WASHINGTON – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson faced senators’ questions on impartiality, her sentencing patterns, her defense of Guantanamo Bay detainees, abortion and critical race theory during a marathon hearing Tuesday in which senators are considering her nomination to the Supreme Court..
Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and President Joe Biden’s pick for a lifetime appointment, told senators she believed Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, is a settled issue. She leaned into her family’s history in law enforcement to describe how it influences her role as a judge.
And she noted the high honor that would come with being the sixth woman – and the first Black woman – ever on the nation’s nine-member high court, calling it “extremely meaningful.”
And when Republicans painted Jackson as soft on child sex criminals based on the sentences in a number of criminal cases she handled when she was a U.S. District Court judge, she responded by calling those offenses “the worst of humanity.”
Senators also asked about her judicial philosophy and how she interprets the Constitution in cases where the document isn’t explicit.
Tuesday marks the first of two days of questioning. Senators have 30 minutes each, in order of seniority. And then they’ll get a second round of questions on Wednesday.
Day one of Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing:Making history, first Black female Supreme Court nominee faces senators
Who is Ketanji Brown Jackson? Jackson says she’s ‘humbled’ by historic nomination to Supreme Court as focus shifts to Senate
Durbin: Jackson was a model of ‘grace under pressure’
After wrapping up the 13-hour hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin praised Jackson for performing with “grace under pressure.”
Durbin mentioned that one of the guests he invited to Tuesday’s marathon hearing was the woman who cleans his Senate office, who wanted to witness the history of the first Black woman to be nominated for the Supreme Court.
“She wanted to be there because she wanted to see this judge and hear her and show her support. And we asked her afterwards what she thought of the hearing. She said, it was really interesting, but there are some mean people in there,” Durbin recounted. “And the fact is, the overwhelming majority of people on the committee were not mean at all. They did their job in a respectful, professional way. There are always a few and you know who they are who are going to raise issues in a way that I think crossed the line, but that’s their business.”
Durbin said the Republicans tried to lay gloves on her but failed.
“I think at the end of the day, the charges that she called some people war criminals turned out not to be true,” he told reporters in a press conference following the hearing. “The fact that she was accused of not imposing sentences that were serious for serious crimes turned out not to be true. And a couple senators still cling to this discredited theory that she is somehow sympathetic to child pornography.”
— Ledyard King
Jackson distances herself from brief describing anti-abortion protestors as ‘hostile’
As the hearing went into its 13th hour, Jackson found herself defending language she wrote in a brief some 20 years ago when she was a lawyer that characterized anti-abortion advocates as “hostile, noisy crowd of in-your-face protesters.”
The brief was brought up by Tennessee GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who opposes Roe v. Wade “as an awful act of judicial activism” and was the last person to question Jackson Tuesday.
“I find it incredibly concerning that someone who was nominated to a position with life tenure on the Supreme Court holds such a hostile view toward a view that is held as a mainstream belief that every life is worth protecting,” Blackburn told Jackson. “So how do you justify that incendiary rhetoric against pro life women?”
Jackson said the brief was filed on behalf of clients and not her personal sentiment.
“That was a statement and a brief made (as) an argument for my clients,” she responded. “It’s not the way that I think of or characterize people.”
— Ledyard King
Blackburn closes out the night’s questioning
Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is the last senator to question Jackson tonight. Tomorrow morning, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina will question Jackson for the first time, before the Senate Judiciary Committee runs through another full round of member questions, once again by seniority.
As the second day of the hearing approaches the 13 hour mark, many senators are scrolling through their phones – or in Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy’s case, tapping on an iPad.
Seated next to each other, Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island had a lengthy conversation while their colleague Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., questioned Jackson.
The audience watching the hearing has also thinned. Many senators have left the hearing for the night, and the number of guests seated in the back of the hearing room has declined as the evening goes on.
– Dylan Wells
Jackson says sovereignty of Native American nations should be protected
Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,, asked Jackson about her decisions on Native American rights.
“I believe that respect for tribal sovereignty is paramount,” Padilla, whose state is home to the largest Native American population in the country, said. He also pointed out the upcoming decisions on the constitutionality of the Indian Act 1976, which is on the Supreme Court’s docket for next term.
“The Supreme Court has established that there is a special trust relationship between tribes and the federal government,” Jackson responded. She added that the nations should be able to trust the “stability the federal government has in terms of making sure that the tribes are recognized or cared for in the context of our system.”
— Chelsey Cox
Jackson on judicial independence
Where Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized Jackson for not offering opinions on issues like abortion rights and the Second Amendment, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., asked Jackson to explain her stance on such topics.
“You declined to answer as to not prejudge the issue. And I’ll remind the committee, I believe that’s been the approach taken by every Supreme Court nominee for the last three decades,” Padilla said.
Jackson said her approach is “consistent with the requirements of judicial independence.”
She explained that judges should actively consider the context of the case “and then with an open mind, receiving the arguments that are made in the context of that case, applying the law and making the decision.”
— Chelsey Cox
Jackson has opinions but not appropriate to share
It’s not that Jackson doesn’t have opinions about the controversial issues senators are trying to get her to discuss, it’s just that she doesn’t think it’s appropriate to share them.
