Skip to main content

tv   Craig Melvin Reports  MSNBC  March 23, 2022 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
have the best possible legal representization on both side of any case. and especially in any cases where we are in uncharted legal and constitutional waters? >> yes. thank you, senator. so i've been a judge for almost a decade. and what i've learned is that as part of my duty to render decisions, consistent with my judicial oath, in support of my constitution and the rule of law, i need to consider all of the arguments related to the dispute that is being wrought in my courtroom. i need to hear from, not only the parties who are prosecuting
8:01 am
a case, for example, a crime, but also from the defense. and some of these crimes are terrible crimes. our constitution. is designed to ensure that the government affords due process to people who are being accused of crimes. and one might think, even -- it's even more important in a way in a case in which someone is so reviled. it's kind of like the first amendment. it's a protection for unpopular views. it's needed that the government
8:02 am
or chance that it will do something that is untoward. in the criminal system, we have many amendments that are designed to ensure that unpopular people, people who are accused of doing terrible things, are still treated fairly by the government. and that's a limitation on government power, which is the -- which is the framework of our constitution. it is about limiting government overreach. and so in the criminal justice system, you can imagine and the framers imagined a world, in which the government would use its authority to deprive people of their liberty. to throw people in jail. to lock them up and throw away the key. to not give people the opportunity to make arguments about their freedom. that would be a real exercise of government power, government overreach. and so the framer the said, what we're going to do is we
8:03 am
are going to put in our foundational documents a protection for people, that the government is accusing of crime. and that's not to say that the people are innocent. that's not to say that they haven't done terrible things. what it's about is ensuring that the government does what is required in order to ensure all of our liberty. it protects all of us. because there might be someone who is innocent. and if the government is able to just do whatever it wants in criminal process, we are all at risk. >> and i think we've all seen cases where that happened. i mentioned to you yesterday, that i spent nearly a decade as a prosecutor. and especially when i had serious cases. i wanted the best defense attorney possible on the other side. i won a case if i won, it would
8:04 am
usually go up on appeal automatically, if it carried a heavy penalty. i wanted the court, the appellate court to say, okay, there were not errors of counsel on either side. but i also, as a strong proponent of our constitution, i think what you're saying is something i totally agree with, we have to have. we have to have the individual's rights protected. it doesn't mean the defense counsel is in favor of murder or rape or armed robbery. but the rights have to be protected. let me tell you about another area i've authored and long championed, the bipartisan john lewis voting rights advancement act. i think it would help curtail the current wave of voter suppression sweeping across our country. again, something we don't have to worry about in vermont,
8:05 am
unfortunately in other states. i'm passionate about this legislation. i've always believed that our democracy is stronger when we expand, not shrink, the ranks of our citizens who have fully participated. i believe or democracy goes stronger with your historic nomination. and your presence before us today. and i've told you privately how my family members feel about that. why is it important for our democracies institutions, courts and all others, to reflect the rich diversity of our nation's citizenry. >> thank you, senator. one of the things we have been talking about is the difference between the judicial branch and the other branches of government. we have three branches in our
8:06 am
federal system and the legislative branch has certain powers and it can do certain things to ensure that its prerogatives are achieved and the executive branch has the power of might, the president controls the military. the judicial branch, it's a force in our system, is the protection of the rule of law, which can only be done by essentially, the consent of the governed. it can only be done if people in our society believe, decide and agree that they're going to follow what it is that courts decide. and so one of the reasons why having a diverse judicial branch is important is because
8:07 am
it lends and bolsters public confidence in our system. we have a diverse society in the united states. there are people from all over, who come to this great nation and make their lives. and when people see that the judicial branch is comprised of a variety of people who have taken the oath to protect the constitution, and who are doing their best to interpret the laws consistent with that oath, it lends confidence, that the rulings that the judge, that the court is handing down are fair and just, that everything has been considered. that no one is being excluded because of a characteristic like race or gender or anything
8:08 am
else. and that's important. i would also say that it's important from the standpoint of role modeling. that i have been so touched by the numbers of people who have reached out to me in this period of time. to say how much it has meant to their daughters, to their sons, to the next generation, that i've been appointed, nominated and hopefully confirmed. >> well, i agree with you. i have certainly seen that within my own family. you know, we do have areas where we agree on things, on this committee. senators grassley and senator cornin, myself and others, believe in transparency, as
