. the previous preceding 18 plus
years i served as a fellow prosecutor for the u.s. department of justice. during my doj career, i handled hundreds of child exploitation and human trafficking cases involving victims. i saw firsthand not only what the victims endured from the initial abuse, but also the continued abuse and exploitation to comp. oftentimes for the remainder of their lives. the supreme court is a change that recognizes that to obtain restitution from borders, distributors long after the initial sexual abuse has occurred. while the initial sexual abuse causes gronk -- harm victims may never overcome. every time a person abuse these, the child is re-traumatized and re-abused. when a offender is caught now
loading or disciplining these images, mandatory notice goes to the victims that get another victim used it. a planning receiving these notices, the victims are forced to relieve -- relive the crime. it causes increases. no one wants to see -- cleared event includes avoiders, strip readers. w according to recent statistics, i personally prosecuted cases with images of abuse and exploitation of children as young as premature infants. this trend by certain judges to routinely is far below the
sentencing guidelines and prosecutors recommendations for consumers and minimizes the gravity of the offense while the amount of material being produced, a number of people consuming this material has increased over recent years. the sentences have decreased. this makes no sense. i live in southern california where a construct, wildfire is a yearly issue. the fire claims hundreds of victims in its wake. when the fire spreads, it gets bigger. we put firefighters on the front line, use less water and resources? malcolm of course not. that scenario -- no, of course not. i say again, it makes no sense. i hope all of the members of this committee agreed that there is no cause more noble than protecting our children, whether some crimes warrant longer
prison sentences, the debate is up for another day. especially those with prior conduct involving sexual abuse exploitation, deserve to be taken out of sight and identified to the public the sex registry. defenders are only remorseful because they get caught, not because of what their deviant ways of nazi victims. lastly, the notion that it only involves pictures is appalling to most victims and victim advocates. it predicts real children who deserve justice. the victims deserve our respect and dignity are what they endured. they do not deserve to be treated unless consideration than offenders who take pleasure in viewing it in the darkest days of their lives. our society is better than that.
our most precious resource, our children deserve it. on behalf of the sexual exploitation, i think you for the committee for this matter. thank you. sen. durbin: we are now going to have around 12 questions. they are five minutes. let me start with captain thomas. thanks, thanks for coming here. thanks for more than 30 years of service in law enforcement. like you for more than 26 years of military -- thank you for military. i want to commend you for those. you are probably aware of the fact that judge jackson has received the unqualified endorsement, not only of your organization, noble, but also the fraternal order of police in the national association of
other law enforcement officials. are you aware of that? >> yes. sen. durbin: the hartman charges made that she -- there have been charges made that she is affiliated with the defund of the police movement. when your organization have endorsed or if that were true? capt. thomas: that would not have ever happened. we never saw that the light, research and that never came out. i do not think it is true. sen. durbin: i do not think so either. i would assume the same thing for the case of the fraternal order of police. the largest organization in america and the international up chiefs of police the respect they bring to law enforcement. that is a charge at think it is the ninth to the fact this endorsement is taken place.
you are in the audience in her earlier testimony. two or three chamoli before members have dwelled on this whole question of sentencing in -- two or three members have drawn on this whole question of sentencing in child abuse. if they made inquiry among the professionals, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges who have witnessed judge jackson's role in criminal justice, particularly in this particular area in the law, they testified that they consulted with 250 professionals to reach their conclusions up giving her unanimously well-qualified rating. i asked during the course of this, since we spend so much time here with three or four members drilling on the issue, whether they find any evidence to back up the charges, their
answer was no. not at all. you would think one person out of 250 would have found the same conclusions of -- of my colleagues the last several days. what is their conclusion of that? >> your questions in my view work dispositive of this issue whether judge jackson in someway way was outside of the legal mainstream of other jurists, or somehow tolerated the abuse of children by the questions. i think the responses this morning work completely dispositive. i began when i saw the testimony thinking that unfortunately this hearing has to be involved in some ways to a partisan eye tax on a extraordinarily well-qualified nominee. by any standard, judge jackson's
record on and off the bench, her academic achievements are unparalleled with almost anyone who has been appointed to the supreme court. a failure to find on the basis of qualifications have led to a series of questions focused on seven decisions that she rendered in sentencing, that in my view bordered. i think when one takes a look at the repeated effort to oppose questions about her records being outside of the mainstream, we enforce that view. ultimately, i think the issue as senator whitehouse has mentioned, was supposed -- was both asked and answered. the judge demonstrated she was well then the mainstream of judicial thinking. finally, i felt the criticism of some directed by some of her
decision-making was a displaced coming to the extent that her decisions, at least to those who questions hers, where at variance at what the law was. they could have said that. no one did. they can recognize that it is up to congress to establish the standards that judges apply in their decision-making responsibility to the extent that there were questions posed about her. better to look inward at the role of congress placed in establishing the roles that judges are failed in this moment. thank you. senator, grassley. we heard several times that her judicial philosophy and her 500 cases, or whatever number that we have from her district court work. that was her answer to the questions about what the judicial was. how important is the justices by
how they were ruled in the bench? as these hearings and numerous nomination proceedings have indicated is that judicial loss if the is paramount because in contrast to the political branch and the presidency, judges have a limited role despite cases in controversy. as mr. henderson have said, congress is a large role in establishing what the role and jurisdiction is going to be and the procedures they are going to put in place. introduce philosophy in interpreting the constitution is critical. in the past, i think nominees have gone on to serve on the supreme court and be committed and consistent in inclusive in their adoption for adoption has discussed those methodologies and commitment to them before this bodied and articulated their grounding in the
constitution. ms. sereno, your formal attorney, you're familiar with these crimes where children's being victims. could you describe child pornography cases for use of computer, the number of images of victims. explain why we have these enhancements? ms. serano: to recognize the aggravation that the use of the computer with somebody with more images, versus less images, or someone with very young children, they were deserve a high sentences then someone who would not have had those characteristics. sen. grassley: could you explain what possession of child
pornography is not a victimless crime? ms.serrano: these pictures are videos are real children. they are somebody's kid, they have appearance. they have siblings. these are real children. every time somebody uses it, transport it, re-victimizes them. could you imagine your most bears and mama in the internet. embarrassing moment on the internet? sen. durbin: mr. marshall, based upon your experience, what movements will be heard the most by anti-police movements? does anything concern you specifically?