That was the takeaway from an exchange with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who pressed Jackson on an issue she has been asked about for the better part of the day: Whether she believes the Supreme Court’s nine-member bench should be expanded.
Jackson acknowledged that she had personal thoughts on that point, but she reiterated her sense that it isn’t appropriate for her to discuss them. That’s because it is Congress that decides the number of members on the Supreme Court, not the court itself.
Conservatives have been pressing Jackson on the point all day because it is progressives who have raised the idea of expanding the court to blunt the 6-3 edge conservatives currently have on the bench. Despite interest on the left, President Joe Biden hasn’t indicated interest in pursuing the idea.
— John Fritze
Tom Cotton: Jackson “twisted the law’ in giving drug dealer reduced sentence
In one of the most heated exchanges of the day, Sen. Tom Cotton said Jackson “twisted the law” when she reduced a drug dealer’s sentence nearly in half two years after sentencing him to 20 years in prison.
The case involves Keith Young of Washington, D.C. who was sentenced in 2018 for drug and firearms crimes. At the time, sentencing guidelines required Jackson to take into account a minor charge more than a decade before when she sentenced him to 20 years.
Shortly after his sentence, Congress changed the sentencing rules to give judge more leeway on the punishment they handed down. Under the new rules, Young’s sentence could have been much lighter. So in 2020, when Young petitioned the court for leniency under “compassionate release” rules, Jackson cut seven and a half years off the original sentence.
Cotton said she had no right to do that since Congress did not allow judges to revisit sentence handed down before the law changed.
“You chose to rewrite the law, because you were sympathetic to a fentanyl drug kingpin, whom you had expressed frustration at having sentenced him to a 20-year sentence in the first place,” he said. “You twisted the law.”
Jackson responded that Congress provided judges through the “compassionate release motion mechanism” with the opportunity to review sentences.
“Prior to the compassionate release mechanism being enacted, a judge who imposed the sentence would have no opportunity to revisit,” she said. “In Mr. Young’s case, the question was with this compassionate release motion under a circumstance in which Congress had changed the law, was that an extraordinary compelling circumstance to revisit his sentence and I made a determination that it was.”
— Ledyard King
Day one recap:Making history, first Black female SCOTUS nominee faces senators
Jackson on the influence of her grandparents
Fighting tears, Jackson credited her grandparents with teaching her to get back up after being knocked down.
She described her grandparents as the hardest working people she’s ever known, “who just got up every day and put one foot after the other and provided for their families and made sure that their children went to college, even though they never had those opportunities.”
Jackson said she also focuses on her faith during hard times, a practice she also credits to her grandmother.
“Those are the kinds of things that I learned from my grandmother who used to have those family dinners and bring us all together. And I think that’s a common experience of Americans that when you go through difficult times you lean into family and you turn to faith,” she said.
— Chelsey Cox
Booker draws in Jackson’s family
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey brought a burst of energy to his evening questioning, engaging with Judge Jackson’s family seated in the audience.
As Booker mentioned Jackson’s brother Ketajh Brown’s experience in the police, Brown nodded. Booker then acknowledged parents, speaking to them directly and then asking Jackson to speak about them.
Booker later joked that he was upset with Jackson’s husband, saying that when he teared up on Monday it triggered a “sympathetic cry” from the senator.
Booker started his remarks by comparing the size of the prop charts that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Rhode Island Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, getting laughs from the hearing room.
“Ted had a very big chart, I think he needs to give Senator Whitehouse some advice on charts. Sen. Whitehouse’s was very small,” Booker joked.
As the hearing approaches the eleven hour mark, many senators have left the room. Originally the committee planned to get through questions by all 22 committee members tonight, but two have been postponed for tomorrow morning as the hearing draws on.
– Dylan Wells
Booker pushes back on GOP claims of light sentencing
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., pushed back on Republican claims that Jackson has been inappropriately light on sentencing.
“I kind of sat here insulted about the accusation that somehow this mother of two, confirmed three times by the United States Senate, has victim advocacy groups writing letters … (who) has presided over facts specific case, most heinous crimes … the implication that you are somehow out of the norm of other federal judges that we have confirmed … these issues had never come up,” Booker said while referencing a chart of nationwide sentencing guideline ranges.
— Chelsey Cox
Cotton presses Jackson on sentences, crime
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Jackson a series of questions about whether “too many violent criminals” are captured “or not enough.”
“Does the United States need more police or fewer police?” Cotton asked.
“Is 17 years too long or not long enough for a criminal to spend in prison for murder?” he posed in a follow up question.
The questions were designed to elevate the GOP framing of Jackson as soft on crime, but Jackson repeatedly responded with the same basic answer.
“Senator, these are policy questions,” Jackson said.
“It’s not that they’re difficult questions, she said. “It’s that they’re not questions for me. I am not the Congress.”
Jackson’s argument is that Congress often sets sentencing ranges for federal crimes and the U.S. Sentencing Commission makes recommended guidelines within those ranges in an effort to try to make sentences more consistent.
— John Fritze
Jackson on the McGahn decision
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI., questioned Jackson about her decision to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in impeachment investigations about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice on the part of former President Donald Trump.
Jackson said she considered vertical precedent, which are handed down from higher courts, as part of her decision.