8:09 am
part of our democracy, with the freedom of information act, where we've updated a number of years, senator cornin and i have been the key sponsors of legislation and joined by senator grassley and senator gervin and others to improve the freedom of information act. you talked about the detailed opinions. you've written to try to do the same thing. i think it's safe to say, you believe transparency is central to the duties of a judge. do you intend to carry that attitude when -- and you will. and you will. become a member of the u.s. supreme court? >> thank you, senator. the value of public confidence, which i was just discussing, i
8:10 am
think is enhanced when the public understands the reasons that a judge renders his or her ruling. one of my mentors used to say, people think the judicial branch is so secretive. but in fact, the judicial branch is the only branch that actually has to tell everyone. that actually has to write their opinions and explain why it is that they did what they did. and so i tried, i've tried in the nearly 10 years that i've been on the bench, to make my rulings transparent, to explain all of the inputs that i have considered, with respect to the case, to lay out the law, as i
8:11 am
see it, in interpreting what congress, for example, has done in, with respect to a particular case, and what legal provisions that i think are relevant to the dispute. and then to explain my analysis. why am i granting this motion or denying this claim? and my hope is that it will help people to be confident in my reasoning. and even if they disagree with it, they will understand what it is that i think, and i think that's important for public confidence in promoting the rule of law. >> well, you know, you had talked about your clerking for justice prior, how it opened up doors of opportunity. i remember so well our conversation in my office, in the present pro tem's office,
8:12 am
talking to you, before these hearings began. you told me what you thought it would mean to your parents and your family, your husband, your daughters, your parents who have been here throughout this. and what it meant to your grandparents. you said you were the lucky first inheritor of dr. king's civil rights legacy. i keep a daily journal. i wrote that down. i just -- it means a lot. let me do this sort of open- ended question. you have patiently answered our questions this week. i told you the reaction in vermont was disappointment and some that were obviously political. i heard that from both
8:13 am
republicans and democrats. because they should be your legal thoughts and supreme court. so i'd like to give you an opportunity to speak directly to the american people. including our little state of vermont. is there anything you want to convey to them about what kind of supreme court justice you would be if and when you're confirmed? it's all yours, your honor. >> thank you, senator. well, first, let me just address my comments to you in your office. which is something that i've said in speeches because it speaks to who i am and what i value. my parents grew up in florida, under lawful segregation. and what that means is when
8:14 am
they were coming through middle school and high school, they were not allowed to go to school with white students. this is in the era before, and right after the brown versus board decision. there was lawful segregation in places in this country. and it was after that time, that dr. king made his famous comments that people mention about having a dream, where people can be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. and i, then, was born in 1970. and the contrast between my reality, growing up in florida and my parents' reality, growing up in florida, like night and day.
8:15 am
in terms of opportunities that were available to me, that weren't available to judge motley, who is one of my role models in the law. and so what my being here, i think, is about, at some level, is about the progress that we've made in this country, in a very short period of time, i would say. seems like a long time. but one generation, we've gone from the reality of my parents' upbringing to the reality of mine. and i do consider myself, having been born in 1970, to be the first generation to benefit from the civil rights movement, from the legacy of all of the work of so many people that went into changing the laws in
8:16 am
this country, so that people like me could have an opportunity to be sitting here before you today. what i would hope to bring to the supreme court is very similar to what 115 other justices have brought, which is their life experiences, their perspectives. and mine include being a trial judge, being an appellate judge, being a public defender, being a member of the sentencing commission. in addition to my being a black woman, lucky inheritor of the civil rights dream. and in my capacity as a justice, i would do what i've done for the past decade, which
8:17 am
is to rule from a position of neutrality to look carefully at the facts and the circumstances of every case, without any agendas, without any attempt to push the law in one direction or the other, to look only at the facts and the circumstances interpreting the law, consistent with the constitution and precedence and to render rulings that i believe, and that i hope that people would have confidence in. >> thank you. and chair durman. i've had opportunity to be here first justice i got to volt on was john paul stevens. nominated by president gerald ford. proud to vote for him.