>> as i said in my opening statement which described the victims of crime are particularly where they are located. those that advocate any police, any incarceration statements are advocating against those they claim to be able to speak for. when i hear that justice jackson will be the voice for the vulnerable, rarely do i hear that being described as the victims of violent crimes. we truly are the innocent and most vulnerable of the system as a whole. my objection is it relates to what i have seen in the record as when there is a judicial opinion drafted by the nominee, in which he cites the new york times that i system is unfair and unjust, that raises specific questions about whether the nominee braces whether or not our system is broken, or whether not she believes the system works. there's the extent that
there's a mindset that our system is unjust, not only undermines the ability of law, but the law unable to do their job. sen. durbin: mindful of the fact that judge jackson told us more than once that critical race theory never entered her theory or discussion, if a judge or justices making decisions based upon that theory, those principles, how might we see that reflected in their opinions? ms. russell: thank you for that question. i think that my expertise, i think you have to start with the original meaning of the constitution and understand that regardless of the changing of the culture in what the social structure might call for. the standard never changes.
ensure that there is an anchor and there is constantly a foundation to go back to. so, if you look at the constitution through the lens of the crt, then you're going to assume that it is inherently flawed and incorrect. you are less likely to view it as being something or a source you need to go back to, or a source that should be relied upon. certainly not the original meeting -- meaning. you see it reflected in the liberty case, you might be inclined to say it changed the original meaning or to reflect the current cultures new understanding of what it should mean. >> senator whitehouse. sen.whitehouse: -- in a effort
to overturn the presidential election in georgia. did you personally, or did your organization have any role in helping to prepare, or facilitate the preparation of that letter proposed by jeffrey clark? >> no. thank you. mr. marshall, you are a chairman of the rule of law defense fund in the run up to the january 6 also on the capital. rule of since robo calls urging recipients to march to the
capital on january 6. were you personally present on washington dc on january 6. your microphone should probably come on. >> i was not. did rdf have staff present? >> what i would hope is be a part of this hearing that this body is likewise questioning our nominee about her philosophy on criminal justice in relation to the decisions she would make on the court. sen. whitehouse: did you approve the robo call that went off on rdf? any specifics to find it?
did you personally solicit funding for the robo call? >> i make multiple comments already. yes, sir. sen. whitehouse: pretty simple question. yes, or no. did you solicit money the robo call that brought people to the capital and who that also to the capital. >> no. sen. whitehouse: did you have any contact with members of congress in any effort to keep the electoral process open through objections to give those coming to also the capital time to reach the capital and disrupt the elections process? >> no. sen. whitehouse: heavy offered
any testimony to the january 6 commission? -- heavy offered any testimony to the january 6 commission -- have you offered any testimony to the january 6 commission? >> i have not been asked. sen. whitehouse: the january 6 officers are here and who defended on january 6. do you have anything to say to them? particularly, to those who were injured in the line of duty on that date. >> the premise of your question somehow the organization i was connected with anything to what took place. we have denounced that violence before and what i have done with you today. sen. whitehouse: is joseph r biden of delaware the elected and lawfully serving president of the united states of america? >> he is the president of the
country. sen. whitehouse: is he the president of the united states? >> are you answering that all missing the language -- omitting purposely? >> i am answering the question. he is the president of the united states. i am telling you, he is the president of the united states. sen. whitehouse: no further questions. sen. durbin: one of the most aspects of the confirmation hearings is the opportunities to revisit principles about our government, separation of powers, freedom of speech. thank you for your testimony about the importance of freedom of speech. i want to start with you and take you back to the declaration of independence where it says
that government derives is just powers from consent of the government. while we have heard a lot from the nominee about staying in kern -- her lane, i personally believe that many judges have a blind spot when it comes to due process or articulating new rights and eliminating any discussion and debate, even vote on some of those rights -- rights that they discover appeared the judiciary says this is the way it is and we do not care what anybody else thinks. could you describe for us, the danger of eliminating some of these important decisions under the guise of the judicial
lawmaking, like the process? >> thank you for the question. as my written testimony goes through in depth, i think there are multiple structures in the constitution system, some that we overlook that lead to a mindfulness of judges. first, our important institutions, the family continuing to have a great saying, we the people that laments the power under the constitution that the federal government in any branch is supposed to exercise. >> the federal government is one of many powers, correct? >> that is correct. the source of the legal and
constitution of the guardian of low to begin with. even within that system, there's a separation of powers amongst three branches, and of course with congress being close to the american people, the president being elected --. mr. cornyn: let me ask another question. when judges get outside their lane, when they make policy, when they make political valley judgment, does it validate those principles on judicial power? >> yes. that is what it is important to have the protection of the constitution. mr. cornyn: freedom of religion in our country.
when the supreme court justices identified new rights and hope that no state, no local government to enact any policy in conflict with that new right that they identify, does that potentially endanger the religious liberty of americans? >> it definitely could if you are not taking in account the events of the foundational were important of liberty, you instead you start that with the new rights that you have created. that is likely not considered when the initial provisions of the constitution were drafted. mr. cornyn: i think justice thomas and others expressed their concerns that when judges make law and curate it a
national standard -- and create it a national standard and take the issues out of the debate that they normally would be subject to in the political system and legislative branch, that basically people do not agree with that because of religious belief could be identified as bigots. you share that concern? ms. russell: yes. you create a new --. their thoughts about whatever it might be generally speaking are going to end up in a situation where everyone has a judicial view of those subjects are going to be seen as the enemy and they were -- will be demonized lazy culture. mr. cornyn: the ultimate counsel culture? ms. russell: ultimately, yes.