“So that even if you disagree with them, you have to follow them because they’re binding precedent,” Jackson said.
The opinions about the McGahn matter by a district court judge were persuasive enough to convince Jackson that the former White House counsel should testify.
“I had to look at what he did and decide, was it persuasive?” Jackson said. “And I did.”
— Chelsey Cox
The news comes to you:Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletter here to get the latest news in your inbox
Hirono uses GOP judge records to push back on charge KBJ soft on crime
After Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., publicly challenged Jackson’s judgment for not handing down harsher sentences in child pornography cases, Hirono sought to show that Republican-appointed judges displayed similar discretion.
“There was an article recently that highlighted the fact that many of (former President Donald Trump’s) circuit court nominees who were previously district court judges had also issued below guidelines sent to child pornography cases,” Hirono said.
Hawley had pressed Jackson on her decision to sentence an 18-year-old child pornography offender to three months in prison several years ago when guidelines called for a stiffer punishment.
Hirono also pointed out Republican senators unanimously voted to confirm GOP-nominated circuit court judges with numerous cases of below guideline sentencing for child sex crime offenders.
– Chelsey Cox
Hawley: ‘I am questioning your judgment’
After nearly 30 minutes of questioning, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., drove right to the point of his questions about Jackson’s sentencing of child pornography offenders.
“I am questioning your discretion, your judgment. That’s exactly what I’m doing,” Hawley told Jackson. “I’m not questioning you as a person. I’m not questioning your excellence as a judge, frankly, but you said it, you had discretion. And that’s exactly what I’m doing, I’m questioning how you use your discretion.”
Hawley summed up his questioning after a detailed recollection of a case Jackson heard as judge, recounting from court filings the number and details of images and videos an offender had in his possession.
– Rick Rouan
Jackson: ‘I take these cases very seriously’
Jackson continued to push back against criticism from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., over her sentencing in child pornography cases.
“I take these cases very seriously,” Jackson said in one of the more tense moments of Tuesday’s hearing.
“The evidence that you would not describe in polite company the evidence that you are pointing to, discussing, addressing in this context, is evidence that I have seen in my role as a judge,” Jackson told Hawley of the graphic images she said she had to review in one of the cases.
“It is heinous. It is egregious,” Jackson said. “What a judge has to do is determine how to sentence defendants proportionally, consistent with the elements that the statute incudes.”
Jackson also pushed back against Hawley’s insinuation that she automatically took the defendant’s side because the punishment she handed down didn’t strictly follow sentencing guidelines.
“I appreciate senator that you have looked at these from the standpoint of statistics, that you’re questioning whether or not I take them seriously or I have some reason to handle them in either a different way than my peers or a different way than other cases,” she said. “And I assure you that I do not. “
– John Fritze
Blumenthal asks Jackson to make the Supreme Court more transparent
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., treated Jackson’s confirmation as a fait accompli, praising her trailblazing as the first Black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court and saying that her past work as a public defender will bring a fresh perspective to the bench.
“You will make the court look more like America, but also think more like America,” Blumenthal said.
The Democrat also talked about many issues that Jackson is likely to consider on the court, from privacy to sexual harassment to legal arbitration rules.
Blumenthal also urged Jackson to bring more “transparency” to the high court’s work, including television cameras and a new “code of ethics.”
– David Jackson
Jackson’s parents field photo requests, meet members
Judge Jackson’s parents Ellery and Johnny Brown are back in the hearing room again today, seated in the front row to Jackson’s right. With them is her brother, Ketajh Brown.
Senators on the Judiciary Committee and Jackson herself have mentioned Ketajh’s career in the Baltimore police department and in the military during the day’s proceedings, as well as her parents’ biographies.
Day two highlights – the grilling begins:Supreme Court pick Jackson fights back against GOP criticism over sentencing, Gitmo defense
The Browns have been popular during today’s hearing breaks, fielding photo requests and meeting committee members and guests watching the hearing. They’ve spoken with House lawmakers – who do not get to vote on their daughter’s nomination but are watching in the audience – including Democratic Reps. Bobby Rush of Illinois and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, both members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
During the lunch break, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina greeted the judge’s parents, and during the afternoon break the Supreme Court “sherpa” former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., huddled with the family.
– Dylan Wells
Republicans try to grill Jackson with political campaign issues
The Senate held a Supreme Court confirmation hearing Tuesday, and a Republican political rally broke out.
Some GOP members of the Judiciary Committee have asked Jackson about critical race theory, education policy, trans rights, and the past treatment of Republican nominees – issues that may or may not come before the Supreme Court, but are being used on the campaign trail by Republicans seeking to win control of Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections.
More:Exclusive: 2022 could be most anti-trans legislative years in history, report says
Observers said it looks like some of the Republican senators are playing to voters and fundraisers rather than Senate colleagues who are expected to confirm Jackson as the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court .
“It’s campaign talk, not serious deliberation about jurisprudence,” said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.
Pitney cited GOP claims that Jackson’s career has been promoted by anonymous political donations known as “dark money.”
Said Pitney: “The GOP complaining about dark money is like Bonnie and Clyde complaining about bank security.”
– David Jackson
Jackson asked which justice she’s most like? None, she answered.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, departed from thornier issues to inquire about Jackson’s legal role models. He asked if there are any of the current or previous Supreme Court justices she admires most.