8:18 am
and it's a long arc, judge jackson. but i am so proud of your answers. and i appreciate and yield back. >> senator, leahy. let's take a break for about 15 minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, judge. two hours and 17 minutes in. we have been listening to the hearing of judge ketanji j. the hearing will resume in about 15 minutes. we'll go back. but let's go to darren haeck. george spans. and professor at the university of alabama law school. and ck hoffman. joyce. i mean, after yesterday, we saw that one of the key themes was frequent accusations that judge jackson was somehow soft on
8:19 am
crime. i want a explain exchange that she had with senator tom tilla. >> do i read that statement to say, that you felt given the circumstances of the time, they should all be released? because that's broad. that's not looking at their individual cases. >> no, senator, you don't read it correctly. >> okay. >> it was not a statement. it was a line in an opinion. >> how can i read this to say that perhaps they should be released, irrespective of the crime for which they have been charged? >> senator, if you read two more sentences down, that is precisely what i focus on. >> joyce, read two more sentences down. the accusations have been frequent. but her pushback, when things she believes have been taken out of context, have been fast and specific. >> she's been excellent in this regard. and she's been polite. but persistent in explaining the reality of her judging. in this case, the matter that
8:20 am
was under consideration involved some really serious problems that occurred in the nation's prisms during the covid pandemic. but to the contrary of that line of what we just heard read suggested, that inmates should be released in a group because of those conditions. judge jackson explained that she went to the letter of the law. and made those decisions on an individualized basis. of course, the overriding concern was if you release violent criminals likely to reoffend, that than wouldn't benefit anyone. and many acknowledged their concerns along with judge jackson, about prisons and the need to release nonviolent individuals. but here again, another example of her swift dismissal of unfair criticism of her judicial philosophy and judging. >> you know, c.k. one of the things we heard
8:21 am
yesterday at the end of a long day, was cory booker using the word "joy." we know a lot of people, it's something that they have been waiting for a verylong time. so talk about that. but also, as you listened to the questions. not just about how far we've come, but how far we have yet to go, in terms of racism and sexism in this country. >> absolutely. well, i'm one of those people who waited so long for this moment. this means so much to me to legions of women. legions of african american women. legions of african american women lawyers. young girls. black and white, quite frankly. it's about time. so i think what was poignant yesterday about the questioning and the discussions that judge ketanji brown jackson had with senator cory booker, was that he allowed her to show the world her character. he asked her questions that
8:22 am
allowed her to reveal invite into her character. because after a day of attack from many senators, it was refreshing to see at the core, what this formidable judge stands for. family. when she talked about her children. in fact, there were emotional moments. when she talked about her children, and family. but i think that what was most important was she defended her record. she is an independent juror. so many people tried to take her off her game. put her in a place that was uncomfortable, she became focused, laser focused on making sure that the american public saw who she is. the three-step process that she used in looking at cases. the fact that she's completely transparent. she's not afraid of any questions. and she really did handle herself with a great deal of grace and ease. racism, sexism, are alive and well. if anyone ever felt they were not alive, all they had to do
8:23 am
was look at the television set and see the topic of some of the questions. we have so far to go. but my goodness, we have come so far. for me to live to see this day. that a woman who looks like me to have her trajectory. and in this position, well deserved, amongst the most qualified persons on this planet, to serve and become the next justice of the u.s. supreme court, is something that i thank god that i have lived to see this day. but i understand there say the loare in work to be done. and we must not rest on the laurels. her fight is not confirmed. i believe she will be confirmed without a question. but the fight is not over. and we have to look ahead. this is a moment of fried for many of us. look ahead. and know that this moment took place. there should be inspiration that the sky saturday limit, even if you live in miami, go to public schools and have the trajectory that she's had.