>> thank you to all of you. thank you for your leadership and for being here today. you talked about in your testimony about how there have been 115 justices and only she will be the first, judge jackson if confirmed will be the first black woman. she will also be the first public offender. those are two first sitting in the room. could you give us your perspective? what that means as someone that knows what it it is like to go into an institution that does not have perspective. and your views as a black woman as you are here it yesterday? >> as i witnessed yesterday,
senator booker, thank you yesterday. it was emotional, heartfelt, it also spoke not only to black america, but to america of how valuable this will be. what we will see when she is confirmed, it is what america looks like. judge beatty: we are no longer looking at where we worked 65 years ago, but yet we are still fighting for the same thing. i say to little girls, especially little black girls, it will be important for them to see that they can do what their best friend set of hurt when they were 12 and 14 years old. i think it builds hope for america. we know that all to happen -- often as elective officials wanted to get more people who are representatives in this wonderful america we live in. that includes making the change and having the courage to confirm a black woman, not
because she is black. this is what i want you to hear loud and clear. but because she is qualified. more qualified than the we have seen in this room. that is not just based on my opinion, my thoughts. it is based on fact. it is based on when you look through the 12,000 pages that were sent here on what she did on the united states sentencing commission, the thousands of pages that came from the obama library. when you look at all of the facts that were about her record, i say look to each of us. this is why it is important to me. there is not a perfect person in this room. yesterday i minority senators that he did not agree to
everything that his colleagues were saying. so i think you can look at anything or any person and find something that you would want to find fault with. but in this case, there are so many things that she has just been in trackable -- impeccable. for the rule of law, for her impeccable decision-making. she's not perfect, but she is amazing. that is what i want america to now. i just want to end with this because i am also chair of the congressional black caucus. i want to tune out while we are very diverse, our power is -- i want you to know while we are very diverse, our power is our unity. we embrace and endorse her 100%. thank you. >> yesterday, judge jackson talked about how the rights voted the fundamental rights in
our democracy of other nominees have said in the past, how could the court in your view with the shadow docket case in wisconsin worked to reestablish public confidence in voting cases? >> thank you for the question. thank you for your leadership in trying to detect -- protect. i think the court has a very important role to play to preserve the right of all americans to the boat. we now see democracy -- democracy under attack in unprecedented ways. it began with the january 6 insurrection. it continues at the state level in some this -- states are rolling back the protection of the right to vote. i am hoping that the court will re-examine the role this has taken with the regard to the voting rights act which it has strip on the supreme court
level. i think a case has been made that there is a need for a new structure of voting rights act. we hope that the senate will ultimately come to accept that requirement. mr. klobuchar: thank you. i was going to ask another question. i did want to thank you. i enjoyed your testimony. it reminded me in a similar panel who was a friend from middle school and high school, what she was like at that point, maybe it was elementary school. he said judicious. i enjoyed it very much. thank you to all of the witnesses. sen. durbin: we have been told by the public and staff that the order based on the earlybird rule on this site is senators lee, tillis, blackburn and cruz. senator phyllis, you are next up. >> thank you all for being here.
mr. rosenthal, you are getting married in a couple of weeks? >> yes. i also wish that your father returns to good health. captain thomas, thank you for your law enforcement service and your service in iraqi freedom. i think that the first time i have asked somebody questions you are actually a plaintiff at a supreme court case, it is an honor. your testimony was unbelievable. before i leave today come i hope i can get one of your cards. >> sure. you were at the abortion clinic as a counselor? >> yes. i try to make the distinction because i think some people were
approaching that case is a pro-life or pro-case? i was trying to make a point it was about freedom of speech. i think he said that in your freedom of testimony? i think there were quotes in there. these were not rowers -- words, but they were quotes from the plaintiffs in the original case that you were mean, your face, aggressive. i think that the other quotes said they felt like they may be shot by you. i know it was a couple of years ago. that seems to be my characteristics of your behavior. . >> absolutely. were any of them mean, in your
face, likely to shoot somebody? >> no, absolutely not. >> i would like for you to repeat your opening statement. mr. tillis: tell me about the --. i was trying to get what judge jackson yesterday. i think the woman is qualified. i find it hard to believe that anybody on my site would disagree with that. this has more to do with the application of philosophy, worldviews that could influence. i think you should make no mistake that i agree, she is highly qualified. i see she got the rating. i'm try to get an idea of what it was like on the ground. they were telling you -- one of the reasons you mention in your testimony you have to raise your voice because you are so far away from the expectant mothers. like the mother who sent you a
picture of her three month old baby who is now in her teens. i can understand if you're several feet away you have to raise your voice to get their attention. that is what they meant by shouting in their face. with the supreme court striking down the massachusetts law for the complaint. were there people that were inside the envelope? i was trying to determine whether people that were escorting, which are basically expressing their freedom of speech right to choice. so, where the people inside who were able to escort? your argument was that you want to be there to hold their hand, i think he said, never walk the journey alone. is that an accurate portrayal of the facts on the ground that he felt like you were not given a fair axis? sen. mccullen: that is true.
yes. they were inside the buffer zone. they are talking to the mother to be. mr. tillis: but it's what i thought. i think it is wonderful that you are here. you are either an oscar-winning actor, actress, or the fact of the matter is. that was a unfair assertion of who you were. just a quick question, i have one from mr. russell. i i'm not going to have time for both. you talk about your application of practice. i was thinking about the case that was brought up that had to do with congressional direction, the statute, the removal, are you familiar with this?
it was my understanding that judge jackson used in this debate for the nationwide junction that it did not comply with the apa. that seems to be the tactic every once in a while. i think it is the reason why it was ultimately struck down by the d.c. circuit judge. you know of any other examples where ms. jackson may have applied a similar logic to a case? >> the case you're speaking of, i think it was failing to rely on a provision that clearly limited the role of the court and give the discussion to make the decision to the department of homeland security secretary. i think in other opinions, what seems to be the case is that judge jackson is using resources, perhaps on history. more than justices in the past.
maybe in applying construction moving beyond in a way that might be different from other justices in the past. it is hard to predict based on district court rulings in these other instances like the one you mention, or in the other case where the d.c. circuit judge disagreed. >> i know we have a vote. i would be very interested as a follow-up in the next week to provide me a specific example if you can. mr. tillis: you do not have to go to a great level of detail. i appreciate it. do you have one of those cards? i'm going to get it on the way out. sen. durbin: thanks. senator durbin has gone to vote. as is customary, one of the members of the committee takes its place.