“I must admit that I don’t really have a justice that I’ve molded myself after or that I would,” she said.
Jackson said the best way to assess her jurisprudence is by looking at her record and previous rulings, adding how she starts “from a neutral posture” in all cases.
Sasse then asked about the difference in legal thinking among the three liberal-leaning justices on the court, which Jackson also dodged saying there are differences, but that she hasn’t had time to dive into those cases.
“I guess I’m surprised after nine years on the bench, I mean you’re super smart, and having worked for Justice (Stephen) Breyer and knowing of some of the philosophical arguments he and Justice (Elena) Kagan had, it just seems surprising you wouldn’t be able to reflect a little bit on those disagreements,” Sasse said.
– Phillip M. Bailey
Second day of marathon hearing reaches halfway point
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware just concluded his questioning, marking the halfway point in today’s hearing.
There are eleven senators remaining, each of whom will have 30 minutes to question Jackson. The day’s proceedings began at 9 a.m. All members will have another opportunity to ask questions tomorrow.
GOP Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska will be up next when they resume around 4:05 p.m. ET.
– Dylan Wells
Coons: Jackson’s diverse decisions shows she’d be a fair
During his questioning , Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., offered examples about Jackson’s history of bipartisan decisions, pointing out times she agreed with the Trump administration and the Republican National Committee over Democrats.
Coons asked Jackson about her defense of former President Donald Trump’s wall spanning the U.S.-Mexico border, which she said was “guided by my understanding of the law and what is required, and not by anything else.”
The Delaware senator also said Jackson ruled in favor of the RNC in 2016 over the release of more emails belonging to former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
“My approach all the way through is one that I believe is required by my duties, by my oath, as a judge,” Jackson said of her decision process. “We rule without fear or favor. We are independent as judges in our responsibilities.”
– Chelsey Cox
Jackson: sex crimes cases involving children are ‘harrowing’
Jackson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “as a mother, cases involving sex crimes against children are harrowing.”
Her statement came in response to Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who asked that Jackson share how having family members who served as law enforcement officers, including one as a detective in a Sex Crimes Unit, has impacted her decisions in cases involving child sex crimes.
“I think it’s important to understand that trial judges who have to deal with these cases are presented with the evidence or descriptions; graphic descriptions. These are the cases that wake you up at night, because you’re seeing the worst of humanity,”Jackson said.
Coons’ remarks came after Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and other GOP senators accused her of being soft on pedophiles.
– Chelsey Cox
Jackson defends sentencing ‘as a mother’ points out Congress role
After quizzing Jackson on racial issues and history, Sen. Ted Cruz grilled the judge about her sentencing record in child pornography cases.
The Texas Republican used a chart brought in by his Senate staff to point out how Jackson’s sentencing in those cases often fell below the recommended levels of federal prosecutors.
“Every single case — 100% of them — when prosecutors came before you with child pornography cases you sentenced the defenders to substantially below, not just the guidelines, but what the prosecutor asked for,” Cruz said.
Jackson, who attended Harvard law school with Cruz, said the senator’s charts failed to include how lawmakers told judges what to consider in those cases, such as probation officer’s recommendations.
“The second thing I would say is that I take these cases very seriously as a mother, as someone who as a judge has to review the actual evidence,” Jackson said.
“Senator the evidence in these cases are egregious,” she added. “The evidence in these cases are among the worst that I’ve seen and yet as Congress directs, judges don’t just calcite the guidelines and stop.”
– Phillip M. Bailey
Cruz questions Jackson over critical race theory
Jackson said she has not studied critical race theory and that it isn’t relevant to her work on the bench in response to questions on Tuesday from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Cruz brought props to the hearing, cycling through posters of children’s books he said were used at a Washington, D.C., area private school where Jackson is a board member. He questioned whether Jackson knew the books, including the children’s book “Antiracist Baby,” were taught at the school.
Brown said she did not have oversight of the school’s curriculum as a board member. And she said the theory taught at the college level was not a factor in her work as a judge.
After a long pause in response to a question about whether she agreed with the sentiments in the children’s book, Jackson said: “I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or as though they are not valued.”
She added later: “It doesn’t come up in my work as a judge. It’s never something that I’ve studied or relied on and it wouldn’t be something I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court.”
– Richard Rouan
Klobuchar questions Jackson on voting rights, free press
Jackson affirmed that the right to vote is “fundamental” and a free press “protected” when asked to address her views by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Jackson cited the Supreme Court as saying the right to vote is “the basis of our democracy, that it is the right upon which all other rights are essentially founded” and said she agrees with that sentiment.
The Minnesota senator also asked Jackson about her views on the role of journalists in democracy, noting that her father was a “newspaper reporter.”
“Journalists and freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment,” Jackson said. “It is about the dissemination of information, which is necessary for a democratic form of government.”
– Ella Lee
Klobuchar praises Jackson’s family for their attentiveness
Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar gave Jackson another chance to defend her sentencing policies regarding child pornography – and also praised family members for sitting behind the judge during the day-long session devoted to occasionally esoteric legal questions.
“They all seem to be awake throughout this hearing,” the Minnesota senator told the Supreme Court nominee.