8:24 am
>> the point of these hearings is supposed to be to ask questions. and it is for anybody who is a nominee to defend their records. and she has something around 570 opinions. but this morning started out, and this is to the complaint of some republican senators, with chairman durbin accusing some of indulging in cultural war fallacies that are not in the mainstream of america. talk about the ongoing political component of these hearings. >> when i talk to sources at the white house. that i echoed senator durbin's reactions to the comments by republican senators. when we think about what she was asked yesterday, it was about things like child pornography. there are a number of critics of that line of questioning. that that is a straight line to qanon conspiracy theories. and they're not really
8:25 am
interested in whether or not she was for or against. but they're looking for a straight line for a question. to define a woman. that source goes to the idea of this cultural conversation that we're having in this country about transgender rights and people's access to everything from bathrooms to sports. so there is this real frustration on the democratic side and among judge jackson. who say they see this as republicans pulling up straws in order to not vote for someone who is qualified. but of course, on the republican side, they are at least saying out loud, that they are very much interested in these issues. you heard a number of them asked her about abortion rights. a number ask her about hir sentencing and whether or not she was taking into consideration all of the different guidelines she used while doing that. but as your other guest said, as ck said, judge jackson has continued to be very clear that
8:26 am
she sees herself as an impartial jurist. that she sees herself as someone who is absolutely qualified if are the this position. and someone ready to defend her record. it is definitely interesting to see the sort of partisanship happen. but that is frankly what supreme court hearings have been. they have been sort of these real contentious, political battles that have something to do with the nominee. but a lot to also do with the state of both parties. >> yeah. there was a time, and i remember it, when the vote was about whether or not someone was qualified, not about whether they were nominated by a republican or democratic member. having said that, gerredith. before the start of these proceedings, you were on this network with me. and you said maybe tom tillis might be a republican vote. maybe even lindsey graham. he's coming up next, i think. we haven't heard from graham yet. but duread anything into
8:27 am
tillis's comment. >> about whether ketanji brown jackson could get over 50 votes but even some republicans? >> the question was about her allies being in favor of adding justices to the court. he wanted her to come out and say she was opposed to that. but she said she is not weighing into that. she sees that as a political issue. there are two votes that are going to matter. right? there's the vote on the committee itself. to move her onto the floor. and looking for republican votes in the committee is pretty tough sweating now. we saw a few moments ago, john cornin and lindsey graham huddled. they're the whoa voted to move it to the floor in her current role. they have approved to vote for her in the current.
8:28 am
lindsey graham also voted for her confirmation. cornin for some relationship thought she was worthy of the committee but not on the floor. on the floor she is likely to have at least one vote. that is susan collins. she came out she was very impressed. collins has voted for more of president biden's judicial nominees. i'm not saying she's going to say yes, but if there will be one, it will start with susan collins. if she picks up more, the next may tell us. coming up on our panel. we'll have more from day 3 of judge ketanji brown jackson's hearing. but first we'll update you on the war in ukraine. so stay with us. for romance. your home for big savings. [ laughs ] hey, mom, have you seen m--
8:29 am
ew. because when you bundle home and auto with progressive, your home is a savings paradise. bundles progressive. your home for savings. ever wonder what everyone's doing on their phones? they're banking, with bank of america. his girlfriend just caught the bouquet, so he's checking in on that ring fund. oh, that photographer? he's looking for something a little more zen, so he's thinking, “i'll open a yoga studio.” and as for the father of the bride? he's checking to see if he's on track to do this all over again...and again. digital tools so impressive, you just can't stop banking. what would you like the power to do? we're hoping things will pick up by q3. yeah...uhhh... [children laughing] doug? [ding] never settle with power e*trade. it has easy-to-use tools and some of the lowest prices. get e*trade and start trading today.
