Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order
We have two senators, Senator Ossoff of Georgia Senator Tell us of
North Carolina who will do their 30 minutes of questioning to complete
the agenda from yesterday?
And then each senator will be allowed. 20 minutes, uh, to ask questions
if they wish, but the chair is more than anxious to entertain.
Efforts to yield back here time.
I am sure that the witness, Judge Jackson would appreciate it as
much as all of us in that respect.
I'm going to make an opening statement. Senator Grassley is going
to do the same. And then we will proceed with the questions whether
two senators
First I would say Judge Jackson and I thought the President Biden
got it right yesterday, he tuned in and watched the proceedings and
said, You showed both grace and dignity.
I have used the phrase grace under pressure, and it's been referred
to by many people.
This is a tough assignment, and many have risen to the challenge,
but nothing as well as you did yesterday. Thank you for doing it
so much.
I would just say this much of what we heard from a handful of senator
yesterday.
Has to be put in context.
The overwhelming majority of senators on both sides I thought were
answer l skiing, appropriate questions and positive in their approach
and respectful of
The nominee before us.
But for many of senators yesterday was an opportunity.
To showcase talking points for the November election.
For example, all Democrats are soft on crime. Therefore, this nominee
must be soft on crime. Well, you've made a mess of their stereotype.
The endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police just doesn't fit with their stereotype.
Of Harvard grad black woman who is aspiring to the highest court
in the land, But you earned it.
Law enforcement is on your side because you've been on their side
critical moments and your family is dedicated big part of their lives
to law enforcement. And you obviously believe it at your core. You
said that over and over again.
So the soft on crime charge, which leads all others falls on its
face.
The second thing is that you are somehow out of the mainstream when
it comes to child pornography cases.
And, of course, that gets down to the question of sentencing choices
and certainty.
It is difficult, if not impossible for each of us to put ourselves
in your place when you're facing all the totality effects concerning
a certain defendant, then looking at your requirements under the
law.
As enacted by Congress.
And trying to do the right thing to keep America safe to meet justice.
You are in the same places 80% of federal judges.
When it comes to sentencing on child pornography cases, 80%
And of course, Congress is not without fault. We have failed to pick
up the responsibility that was assigned to us some 17 years ago when
the Supreme Court decided that the
Basic guidelines would not be mandatory on judges.
We should have stepped into that point, but it's a tough, hard, controversial
subject and we've stayed away from it.
And what has happened is the judges have tried to make do with a
fractured situation or they have guidelines that are advisory. They
have opinions coming to them about sentencing from the government.
As well as grand probation office and others. So I would say that
the bottom line is this
you have done with 80% of the judges have done you're in the mainstream
of sentencing when it comes to child pornography cases.
I also think it's ironic that the senator from Missouri who unleashed
this discredited attacked, refuses to acknowledge that his own choice
for federal judge in the eastern District of Missouri has done exactly
what you did.
You also have been critical criticized as having been wrong to be
a public defender, or even to be in a law firm representing your
Guantanamo detainee.
It's interesting that Republican judges very conservative ones, don't
see this as a blemish on your character. They understand as we do
that the Sixth Amendment creates a responsibility that if people
have a right to counsel
You have exercised their responsibility in your professional life.
This, incidentally, yesterday turned your nomination turned out to
be a testing ground for conspiracy theories and culture war theories.
Uh, the more bizarre the charges against you and your family.
Or I understand the social media scoreboard lit up yesterday. I am
sorry that we have to go through this. These are not theories that
are in the mainstream of America. But they have been presented here
as such.
Finally, you are respected, Successful woman of color.
You've been approved three times by this committee for increasingly
significant judicial assignments. Now the president of the United
States has chosen you.
To serve on the highest court of the land.
America is ready for this Supreme Court glass ceiling to finally
shatter.
And you, Judge Antonio Brown Jackson, the person to do it, Senator
Grassley, Mr Chairman.