Klobuchar also praised Jackson for her “grace under pressure” during harsher questions from Senate Republicans.
– David Jackson
Biden ‘proud’ of Jackson’s performance in hearings
President Joe Biden has been watching portions of his Supreme Court nominee’s hearings over the last two days and is “proud of the way she is showcasing her extraordinary qualifications,” according to the White House.
White House spokesman Chris Meagher told reporters at the daily press briefing Biden was “moved by the grace and dignity (Jackson) has shown the deference to senators and the level of detail she is offering, reinforcing the value of her experience, her intellect and the strength of her character.”
Biden, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was also impressed with her “commitment to stay in the lane of judges prescribed by the Constitution,” noting her respect for the text of the law and the importance of precedent, Meagher added.
The president also noted that she “swiftly dismantled conspiracy theories put forward in bad faith” in an apparent reference to GOP attacks that she had been lenient with sentencing in child sex abuse cases.
– Courtney Subramanian
Jackson: Biden didn’t ask her about philosophy before nomination
Pressed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Jackson said Biden didn’t ask about her judicial philosophy.
Lee called attention to Biden’s remark in February in which he said that he was looking for a Supreme Court candidate with a philosophy that “suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.”
That is widely viewed as pointing to the Roe v. Wade decision, which indirectly referenced the Ninth Amendment to establish a right to abortion.
More:After Roe? Pro- and anti-abortion rights groups face new landscape in 2022 midterms – and beyond
Lee wanted to know whether Biden had asked Jackson about her views on those so-called unenumerated rights.
Did Biden “ask you either about your judicial philosophy more broadly separate and apart from the Ninth Amendment or ask you about your approach to the Ninth Amendment?” Lee asked.
“He did not,” Jackson responded.
– John Fritze
Durbin fact-checks Cornyn on claim Jackson called Bush, Rumsfeld ‘war criminals’
As Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard Durbin gaveled in the afternoon session, the Illinois Democrat offered new research on an earlier claim by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn that Jackson referred to former President George W. Bush and his Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals” in a legal filing.
Jackson told Cornyn she could not recall the particular reference but said she did not intend to disparage the former president or Defense secretary.
Durbin appeared to clean up the discrepancy by noting that Jackson filed several habeas petitions against the U.S. – naming Bush and Rumsfeld in their official capacities – while advocating on behalf of individuals raising torture claims.
“To be clear, there was no time where you called President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld a ‘war criminal,’” Durbin said.
“Correct, Senator. Thank you, that was correct,” she added.
– Courtney Subramanian
Hirono: Gitmo answer ‘should have been end of it’
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s exchange with Jackson on representing Guantanamo Bay detainees went far longer than it should have.
“I thought that whole exchange was really, in my view, questionable,” Hirono told reporters during a break in the hearing.
For several minutes the South Carolina Republican pressed Jackson on her defense of those detainees, who are accused of being terrorists. Jackson defended her time as a public defender and as a lawyer for Gitmo detainees, saying she was “standing up for the constitutional value of representation.”
During the lunch break, Hirono said Graham kept pushing for an answer after the judge had provided a solid one.
“And she made it really clear that the role as an advocate is to zealously represent your clients and that’s what she was doing in these Guantanamo cases,” Hirono said. “To me that should have been end of it.”
– Phillip M. Bailey
Judiciary Committee breaks for lunch, 15 senators to go
The Senate Judiciary Committee paused for a lunch break before proceeding with Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearing.
There are 15 senators left to speak after the break, which ends at 1:30 p.m. Each will get 30 minutes to question Jackson, and at some point the committee will pause again for a dinner break, meaning the hearing will continue into the evening.
After the break, the first senator to question Jackson will be Republican Mike Lee of Utah, followed by Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Yesterday Lee suggested he will question Jackson about her view on expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, something she’s already been asked about this morning.
– Dylan Wells
Cornyn quizzes Jackson about ‘staying in your lane’
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asked Jackson about one of her most repeated goals as a Supreme Court justice: “Staying in your lane.”
Cornyn appeared to question whether Jackson would stick to “interpreting” the law and not become a “policy maker” like a member of Congress or a state legislator.
Jackson said she is bound by the Constitution.
“Judges exercise their authority to interpret the law,” she said – not to make it.
So judges shouldn’t be politicians, Cornyn said.
“Yes,” Jackson replied.
– David Jackson
Implicit rights:Decisions on same-sex marriage, contraception could be threatened by abortion ruling
New guests in the hearing room after a break
During a break in questioning, Durbin., spoke with Supreme Court “sherpa” former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala.
Durbin then took photos with a group of Black women who identified themselves as law school deans. Other guests snapped photos and took selfies with Jackson’s parents during the 15 minute break.
As Republican Sen. John Cornyn began his questioning after the break, many senators were absent, but there was a new addition to the room: Maine Sen. Angus King. He is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but came to watch the proceedings.
– Dylan Wells
Jackson: Gender balance ‘extremely meaningful’
Jackson said she believes it would be “extremely meaningful” to have gender balance on the Supreme Court.
If confirmed, Jackson would be the sixth woman seated at the nation’s highest court. She would join Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett — marking the first time in history that four women serve together on the nine-member court.