8:30 am
8:31 am
8:32 am
welcome back to msnbc
8:33 am
special coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. and we'll return to that when they return from their break. but first i want to bring you the latest headlines from ukraine. >> reporter: the secretary general said he expects the leaders to add additional troops along the alliance of the eastern line. he focused on russia's invasion of ukraine. right now, president biden is en route to brussels for the summit. four sources tell nbc news, briden could announce plans to permanently maintain an increased number of troops deployed in nato countries in ukraine. ukrainian president zelenskyy is expected to speak to nalto tomorrow. today, he insifted that the answers to this war are in their hands there were no
8:34 am
immediate reports of casualties from the attack. our for own richard kegel got more on the war. >> we're now in the musis appellates. it's not classified. thigh said all of the information here is certified. but they can show that it doesn't show any. this is kyiv in the red area. and these areas are all russian- controlled territory. so to the north of kyiv is a big russian area. and to the northeast, there's another russian area. but what is interesting about this map is all of these blue spots. and there's quite a few of them. these are all areas that have
8:35 am
been captured by ukrainian forces, recaptured, from russian territory, or from russian troops just over the last 48 hours, with many of them, particularly here in this sector, over the last 24 hours. and this, they say, is the biggest counter offensive that they've seen since the start of the war. the most blue that they've ever had on this map. and they're finding it very encouraging. they say obviously the goal is to get rid of all of these red splotches. but so far, with this counter offensive, just about 48 hours in, there have been significant changes around the capitol. >> richard engle, with a fascinating look from kyiv. now let's turn it back to chris jensen. >> jose diaz balard. thank you so much. and we are anding the next round with ketanji brown jackson to condition. as i said going out of this,
8:36 am
garrett. we're expecting lindsey gram. but what are we going to be watching for in the next 20 minutes now? and might it give information in terms of whether he could still vote for her confirmation? >> gram's questions last were more about the cavanaugh or amy coneet barrett case. it's important to remember that gram was very much in a camp that wanted to see judge michelle childs be the person sitting in this seat. he all but said that she would have the support of him and dozens of other republicans. instead, president biden nominated jackson. so we're seeing gram frustrated
8:37 am
about his last choice. and we're seeing frustration with this one. that this is not the nominee he wanted. susan collins votes more are. and lindsey graham is the next. could tell us whether he's going to revert the way he votes. or dug in to this nominee. >> and the white house is expecting a win on this. we've said it many times. it's a 50-50 senate. the democrats are holding firm. and obviously, you have the tiebreaking vote from the vice president. but having said that. how concerned are they that even if they're not landing against judge jackson. some of the actions, some of the sound bytes for republicans could be useful in the midterms. >> based on my conversations
8:38 am
with white house officials, they don't seem particularly concerned that these allegations are going to somehow become a 2022 issue in the midterms. they really see this as republicans who want to be focused on 2024. so republicans like tom cotton and ted cruz and josh hawley, who might be running for president. they see the clips of this being that year. i won't say, though, that while white house officials are confident, at least based on my sense of things, that they're confident of things that, judge jackson will get through. they are in some ways, pointing to the idea that she has to cert of sit through, as what they see as sort of a smer campaign. i think it's interesting we heard from minority leader mitch mcconnell who says he found her responses to be evasive. >> let's get you back inside the hearing room for the final day of questioning. here we go. >> and judge, this is not of
8:39 am
your making. so it's really not about you. but representative green is a fine man, came up and said he thought the exchange between you and senator leahy at the end about the arc of time, and how far we've come as a nation, was powerful. i will agree. and i guess here's my point i'm trying to make to the american people and my democratic colleagues. i wish you had that same attitude, when an african american conservative is appointed to high office in the judiciary. so what happened with janice rogers brown? in 2003, she was an african american nominee for the d.c. district court, 54 years old. a little bit older than you. but pretty close. she was a daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, a childhood and alabama under jim crow. she was a single mother. a member of the california short.
8:40 am
instead of celebrating how far we've come, my democratic colleagues filibustered her ascension to the d.c. circuit court. because it's well known on our side, that we were very much considering her to be the first african american woman on the supreme court. so rather than this wonderful exchange, which was wonderful, representative green, where were you and others when there was a wholesale assault on her nomination? nowhere to be found. the filibuster was used for two years to stop her nomination. and we eventually did the gang of 14, of which i was a part. so that she could make it through. after two years of waiting. this is what the current president said when he was in
8:41 am
the senate joe biden. asking about her. janice rogers brown on the supreme court. i can assure you that would be a very, very difficult fight and she would probably be filibustered. that's what he said about an african american conservative nominee, elected by president bush who served five years on the california supreme court. we're not going to live like that in america any longer. to my democratic colleagues, if you're a person of color, a woman, supported by liberals, is pretty easy sailing. but if you're miguel astradda, amy coney barrett, on and on and on. your life gets turned upside- down. you had nothing to do with that. i just make this observation that when you talk about coming up and how moving the exchange was, i agree. i just want to remind you, there was somebody else, of color, a woman of color, that
8:42 am
was picked for the d.c. circuit, one of the highest court negligence the land, that did not meet the same fate. and those days should be over. do you believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, judge jackson? >> thank you, senator. under our laws, you have to be a citizen of the united states in order to vote. >> so the answer would be no? >> it's not consistent with our laws, so the answer is no. >> why do they do that in new york? >> senator, i'm not aware of the circumstances -- >> okay. all right. that's a good answer. the answer is no. can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process? >> senator, i don't know. >> are you aware of the fact that anesthesia is provided to the unborn child during that time period, if there is an operation to save the baby's life, because they can feel
8:43 am
pain. are you aware of that? >> i am not aware of that. >> that may come before you so keep in mind. that's what i ask you to do. you said a bit ago, that you apply the law and facts and apply them as you see them. that is right shartd? >> that is correct. >> and you look at them and try to apply them. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> have you heard of the case of make the road versus mceileen? >> make the road in new york? >> yes. >> make the road. who are they? >> make the road new york is a nonprofit that represents various individuals in the sort of immigration law. >> they're the nonprofit
8:44 am
advocacy groups for immigration issues. were aware they receive from open society foundation network. >> no. >> okay. well, they did. >> in that case what was the issue? >> issue in that case was a challenge to a change in administration policy concerning expedited removal. which is a policy that congress enacted. >> uh-huh. >> in order to expedite certain removals in the immigration system. ordinarily. before expedited removal. >> asylum cases do not qualify on this level, right? >> well -- >> trust me on that.