>> i am in the chair now. i am very pleased to have my round of questioning while i am taking the chair first senator durbin. let me ask, you have an starting harry career yourself as a trailblazer, the first -- you have a extraordinary career yourself, as a trailblazer. a number of us on this panel have talked about the legitimacy crisis that the supreme court faces. maybe the result of self inflicted wounds, maybe where we
live. but justice breyer very thoughtful, deliberate methodical approach as without line by judge jackson as well seems to be one of the hallmarks of his ability to bring to bring the court together and overcome divides and disagreements. which in my view is important at this point in the courts history, would you agree? >> i went. i think it comes from its deliberative nature. it does not have the power. what it has is its reality and perception of being a neutral orbiter. i think breyer plays a could go role in enhancing and facilitating deliberation across
all of the justices in the court. i think everything that we know about judge jackson should do the exact same thing. >> so the lack of trust and credibility -- it does not have armies or police forces. it has the trust and respect of the american people? prof. goluboff: yes. that is something justice breyer talks about frequently in his writing and speaking. without the trust of american people, the court cannot do its job. the rule of law exist because the rule of law and only do so when they have faith in the court. >> let me ask -- i think the point is very well said. congresswoman beatty and mr. henderson, we are celebrating here a remarkable achievement. said it should have happened long ago.
it is a leap into the present and the historic nomination by president biden the first black woman to the united states supreme court. but as much as we celebrate, as i pointed out yesterday, the decisions of the court that essentially have set us back, especially. john lewis was a great friend and hero to you coming to me on integration, backsliding as well. maybe i can ask you to reflect on, both of you because you have such a deep and broad experience in this area, about the ways that the supreme court has reversed some of the progress that was made in our own lifetime?
judge beatty: let me say thank you for that question. i am sure that congressman john is looking down on us in a hopeful manner, especially as it relates to civil rights and voting rights. i think what we have to look at first by both of the professors is the power is not in the policy or the congress. i think what this does when this confirmation would read, it would be a hope for the people out there to help us as members of congress, also as senators. we have to first do our job. i think we have an obligation to help those justices by sentencing policy. sending them voting rights legislations that they can do within the group of the law what the people are looking for. i think it starts here. i think that question is wonderful. i am sitting here as a member of the geordie, with members of the
majority and minority, that the work starts with the house in the senate. if that question will allow me to say, i am willing, because voting rights is the fundamental of everything that we talked about right night -- now. whether it is the freedom of speech, whether it is hearing the voice of those who want to reflect. let's give all of the justices something that they cannot look at and rulon because we sent them something -- rule on, because we sent them something that are united. i asked my colleagues that we start with voting rights legislation. that we look at where we are. if we look at where we are, if we look at history.
you know this well, the voting rights act has been reauthorized in a bipartisan way. four republican presidents reauthorized the voting rights act. this senate and this congress could come together and send our justices something that they could rule on that would be reflected by our democracy. >> thank you. thank you so much for the questions. let me say i support completely the response of congresswoman beatty. i believe her answer was full and complete. let me say the right to vote was foundational. as she alluded to. all of the issues we discussed this morning, from free speech,
to public rights of individuals in cases of police accountability or others are all a tie to the right to vote. the supreme court decision beginning with the shelby county decision in 2013, with the other decisions a couple of years ago. recent interpretations of what the court has done by district court judges at ways serious questions about the fidelity of the court until the role that congress has been designated to address discrimination from by the amendment. the fact that the court seems to have gone olive -- out of its way has taken as a back literally to the. that existed prior to 1965, when the voting rights was adopted. some people
will consider that criticism to be hyperbolic. the truth is, the facts are clear. what is happening now to voters, particularly voters of color, younger voters, seniors, individuals with disabilities are in fact violations of that fundamental right to vote. we do not access of the ballot. there lies the problem. we have petitioned congress, specifically a senate to enact new provisions that would help to protect the right of vote. we are disappointed that earlier this year that effort was not undertaken by the bipartisan support of the senate, but we hope in the future that will happen. i remind you, that 16 republican members of the senate that voted for voting rights act in 2006 in the authorization have so far been silent on this question about whether to move forward. we hope they have a second
opportunity today. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate this very much and the opportunity to have you all before us. this has been really quite a week here in the senate judiciary committee. miss mccullough, i would like to come to you first. i am so happy that you are with us today. i appreciated your comments. i am a mother and a grandmother. i like how you talk about walking with women as they transition from their pregnancies to that motherhood and realizing the need to continue to support women after they have those babies. and to support them as they go through this entire process. likewise, i know that you do
some good work to support post-abortive women. sen. mccullen: yes, i do. >> acquainted so that i know that have been through that process, there is a grief that is many times card to bear. i appreciate your work. i know you have a card that you give to women. talk to me a little bit about that very quickly. sen. mccullen: i have one here too. when a young woman comes up to me i say good morning, how can i help you? i give them the card at the same time. the cart has my telephone number, it has my website. then on the back, the person is
a person no matter how small. i just give that out. it shows i am not trying to be a stranger. just in a few moments i am building up trust. at least they have a name and a number. i am not just out there for no reason. i am a person. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate that. let me ask you this, how did it make you fill in judge jackson's brief when when that life women as in your face protesters? sen. mccullen: extremely sad. that is not the case at all. if someone isn't doing those things, harassing or yelling, the sidewalk is not a place for anger, it is not a place for judgment. anyone that comes to be a sidewalk counselor should be compassionate, not judgmental,
helpful and kind. we have workshops, i run the workshop. mrs. blackburn: let me move on. thank you for that work. miss mascot, let me come to you please. i close down with judge jackson reading back to her her opening statements. everyone up here, as i listened to you all, the witnesses that were with us earlier, you talked about reserving our form of government. you talk about preserving equal access, equal justice. there was a comment in judge jackson's opening that i read back to her because she left out something important. i'm going to read this to you. i would like your comment. i have been a judge for a decade now and i take that responsibility very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral
posture, evaluate the facts and i interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oak. th. i told her there was a word missing from that that i thought deserved more attention. that was, it should have in their -- it should have been there, it should be consistent with the constitution. that should be where a justice goes first. is that not correct? >> that is correct. i think the constitution gives the amendment limited powers. two be able to have a context one person is to think about other congress authorizes the government to take the action in the first place. you know, we had a very
difficult time. never got her to nail down her judicial authority, that concern us. there is another thing i want to ask you about. this is where she talked about crt and sentencing. this was from may 2015 speech. i felt like this was inappropriate i also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on a intellectual level, in part because it males together. together numerous types of loss. aws. his criminal race theory a type of long? -- is criminal race theory a type of law which mar?