On balance:Race, gender become factors in Supreme Court confirmation battle before Biden names his choice
“I think it’s extremely meaningful,” Jackson said in respond to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “One of the things that having diverse members of the court does is it provides for the opportunity for role models.”
“We want, I think, as a country for everyone to believe that they can do things like sit on the Supreme Court,” Jackson said.
– John Fritze
Durbin, Graham tussle in testy exchange on Guantanamo Bay
As Graham pressed Jackson on her defense of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Durbin intervened to rebut the South Carolina senator’s questioning.
He pointed out that there are 39 Guantanamo detainees remaining and the cost of housing them would be dramatically less if they were moved to a supermax federal prison in Colorado.
The two then squabbled over the recidivism rate and policy of detention at Guantanamo Bay before Graham fumed the cost of housing prisoners shouldn’t matter if there is the possibility they could kill Americans while the country is “at war.”
“I hope they all die in jail if they’re going to go back to kill Americans, it won’t bother me one bit,” Graham shouted before he left the committee room.
– Courtney Subramanian
Jackson says Roe v. Wade is ‘settled as a precedent’
Jackson said that she believes both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are “settled as precedent” and that she would abide by stare decisis – a legal principle of ruling based on precedent – in cases related to abortion, falling in line with answers given by now-Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett during their hearings.
“Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court,” Jackson said. “Concering the right to terminate a women’s pregnancy, they have established a framework and the court has reaffirmed.”
She expanded on the importance of stare decisis, calling it important because it provides and establishes “predictability and stability.”
“It also serves as a restraint in this way on the exercise of judicial authority because the court looks at whether or not precedents are relied upon, whether they’re workable, in addition to whether or not they’re wrong, and other factors as well.”
Abortion reentered the national discourse after a majority of the Supreme Court signaled in December that they are considering an opinion that could come later this year that may overturn or significantly change the landmark 1973 Roe ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.
– Ella Lee, John Fritze
Abortion:Four clues the Supreme Court is heading toward a major shift on Roe v. Wade
Senators absent, Jackson’s husband taking notes in hearing
As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham questioned Jackson, several other committee members aren’t in the room to hear him or her answers. Members are able to come and go throughout the hearing.
Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut are no longer in the room. On the Republican side of the hearing room to Jackson’s left, Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska are not present.
There are still 18 senators left to question Jackson, meaning the hearing will go well into the evening.
While Graham questions Jackson, her husband Dr. Patrick Jackson is actively taking notes. He is seated in the front row to his wife’s left, the same seat he sat in Monday, when he became emotional and could be seen wiping tears from his eyes during his wife’s opening statement.
– Dylan Wells
Graham, other Republicans complain about treatment of GOP nominees
In addition to questioning Jackson, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are also grousing about confirmation hearings past – and how their favored candidates were treated.
Republicans are particularly busy dredging up the past, complaining about attacks on GOP nominees like Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and some lower court judicial candidates put forward by Republican presidents.
“There are two standards going on here,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., claiming that Republican nominees are treated like “weirdos” while Democrats like Jackson are treated fairly.
That idea is very much under dispute.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have noted that a past Republican Senate majority denied even a hearing to Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court nominee put up by President Barack Obama in 2016.
“There’s exactly one living senator who effectively changed the size of the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “That was the Rep. Leader Senator (Mitch) McConnell, who shrank the Court to eight seats for nearly a year in 2016.”
Democrats also noted that Republicans on the current committee are distorting Jackson’s record in this current hearing.
– David Jackson
Graham: ‘How important is your faith?’
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., started off his questioning by pressing Jackson about her faith.
“On a scale of one to ten, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion?” Graham asked.
Jackson described herself as a non-denominational Protestant but said she wasn’t comfortable answering questions like how often she attends church.
“Personally, my faith is very important,” Jackson said. “But as you know there’s no religious test in the Constitution.”
Graham was making a point that had less to do with Jackson and more to do with Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who faced a number of questions about her Catholic faith during her confirmation hearing.
Jackson would add a second Protestant voice to the court. The current court includes on justice who is Jewish, six who are Catholic and one who identifies as an Episcopalian.
– John Fritze
Jackson and faith:Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would add another Protestant voice to heavily Catholic Supreme Court
Jackson restates commitment to impartiality
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., drew attention to Jackson’s previous endorsement by former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who said his praise for her intellect, character and integrity is “unequivocal.” In response, Jackson affirmed her commitment to serving as an “even-handed” Supreme Court justice – a theme throughout her hearing thus far.
She pointed to her record as a trial and appellate judge in Washington, noting that despite ruling on “politically contentious issues,” her rulings remained fair.
“My record demonstrates my impartiality,” she said.
– Ella Lee
Jackson highlights family’s law enforcement ties in anti-crime criticism
Jackson pushed back on criticism that her time as a public defender meant she was soft on crime, noting that her family’s background in law enforcement and her views as a lawyer and a judge informed how she viewed the effects of crime on a community and need for law enforcement.
Jackson’s brother served as a Baltimore police office and two of her uncles were career law enforcement, including one who became the chief of the Miami Police Department in the 1990s. Leahy pointed out the National Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the U.S., has expressed strong support for her nomination.
She said as someone with family members on patrol or in the line of fire, she cares “deeply about public safety.”