8:45 am
>> if a person subject to expedited removal makes and has incredible fear of torture in their country, they can be -- >> and can they make -- >> they can be determined. >> right. >> to qualify for regular removal rather than expedited removal. >> so expedited removal is a creature of congress, folks. and if you have been here two years or less, the statute, the statute. i'm sorry. the statute. the statute would allow the administration in office to have expedited removal, avoiding a lot of the hurdles that would exist otherwise, for people here two years or less. so in the obama, even bush years, they did not look at it in terms of applying it to everybody. some people coming by air got
8:46 am
expedited removal. others didn't. the trump administration decided to use the authority given to it by congress to remove all eligible cases two years or less, under the expedited removal statute. is that a fair summary? >> well, senator, i would say it differently. >> well, say it differently. >> all right. the statute that you've put up, indicates that congress is giving the department, it says the attorney general but now it's the department, the ability to determine what category of aliens -- >> two years or less. >> yeah. but -- but importantly. the authority was -- it was not congress saying two years or less.
8:47 am
what congress said is, you agency have the authority to determine what category of persons between -- who have been here between zero and 24 months. >> which is two years? yeah. >> no. but -- forgive me, senator, what i'm trying to explain is that the authority given to the agency was to determine what length of time -- >> they had impression to make -- >> what length of time. it was not the authority to deport everyone who has been here for 24 months. it was the authority to determine what length a time a person has to be here, in order to be subjected to expedited removal. >> here's what the statute says. the attorney general, which is actually the chs secretary, may apply qualities one and two of this subparagraph. to any and all aliens in
8:48 am
subclass 2, as determined by the attorney general. such as nation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the attorney general and may be modified at any time. now, i've been in this business for quite a while. what the trump administration did was to use the discretion, given to it by statute in a way different than prior administrations. this advocacy group, the ara bella support advocacy group, tried to strike it down. new rules for them. here's what they said about your court ruling. there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent, to leave the decision about the scope of expanded removal, within statutory bounds to the secretary's independent
8:49 am
judgment. the forceful phrase "sole and unreviewable discretion" binds exceptional terms. such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the attorney general, and may be modified at any time. to those of us in the law- writing business, i don't know how you can tell a judge more clear clearly that the agency in question has the administration to do certain things. within the statute. so this is an example to me. and you may not agree, where the plain language of the statute was completely wiped out by you. you reached a conclusion, because you disagree with the trump administration. and the d.c. circuit court of appeals said, as i quoted just a minute ago, there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to lead the decision about the scope of expedited removal within the statutory
8:50 am
bounds to the secretary's independent judgment. that to me is exhibit a of activism. let's go back to child pornography cases. >> senator, would you allow it doesn't describe the ow designation process i was trying to articulate and it doesn't address the fact that congress has another statute that is preumpively applied and there's d.c. circuit case law that says, in addition to having that be preare zumptive, even clear designations of authority to an agency may still be subject to
8:51 am
congress's other directions regarding how to exercise the discretion. >> that argument fell on deaf ears. >> understood. that's our appellate process. >> i've got other things to talk about. the d.c. circuit court says there could hardly be a more clear example of congressional intent. there's no way to write a statute saying discretion lies in the agency. the soul is nonreviewable. so, you're not convincing me. >> with respect, senator it. >> and we can talk about it all day long but i agree ewith the d.c. court. this is an example, exhibit a of a judge ignoring limitations placed in the law by congress to get a result they wanted. child pornography. i have no doubt you find child pornography disgusting as the rest of america. you're a mother. you seem to be a very nice person.