? >> so both applying that, i would be looking to the text of loans. congress have given it a lot of discretion, but can narrow it if decided that judges were not applying a road properly. mrs. blackburn: i want to ask you, some of us have wanting those presentencing memos, are we going to be able to have the access to those memos? i know we sent a letter to you, where do we stand? >> we consulted with prosecutors, organizations and they share my concern. this is very confidential, sensitive information, which is usually only seen by a judge. to run the risk of bringing to the committee and it jeopardizing our innocence.
i would like to finish. it jeopardizing our worst innocent third parties, our children who have been victimized, i am sorry senator, i am not giving party to that. i would not want that on my conscious that we did that for a political exercise here. which i think is a unnecessary. i am going to resist at every step of the way. mrs. blackburn: no one wants to arm children. sen. durbin: if you are a parent of some child who has been exploited and you recognize the judge name that has presided at the trial and now the report that has been kept in conflict not be handed over to the united state senate judiciary judas --
committee, what would you think? i would think this is an act that is reckless and to do this in political pursuit -- unacceptable on my watch. i do not want this on my conscious. sen. blackburn: i want to make certain that we protect children and we continue to do our best effort to protect children. i also want to make certain that we are going to have judges on the federal bench and justices that are going to protect those rights of children. the fact that you all have seen these -- we haven't, the fact -- sen. durbin: i cannot see them and i do not want to see them. it has not be given to the white
house or any member of the judiciary committee that i know and i will not be party to any effort -- sen. blackburn: there is no one that wants to do anything that will harm children. we want to make certain that we do our due diligence and i know you have gotten frustrated with us with asking tough questions but that is our job. sen. durbin: you make ask a tough question as long as it is fair. sen. blackburn: everything we have asked has been fair. >> can you clarify for those who may not be familiar with the procedures with prosecution. they were not in any case by -- written by judge jackson. and they are not about judge section. -- judge jackson. they are sealed by court action. and involve detail and thorough
interviews of the whole ecosystem around the crime. the victims and the perpetrator and families and are described to those interviews -- fit -- interviewed as something that will be continental -- confidential. sen. durbin: yes and i cannot imagine that we have to export his area at the risk of children. i will not be party of that. >> i have asked a lot of prosecutors trying to be fair about this in some -- in serving this committee to understand and the kind of confidential information, i thought maybe you can redacted people --. people are saying that you cannot reject it. -- reject it. --redact it.
i know this and i will as this question. this judiciary committee has -- residents have done thousands of judges put on the benches. we have never asked for this kind of confidential information from this third branch of government and when you cross a president --precedent, -- there's nothing additive to it but what you do when you cross that line is that you create a presentence --precedent. someone else will demand the same information and use it or exploited for political purposes. i do not think we want to cross that line in this body when this has never come up in the 200
years. i don't know how long this information has been collected in this matter. i think this is a large step. to change the conclusions that have already been drawn from people either side of the aisle. i don't hear that and the danger is in terms of changing the way this committee operates, impeding on issues of privacy. it weighs any value. -- outweighs any value. sen. durbin: i can't imagine any parent who has been relayed to a child who has been exploited, would do this as a routine request for information. it is so much more than that. as i said, on my watch, someone can take this chair and make a different decision.
i will not be party to exposing this information to a possibility of disclosure and harm. >> thank you for your testimony today. like judge jackson, you clerked for justice breyer and you are a well-respected dean of a prominent law school. i want to ask a quick -- quick questions. judge jackson's -- has been challenged in reference to the opinion -- is a your view in this case or other cases -- has overstepped the role of the courts and engaged in jurisprudence that gets outside her lane as a judge? >> it is my view that she does not get outside her lane. i think she comes down in cases on both sides depending on what
she sees in the facts and how she applies presidents. i think she has been concierges -- conscientious in cases -- what is the role of the court. how to ensure procedural consistency. she is quite consistent and very committed to the text into president. >> given your experience with justice breyer, what do you think anyone who has clerked for the justice might have learned about and evenhanded in a impartial manner. >> i think anyone who clerked for him knows exactly what you side -- said is crucial to being a justice pair -- justice. it does not end with the original public meeting.