“Those are not abstract concepts or political slogans to me,” she said.
Jackson cited the importance of the role of criminal defense lawyers “in defense of the Constitution and in service of the court” but also the rule of law. Her time as a judge informs her view that in order to have a functioning society, people need to be held accountable for committing crimes.
– Courtney Subramanian
Democrats tout Jackson’s past work as a public defender
Supportive Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are promoting another unique aspect of Jackson’s nomination: She would be the first Supreme Court justice who has been a public defender.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., said Jackson’s work as a lawyer for indigent defendants gave her a unique view of how the criminal justice system works, or doesn’t work.
Jackson, who would also be the first Black woman on the high court, said public defender work is essential so that judges can learn “both sides of the issue” before them.
It helps jurists “reach just results,” Jackson said.
– David Jackson
Jackson’s background:Ketanji Brown Jackson would be Supreme Court’s first federal public defender, a line of attack for critics
Leahy: What about Merrick Garland?
Republicans spent much of the day Monday focused not on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson but rather on Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, accusing Democrats of treating him unfairly. Kavanaugh’s hearing became a national spectacle over decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., seemed to have a response for that in his remarks Tuesday: What about Merrick Garland? Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in early 2016 but GOP leadership in the Senate blocked his confirmation for months until after President Donald Trump took office.
“We’re still waiting today for Republicans to explain on the record what kind of substantive concerns they had with Merrick Garland,” Leahy said.
– John Fritze
Jackson hints at originalist ‘constraints’ on Constitution
Jackson provided a glimpse of her approach on whether or not she views the Constitution as an originalist, or interpreting the document as it was written with a fixed meaning.
Pressed by ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about her views of whether the text evolves over time, Jackson said she was “acutely aware of the limitations on the exercise of my judicial power.” She said she didn’t believe there is a living Constitution in the sense that it’s changing or “infused with my own policy perspective.”
“The Supreme Court has made clear that when you’re interpreting the Constitution, you’re looking at the text at the time of the founding, and what the meaning was then as a constraint on my own authority. And so I apply that constraint,” she said.
– Courtney Subramanian
Jackson brands herself as ‘independent jurist’
Jackson reiterated her commitment to impartial judging and said her record clearly demonstrates that.
When asked by Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, what aspect of her record has been most important for the good of the country, she responded that all of her record is important because it demonstrates she is an “independent jurist.”
“I don’t think that anyone can look at my record and say that it is pointing one direction or another, that it is supporting one viewpoint or another,” she said.
– Ella Lee
Jackson’s opinions:Review of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinions shows outcomes cut both ways
Jackson, on replacing ‘my justice’
Jackson praised her former boss, retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she would fill if confirmed by the Senate.
Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Jackson about a 2018 op-ed written by Breyer.
“I have nothing but the highest esteem and respect for my former boss, who I’ve spent the better part of the past couple decades calling ‘my justice,’ having clerked for him.”
– Dylan Wells
Who is Justice Breyer?:Pragmatist. Institutionalist. Optimist. How Justice Stephen Breyer changed the Supreme Court
Jackson dodges Grassley on court packing
Jackson made clear in her exchange with Grassley that she’s not going to wade into the issue of expanding the size of the nine-member Supreme Court.
The Iowa Republican had tried a different way of posing the question, noting that some sitting justices – including Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – have publicly opposed the idea.
But Jackson drew a compelling distinction between herself and the others: Ginsburg and Breyer had already been confirmed to a lifetime appointment when they made those comments.
“Other nominees to the Supreme Court have responded as I will,” Jackson said, “which is that it is a policy question for Congress.”
– John Fritze
Jackson avoids talking about how she might rule on hot button cases
Like Supreme Court nominees before her, Jackson is declining to speculate on how she might rule on very disputed issues that may come before her and the other justices.
Second Amendment gun rights, presidential powers, alleged court packing, whistleblower rules, immigration and other issues raised by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley – Jackson said she would have to look at the details of each case and the wording of law before she could even begin to think about how to judge it.
“I’m committed to staying in my lane of the system,” Jackson said at one point.
Expect her to take a similar line on items like abortion and Roe vs. Wade, whenever they come up at this daylong hearing.
No judicial nominee, either Republican or Democrats, would talk specifics about how to rule on a case – especially a controversial one.
– David Jackson
Second Amendment:Supreme Court majority skeptical of New York law that limits carrying handguns in public
‘Standing up for the constitutional value of representation’: Jackson defends Gitmo cases
Jackson defended her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks, making the case that public defenders sought to uphold the nation’s constitutional values that were under attack.
“We couldn’t let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally, and what that meant was that the people who were accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation – are entitled to be treated fairly,” she said. “That’s what makes our system the best in the world.”
She said that federal public defenders don’t pick their clients and described the work as a service.
“That’s what you do as a federal public defender; you are standing up for the constitutional value of representation,” she said.
– Ella Lee
Durbin gives Jackson a chance to defend herself against GOP attacks
Durbin is trying to preempt Republican criticism of the nominee by asking Jackson about some of the disputed aspects of her record, including her views on “court packing,” the handling of military detainees at Gitmo, her work as a public defender, and sentences on child pornography.