8:52 am
are you aware how many images are on the internet involving children in sexually compromising situations? >> senator, i'm not aware of the numbers but i've seen the images in my role as judge. >> 2021, the national center for missing and exploited children, cyber tipline, received 29.3 million reports of a parent/child sexual exploitation, containing 85 million videos, images and other files. that's in 2021. it's up. in 2019, it was less. so, there's an epidemic of this on the internet. there are millions of pictures of kids being abused. when it comes to sentencing cases, do you routinely discount
8:53 am
the fact that a computer was used? >> thank you for allowing me to address this concern. the guidelines related to child pornography were drafted at a time in which a computer was not used for the majority, if not almost all of these kinds of horrible crimes. the guidelines have enhancements in them -- >> in two yearias you've said you disagree. what are those two areas? >> at the time the guidelines were drafted, it was an aggravating factor, a substantial aggravating factor to use a computer in order to distribute and disseminate the images because the ordinary
8:54 am
crime was not committed by computer. so, the -- >> would you agree with me that computers are sort of the venue of choice for are child pornographer peep snl. >> yes. >> here's my point. if you believe as i do the computer has created a bigger demand, there are more photos out there because of the internet, more websites posing this garbage, wouldn't you want to deter people from going down that road? >> senator, this crime is among the most difficult -- >> answer my question. wouldn't you want to deter people from going down the road, abusing the computer that allows these people to have access to millions of photos because of the technology? i want those people deterred. if you're listening to my voice today and you're on a computer, looking at child pornography, and you get caught, i hope your
8:55 am
sentence is enhanced because the computer in the internet is feeding the beast here. that all these images out there are going to be more over time because people use computers. now, didn't you also say that the number of images should not be considered as a sentence enhancement? >> senator, with respect to the computer, one of the most effective deterrents is one i impose and judges across the country impose in every case, which is substantial, substantial supervision. any of these defendants -- >> do you think it's a bigger deterrent to take somebody who's on a computer, looking at sexual images of children in the most disgusting way is to surprise their computer habits verses putting them in jail. >> that's what i said.
8:56 am
>> that's exactly what i said. the population of a whole of children being exploited and abused every time somebody clicks on is to put their as in jail and not surprise their computer usage. >> senator, i wasn't talking about verses. >> you said you thought it was a deterrent to surprise them. i think it's putting them in jail. >> senator, would you let her respond. >> yes. does sentencing have a deterrent? >> yes, sentences is one of the purposes of punishment and congress has directed courts to consider various means of achieving deterrent. one of them, as you've said, is incarceration. another, as i tried to mention, was substantial periods of
8:57 am
supervision once the person -- >> in your view, it's more of a deterrent to have somebody substantially surprised who's looking at child pornography than to put them in jail. >>m ier -- i'm not saying more or les. i wad like to point out that if we're going to -- let me say it this way. congress has authorized courts to use a number of different means to achieve the purposes of punishment. >> and one is an enhanced punishment using a computer. >> the enhancement relates to the penalty in terms of incarceration. >> and you would choose not to apply that in these cases. i'll read you the quote but you
8:58 am
decided not to apply -- >> that is going to wrap up this hour on that heated exchange between lindsey graham and ketanji brown jackson. don't go anywhere. andrea mitchell has a packed show from brussels for the next two hours. president biden is on his way there and i'll be back with updates throughout the day. and
8:59 am
9:00 am
and good day, everyone. this is a special edition of "andrea mitchell reports." we're in brussels with ukrainian president zelenskyy is going to push world leaders to take part to do more to help his military forces. he's going to appear virtually and call on them to help him repel the russian onslaught, do more. president biden son his way to belgian at this hour, landing here tonight. belgian time,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on