even among -- about how much you consider president or not. in their own decisions and the interpreter part of constitutional interpretation is the first part. you look to original public meaning and that is what judge jackson said she would do. you have to apply and consider the facts of the case and president. justice breyer toll all of us is the best way to do that is in conversation with justices and take the deliberative process seriously. creating real relationships so you can have real conversations and learn from each other as you wrestle with these hard questions. i don't think we would send/i don't think we would spend -- so much time -- at the interpretive
process was automatic. it requires judgment and discernment and that is what justice breyer taught us. >> do you have any doubt that biden -- president bynum has been duly -- yet a very active -- noble leadership and you are here as the head of noble, are latest -- nation's largest organization of black law enforcement officers who have endorsed judge jackson's nomination. how do you you view her record? >> with all the information we have received, different notes from other organizations, i feel very confident for her nomination in this state. i would like to make a statement.
her temperament, her fairness and respect for the law and her honor of the constitution makes judge khatami brown jackson exactly what we should expect from someone who ruled on all matters that would affect our country and judicial system for generations. >> thank you very much and thank you for the clarity. congresswoman, i want to as a closing question. i have been struck by a judge jackson's personals -- personal story and the central role open by hbcus to her parents plays a role in her story. i want -- i am interested in how a three -- hbcus -- play a role in education.
>> as an hbcu graduate, i can speak to that directly. thank goodness for my parents who said to me that i would be more balanced and more grounded as a young girl coming from public school systems in the intercity school that thank god it was important for me to do that and later go wherever i wanted to. it gives you a sense of confidence. it gives you -- and made me value that adversity i had. people from the continent from africa see me -- teaching me. the first time i have seen so many professors and scholars who look like me. i think like judge jackson, when i heard her tell her story of how she felt that first meet -- week or month at harvard.
it was, i believe, her success and confidence and the wind believe her needs -- wings, her parents. that grounding of the hbcus. if plays a valuable role. -- it plays a valuable role. >> just a moment ago, senator kunz was having an exchange where he described judge jackson jurisprudence as fair and even handed. judge jackson a cause -- found a cause of action to challenge the department homeland of securities of the scope of which aliens are subject to expedited removal. in doing so she disregarded their plain language of the statute that explicitly said the secretary had soul and en route
-- unspeakable discretion to set the designation at any time. that decision resulted in a nationwide -- and johnson preventing homeland security from removing illegal aliens from this country. that decision was reversed from the d.c. circuit unanimously. was her decision assiduously fair and evenhanded? >> i cannot sit in judge motivation of what was driving -- in terms of the interpretation of statutory text and such -- structure, they opinion overlooks the clear discretion -- plain and explicit text of the statute and text of the statute that had been
applied previously when acting heads of department of homeland security were using policy notice to make changes. >> let me shift. ms. hirono, thank you for the -- solano --serrano, thank you for the work you do. significant concern has been raised by myself and others about judge jackson's pattern in sentencing criminal defendant guilty of possession or distribution of child pornography. she wrote in a note advocating a new way for examining restrictions on sexual offenders and arguing for a standard that if applied, would likely result in striving -- striking down sexually predator laws -- and arguably strike down the sex
offender registry laws across the country. what would be the effect if the puc articulated was adopted by the supreme court and those laws were struck down? >> i am not familiar with judge jackson's writing in the harmon -- harvard law review what i can tell you that sex offender registry plays a big part in allowing the committee to identify where people have demonstrated a conviction of sexual interest in children or rate or that sort of thing. there are certainly state laws, i am not familiar with all of them but there is a process where due process is done, whether someone should be civilly committed because they cannot function due to their sexual deviance. >> we have gone over in some
detail, -- the democratic talking point is the criticism of this issue is cherry picking. i gave judge jackson a chance to explain the child poor cases you sentence and. five of them she sentence the statutory mandatory minimum the actual desk lowest sentence that was available at law. -- the lowest sentence that was available under law. she repeatedly articulated in the cooper case and when she does this in every case, she articulates that she makes the sentencing enhancement for the number of images of child poor makes those -- no sense and is
in valid and she reduce it -- reduces it to a two level enhancement. does it make any sense to you that there is no difference whatsoever that there is a difference between defendant with a single image or someone in possession of hundreds of images or someone, like it was in front of judge jackson, in possession of 6000 images. does it make sense that she says those are identical and she will not apply the enhancements? >> i am not familiar with her sentencings. i can share with you that the increases for the number of images reflects the type of offender that you are dealing with. someone with 6000, 700, is on
the low side. when i was doing prosecuting cases, we were talking people what terabytes of images. someone with that type of collection should be sentenced more harshly than somebody with 50 in bridges -- images. >> thank you very much. i love this. i have been through three supreme court justice hearings and when people come forward from all different backgrounds and people supporting or not supporting a candidate, it is uplifting to me and i have a lot of respect and honor for everyone on this panel. you all are great americans dedicated. to give you an example why i am serious, i had in a previous panel, i was dead set against my
constitutional law professor coming. i love him because he passed me but i want you to know there is a lot of respect for the 10 of you who took time out of your schedule. many of you traveled a long way. i will take a quick minute to address the congresswoman and i want to say a couple things. that are really important. the congressional black caucus has been one of the best privileges in my life and i want to say publicly, i tried for years to get on this committee and the congressional black caucus advocated for me for years. they went to chuck schumer and said they need to get tumor.
i want to thank you for that. i had one of the most difficult summers in my life. my brother had a terrible script -- stroke and when you see people on the panel, you don't know what they have been through. i did not note that the chairman woman of the black caucus had a horrific stroke that left her seriously developed -- the ability where she could not walk -- the ability -- he habilitation it -- i see you now sitting there just as tremendous to me who you are and my deference and love and respect for you, especially showing up for me. quickly, i love noble. they were on my transition team to be mayor of the city of newark.