“CNN says (Josh) Hawley’s assessment of your record of ruling on child porn cases is wrong and unfair,” Durbin told Jackson at one point, referring to the Missouri Republican senator.
In prebuttal mode, Jackson avoided the charged “political” topic of adding justices to the high court – and said she based sentences of convicted pornographers based on the law and the circumstances. She described her work on Guantanamo Bay and as a public defender as “standing up for the constitutional value of representation.”
Despite Durbin’s effort, expect Republicans to raise these issues – and others – throughout the day.
– David Jackson
Jackson responds to child porn criticism
Speaking for the first time about criticism that her sentences in child pornography cases consistently came in under U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines, Jackson told the committee that she took the crimes seriously and sought to “impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary.”
Jackson noted that in addition to prison time, her sentences in the seven cases raised by Republicans often included years of supervised released and other factors, such as limiting the ability of defendants to use their computers.
“I am imposing all of those constraints because I understand how significant, how damaging, how horrible this crime is,” Jackson said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has said that he intends to discuss some cases in detail later in the hearing.
– John Fritze
Jackson agrees with Justice Barrett on court-packing question
Durbin asked Jackson about her stance on making structural changes to the high court beyond its current nine seats, noting that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was asked a similar question during her hearings. Many progressives have pushed to add more seats to the conservative, majority-ruled court.
Jackson said she agreed with Barrett, who said she could not opine on the politically controversial issue because it’s inconsistent with a judicial role.
“My North Star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our constitutional scheme and in my view, judges should not be speaking in to political issues and certainly not a nominee for position on the Supreme Court,” Jackson said.
– Courtney Subramanian
Jackson’s family back in the hearing room
Jackson’s parents and brother entered the hearing room after she made her entrance. Like yesterday, they are seated to Jackson’s right. Her husband flanks Jackson’s left side, while “sherpa” former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., has the seat closest to her right.
Others in the audience include Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who was present for yesterday’s proceedings. Louisa Terrell, director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, is also in the room watching the questioning.
– Dylan Wells
Jackson vows to ‘stay in my lane’
In her most extensive explanation yet of her judicial philosophy, Jackson told senators that she has developed a methodology “to ensure that I am ruling impartially.”
“I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system I have limited power,” she said.
“I am trying in every case to stay in my lane.”
Jackson said she looks at “original documents” and precedents of the Supreme Court.
Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin, D-Ill., raised the issue as his first question, anticipating that others would continue to ask. Jackson’s answer is unlikely to fully satisfy conservatives who would like a more detailed explanation of how she would approach interpreting the Constitution.
– John Fritze
Guests begin to arrive for second day of hearing
Former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., who was designated as Judge Jackson’s “sherpa” to guide her throughout the confirmation process, is in the hearing room. The proceedings are set to start at 9 a.m.
Outside the hearing room, a short line of ticketed guests has formed, awaiting entry to the room.
– Dylan Wells
Democrats aim to confirm Jackson in matter of weeks
Senate Democrats are aiming to fast-track Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation process at nearly the pace of Amy Coney Barrett, who was seated less than a month after being nominated in 2020.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said he’d like to see her confirmed in an “expedited way” by April 8, when Congress leaves for a two-week Easter break.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in the world,” he said. “I want to really focus on getting this to the finish line.”
– Courtney Subramanian and John Fritze
Jackson’s bio:Who is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? For starters, she clerked for Justice Breyer
Jackson’s opening statement highlights support system, professional commitments
Judge Ketjani Brown Jackson on Monday thanked her support system and affirmed her commitment to neutral judgment in her opening remarks of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Jackson said her parents taught her growing up that if she worked hard and believed in herself she could “do anything or be anything” she wanted to be, calling being born in America was the “first of my many blessings.” She said she is committed to deciding cases from a “neutral posture” and remaining transparent in her reasoning.
She also thanked God for her nomination and paid homage to her husband, children, high school debate coach and Justice Stephen Breyer, who she called a mentor.
– Ella Lee
Day 2 agenda for Jackson
Today is the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the first opportunity during the hearings for senators to question her.
All 22 committee members will have the chance to ask Jackson any questions they want, for 30 minutes each. The order of questions will be determined by seniority.
Members of the committee previewed some of the topics that may arise today.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., listed specific cases in which Jackson handed down sentences for defendants convicted on child pornography charges that were below sentencing guidelines. Jackson’s supporters and experts have noted sentences for those offenses are regularly below the guidelines, regardless of the judge involved.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he would press Jackson for more detail about her judicial philosophy and how she would approach the Constitution in situations in which the founding document is not clear.
– Dylan Wells
‘Sherpa’: Jackson’s ‘prepared’
Former Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., who is helping guide Jackson through the confirmation process in a role known as a “sherpa,” told reporters that he feels the judge is ready to counter GOP criticism during questioning.
“I think there’s gonna be some very pointed questions about her record, and that’s what the senators are there for. I think she will be prepared,” Jones said.
He said that Jackson, not the Democratic members of the committee, is best positioned to respond to any attacks leveled by Republican senators.
“I think the best counter for some of those things is going to be Judge Jackson,” he said. “The senators are there to ask those probing questions. It’s going to be her job to give the answers.”
– Dylan Wells
Leave a Reply