Yes.
Mr Chairman.
I think you've
In the main
Provided both sides an opportunity to be heard and asked her questions.
But unfortunately, I noticed that after every series of questioning
on this side of the aisle you choose to editorialized.
And contradict the points being made by this side of the aisle. I
don't know whether we will have an equal
opportunity to editorialize about the advocacy
That you and your colleagues. The points that you're trying to make
especially was, um, concerned that
After my questioning yesterday, I left the hearing room and you chose
to come back after a break and raised with the judge a point that
I had asked her about.
And which I frankly think was misrepresenting.
My position and what the facts are with regard to whether the judges
accused President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld of war crimes.
My my language was I asked her whether she didn't call them a war
criminal.
And she said, under oath to you know, I did not. Although the record
is plain as it can be that she accused them of war crimes.
Now I don't understand the difference between calling somebody a
war criminal.
And accusing them of war crimes. Maybe in some
Um some other foreign language that I don't frankly understand. Maybe
that would make sense. But not in accordance with a common understanding
of the English language, So I just don't I just want to lodge a protest
and say that
I don't think it's appropriate for the chairman after every time
somebody on this side of the aisle ask questions of the judge, Do
you come back and you denigrate and you attack and you criticized
the line of questioning? I think the judges doing up
Pretty good job of defending her own position and answering questions.
So thank you for giving me a chance to express my objection to
The way that you've been editorializing after each time this side
of the aisle ask questions. Thanks, Mr Chairman, Commission Chairman.
Excuse me. Thank Senator Cornyn. It's known as Chairman's time. Could
I make my statement for you want to make your statement? Well, man,
respond to what
Senator Cornyn said. Well, if you want to speak before you
remember, Thank you entirely. Your right. Mr. Chairman, I I agree
with Senator corn. And you know, I've talked about this before.
Um, I have great respect for you. You know that.
But I've had the same issue and normal hearings. Lunch. Supreme Court
hearings where you make editorial comments after our question. I
appreciate your input, but they're not offered in an even handed
way.
And I just don't think it's productive. I mean, you just referred
by name to Senator Holly.
Um, I think he should have a chance to respond.
You know, this is America. We have
The right to express ourselves.
Um, you know, you're not for if you can't say what you think, and
I just I want to join my colleague, Senator Corner. I just don't
think it's appropriate. Mr Chairman. It's called Chairman's time.
It is a tradition in this committee exercise by Senator Lindsey Graham
is chairman and Senator Grassley in previous Supreme Court, But I
didn't do it to why you do it. I'm gonna allow you to be heard, but
I want to be heard and, of course without interruption, of course.
And so in the minority. We waited through chairman's time When we
had Republican chairs, there will not be a separate set of rules
for Democrats and control of this committee.
That was used as a response time and again by the both of those senators,
and it was accepted, if what I said was somehow problematic or painful
yesterday. I'm sorry.
But the Democrats are going to use the same mechanisms that the Republicans
have used in this committee. And I appreciate that, Mr Chairman,
But I think if you're going to personalize it as to s two senators
by name, you ought to give him a chance to respond. Well, they will
have a chance. Mr Chairman each and every senator has 20 minutes
today to respond if they wish, Mr Chairman.
Who's seeking her senator. Could we hear from ranking member Grassley
and then I'd like the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of the
state of Georgia? I think the American public is now tuning into
these proceedings, expecting a substantive discussion.
Of matters of grave importance to the country with the nominee for
the Supreme Court before us. I don't think we've set an appropriate
tone by bickering over time and process at the outset of our proceedings.
Every senator deserves to be heard. I would like to humbly request
That ranking member Grassley make his statement. That's I and Senator
Tillis have our opportunity to question the nominee and that then
we can litigate balls and strikes from yesterday's hearing. Would
that be acceptable to the committee?
I think in the name of your humility, we should do that. Thank you.