your recommendations to me about a city that was really struggling with crime. i am happy to see you -- who have to live this life of knowing confronting the other -- ugly parts of the country -- chris murphy's book put this data point in their, which is as much gun violence as there are in inner-city communities as there are in other communities, like rural or other ethnic breakdowns. this is not a partisan issue. i have shown up with four calabasas at sites with young people have been shot. i have seen the horror and i have been traumatized. i have so much respect for
police officers because what they go through every single day on the brink, often in the gap between safety and not safety. i have seen my officers -- i remember shooting where my officers ran in, no situational awareness upstairs to see a woman who had committed suicide and shop her baby. go back to work the next day. i want to ask you this one question because i know what is at stake. here is a supreme court justice to the highest point of the land and there are people casting aspersions that she may not be able to be -- keep the faith. i doubt there is anyone more in this room right now that lives in the gap between safety and horrific violence. why are you so confident despite all the aspersions, that this person will be a phenomenal justice that the safety and security of america? >> the safety starts with the
law-enforcement we have now. the supreme court justice -- if someone gets before the supreme court dealing with law-enforcement, bacon make a difference but we can start with the law enforcement. that's why my organization is so important. we discussed things like high crime and gun violence. we have a significant program and it starts by conversations to stop a confrontation. so everybody get involved, and we have 50 chapters the nation. try to get to the same page. the crime will continue but we can make it better. we try to build trust in the communities with law enforcement. judge khatami jackson -- she grew up in miami. miami has a higher crime rate.
she saw it growing up. she saw it firsthand. due to the decision with law enforcement, it will be important because we have to live here in america but we can start making a difference today with the nomination. we talk about the voting rights. we talk about everything. i have been in washington -- confirmation hearing -- i said, man, i do not believe this. this is a big history class but at civics class, she can make a difference. now only her but you have eight other associates on this are pretty -- on the supreme court team. one person will not solve this problem. one person cannot make a difference but you have eight other justices on the supreme court.
everything is going -- america is doing a great job i don't get caught up in the politics. i know it is needed and we have to get things done. everyone has to work together. we do need noble out there in the committee nationwide. if you need one in your city, contact noble. [laughter] >> amen. >> the next up is senator hawley. >> thanks all the witnesses. i want to say in particular thank you for you with the incredible work you do. i know that you are 18 years as a federal prosecutor handling child pornography and child expectation. -- exploitation. those are terrible crimes to have to prosecute. it is incredible.
i wonder if you can speak to us from your experience as a prosecutor and now as someone who is working to combat this epidemic of human trafficking. it is a global epidemic. can you talk to us about what you have seen about the connection between human trafficking and child pornography? >> human trafficking is a broad term that covers many crimes. within that, there is sex trafficking and often times when you're dealing with sex trafficking -- part of the process to break the victim or potentially advertise the victim to sex buyers, traffickers, or folks -- who create child pornography. the flipside is if someone as a
young child has been sexually abused as a child or they were victims of child expectation materials, they may not have gotten the resources or aftercare that my organization provides to get them the help that they need. unfortunately, they have become formable to become trafficked. sometimes one will influence or increase the other. >> in terms of the children who are exploited in these images, is it fair to say that many of these children were sex trafficking -- that they are trafficking victims themselves? >> for the ones we can identify, yes. some of them are traffic. >> what about the demand abyss because the reason there is
human trafficking, including sex trafficking in children because there is a demand for it. in your experience, does sound -- child pornography drive the demand for human trafficking and sex trafficking of children? >> taycan, yes. a an argument i made before with district judges is sometimes you have individuals who are looking at child pornography and often times, that will not satiate their need for the material and they will go out and commit a offense. it is no difference that you walk by and consider the -- you can walk by a bakery and smelled the sugary, chocolate cake sometimes it gets to you and you buy a slice. i am not trying to make light of it but that is a simple analogy. >> thank you for the incredible
work you do. general marshall, thank you for being here. you are a prosecutor. you were a district attorney. when you recommended sentences to justices, did you base your recommendation on what you thought was necessary to keep the public safe? >> absolutely. >> if you made an recommendation to a judge and that judge went 90% or more below your recommendation that you thought was necessary to keep the public safe, would you be worried about the effect that that my had -- have? >> yes -- and also the message it sends the community about how we will help -- hold people -- >> you are saying the message of
that sentence is not tough on this and not hold these people accountable? >> yes. >> you said based on the gravity of the crime, when it comes to things like child exploitations and images that exploit children, if you have an offender that has thousands or images, that is worse than an offender that has one or two and you might -- >> it has been my practice. someone that has tried and convicted those who have traffic in child pornography, i have seen those images. for that child of the image who has been harmed, that only do we want to turn that conduct but we want to be the voice for the voiceless and those children who are being trafficked. >> the kids who have been
trafficked, the images that have been used, they don't have anyone who can speak for them. the judge has to do justice by them because there is no one to speak for them. a lot of times, we don't know who the children are. it is up to the court to do something on their behalf. >> the court is the ultimate voice. >> i which -- i wish judge jackson shared that same sentiment. >> if you are asking for forgiveness, i was supposed to read something to the record. the naacp find as we release this report. >> kevin thomas, noble support
for judge action -- judge jackson is soft on crime. i think all of you for being here. congresswoman beatty, we all know that judge jackson is eminently qualified. her character and integrity and her humanity and kindness and fairness, her leadership, these are qualities that were apparent from a young age and i think mr. rosenthal for telling us about what she was as a young girl. it is an incredible story and i enjoyed listening to you. as you listen to judge sachsen yesterday, especially when she talked about her experience at harvard. i would ask you -- if you can relate to that but clearly you could and so could i?
do you think her message of perseverance is very important -- >> thank you for your service and what you represent. it is a strong message that we should send out to all little girls but specifically of girl -- color. i think what you saw builds for our children and grandchildren. even today, we are fighting for things we were fighting for in 1965. today cannot only be landmark, it could be -- propel us for the future that every little girl would believe she can sort. --soar. >> relate. -- i can relate. >> let me say this because we talk about the rule of law. you have to look at judicial
temperament and what you saw yesterday beyond her talking about her early childhood was her response to the tough questions, some unfair questions, you saw judicial temperament. >> thank you. >> we know that many other supreme court decisions are unanimous or pretty close to that but we are also seeing more and more 5-4, 6-3 decision. we have a ideologically divided court and you are asked earlier what the impact of these impact decisions are. especially of areas of voting rights and lgbtq plus rights. abortion rights and union rights. these are the most consequential cases we can expect more split
decisions. judge jackson is asked about her judicial philosophy. it has to do with their methodology. do you think all of our justices this -- justices should food themselves -- view themselves -- >> they had to be committed to the constitution and the judicial role. i do not think everyone has to have the same approach to the constitution. >> as an example of an a --o riginalism. if we were to follow justice scalia's form of originalism, we would not have same-sex marriage. they have already signaled that they would like to revisit -- i
think the lgbtq plus committee is concerned about -- community is concerned about that. for mr. henderson, thank you for being here. you represent a organization committed to protecting the rights and civil liberties of all versions -- americans. what would you tell americans who want to know if a future judge jackson would stand up for them? >> thank you for the question. i began with just jackson's preparation for the role she will assume. you heard the days she testified how exemplary her credentials are and how she has prepared herself in a way that is proved -- truly destined for this
moment. she has the embodiment of fairness and judicial temperament. she brings a level of excellence and preparation unparalleled in the appointment of supreme court justices. there is a deep set of commitment to fairness that she exudes in her writings and her daily interactions on and off the court. there is a fundamental sense of fairness that she embodies and i think all americans and persons who are not american citizens but are in this country, are guaranteed that she will approach the constitution where fairness and will -- with fairness and will approach the individual circumstances with fairness. >> thank you. >> over the last three days, we
have heard over and over again, as we should, about the incredible qualifications that judge can time g --ketanji brown jackson has to serve on the supreme court. if you have been watching the hearings -- i would do it again in a minute be -- minute. i will explain why i am doing it. why i keep doing it. it is because i believe every american should know judge jackson the judge and the person and the fact that she represents the very best of our country. that she is not just qualified
but extraordinarily qualified to serve on the united states. because of her qualification and with her professional and life experiences. , she will make the supreme court better and she will make the country better. it is my sincere desire that anyone watching the proceedings here. if you take nothing else from these last four days, it is judge jackson's qualifications. a public school education, followed by degrees from harvard college and harvard law school. functions at the federal district court at the federal
public appeals and at the united states supreme court. two years as the federal ugly -- public defender. two years as a staff member at the senate seat commission and for four years at -- as the chair. it is time on a bipartisan basis, including two lifetime judicial appointments. nearly a decade of judicial experience, which is more than the combined total of four of the currently sitting justices at the time they were nominated. of course, the life experience. as a black woman. as a working mom. so much more. it is not just her resume backgrounds that make her so qualified to serve on the supreme court.
i have seen, we have all seen over the last three days, she answered every question and met every unfounded, unfair, and insulting accusation with a level of grace. they can -- tm patients that very few -- dignity and patients ----patience. she has democratic she is smart and thoughtful to legal questions and she has an understanding and commitment to the rule of law. in the principle of equal justice. based on her background and her experiences and her qualification, in my view, judge jackson merits strong bipartisan
support from this committee. and from the senate as a whole. my question is this and i address this to congresswoman beatty and mr. henderson. for those who are concerned about the politicization of the supreme court. what would it take for the country if someone with judge jackson's background experiences, and qualifications, cannot earn bipartisan support from the senate? rep. beatty: i think it would be a sad day in america. as my friend and colleague wayne henderson said, when we look at this confirmation and voting rights and we look at all the things that you are debating today, it is the fundamental
grounding of our society and our communities. today, how can you say on both sides of the aisle, -- that a senator said that he and his caulk -- colleagues agreed that she is exceptionally qualified. we saw the cases that have been questioned. 10 cases but it was five but they were still within the will of the lot that she was given to deal with -- law that she was given to deal with. if you look at all the charges we have seen in all the boxes that need to be checked, more than any other justices that some of the same people here have voted for and confirmed. she is above all of them. the answer to that question is,
how can we not? as a black woman who has lived through civil rights and everything else, let's send the right message. thank you. >> mr. henderson. >> your question is so powerful, particularly after it was stated, all of the factors that have brought judge jackson to this moment. her background is absolutely extraordinary. her demonstration and mastery of the law, second to noah -- nine. if an american citizen who has overcome the challenges in one's life she has overcome, demonstrated her ability beyond any reasonable doubt, and is unable to get the bipartisan support of members of this committee, indeed, it is a sad day for this country.
the signal that is sent to american -- the american people is that at the end of the day, preparation may not be the standard by which you are measured. instead, something else in tangible perhaps, in this process comes through. that is not what we want for america. that is not what we in the civil rights movement have struggled for our professional lives to help bring to the country. it would be a sad day. i hope is the partisan considerations that may have affected some in the prep -- questioning of judge jackson will be set aside and some in the committee out of the love for the country and the people and the future of the court will do what is right and will make
judge jackson unanimously confirmed appointment. it probably will not happen but i think sending a signal to the country that indeed, we recognize qualifications that she brings to the table and we left them up in the name of the american people. something i hope we can all do. >> thank you to the panel and i welcome all of you to this room and thank you for your contribution. i said at the outset and i want to repeat my gratitude to my ranking member -- a true general and friend who believes that this is one of the most important assignment to be on the judiciary committee at this moment in history. senator mcconnell -- that we are hearing that there and respectful nominee was upheld by
the members of the committee and i hope we can continue in that vein. i want to mention those who helped enable this hearing to run smoothly. gratitude starts with the united states capitol police. they keep staff safe every single day but we have asked them to take a greater task. keep us safe and ensure everyone place by the rules. i cannot thank them enough for the hours they put in. i want to state -- others who work so hard to set up the room and have access to the public and press. a special thanks to the committee staff designated who have worked tirelessly. i have more things to offer but my deepest gratitude to all who may be hearing a success.