Thank you, Mr Chairman, Judge Jackson. Let me join my colleagues
and extending a warm welcome to you and your family.
Congratulations on your nomination.
I enjoyed sitting down with you recently and talking about your experiences,
both the lawyer and a judge and how that's
Molded your views of our judicial system.
In the coming days. I hope we can have a candid conversation.
About your record and your judicial philosophy.
As I told you other the other day, these proceedings will be thorough.
But civil
As a member of this committee. I've had the opportunity to provide
advice and consent on seven previous Supreme Court nominations. This
is number eight.
I've seen the good
The bad.
And the ugly
When it comes to the way the Senate conducts these proceedings, and
so have the American people.
One of the best things I think comes from this.
Processes. I think this is a teachable moment.
That will remind all of us about the wisdom of the founders.
Who wrote a constitution.
That made sure that our rights would be fixed in certain
So that these rights whether they are the right to keep and bear
arms or
The right to practice one's faith.
Would be preserved from generation to generation.
As you know, the founders established three separate branches of
our government.
A system of checks and balances if you will.
This was done for the purpose of preserving individual freedom and
avoiding tyranny.
And ensure that our government was ultimately accountable to the
people.
From whom all political power derives.
Article three as you know, Vest, the Supreme Court and inferior courts
with the judicial power.
But the framers were very clear.
The courts are not vested with a policy making authority.
According to our Constitution, courts hear cases and controversies
and decide them nothing more.
Nothing less.
That's an important distinction to remember in the days that lie
ahead.
Indeed, the framers envisioned that the courts would be would have
a modest but very important role in our three branches of government.
You'll recall federalist 78, where Alexander Hamilton's said the
courts would have no influence over either the sword or the purse
and that it may truly be said.
To have neither force nor will
That merely judgment.
Part of that judgment requires a judge to go where the law commands
whether or not you personally approved or not.
And it starts with deciding cases as presented and not cherry picking
the facts or the law and starting with the decision and then justifying
it, by the way.
Bye bye. Cherry picked facts and
Provision of the law.
While this performers provided that the president would nominate
Judges.
The framers also set up a framework that allowed judges once you
are confirmed to exercise independent judgment free from elections.
And politics. And so these Supreme Court confirmation hearings are
really the only chance we have.
As representatives of the people to vet somebody who will serve the
remainder of their life.
Unfortunately, there are some driven by the riot ideology that wants
the Supreme Court to do more than what I've just described.
These are some of the same people who tried to bully Justice Breyer
into an early retirement.
These activists demand that the court make policy and deliver results.
They can't achieve the deliberation, compromise and rough and tumble
of legislative politics.
And when the court does not deliver the results they want
They attack its institutional integrity and legitimacy.
In recent years, These radical views have made their way into the
mainstream.
On the campaign trail. President Biden refused to disavow court packing.
Two years ago, the Democratic leader of the Senate went to the Supreme
Court steps and threatened to sitting Supreme Court justices by name
if they did not rule in a particular way.
Dark money groups like demand Justice have paid millions of dollars
to promote promote court packing and so public distrust in the legitimacy
of the Supreme Court.
Justice Breyer as you know.
Recently warned of the crippling effective this politicalization
of the court, and its decision making can have
He said. Without the public's trust, the court would no longer be
able to act as a check on the other branches of government.
And a guarantee guarantor of the rule of law threatening the foundations
of our constitutional system.
Judge. I know you know that the courts are not designed to deliver
particular policy outcomes or to invent new rights out of whole cloth.
That's why it's imperative that we explore your judicial philosophy
during this hearing.
I will say I was a bit troubled when you that you have not so far
provided us with much clarity on that matter.
Someone as accomplished as you are.
Who spent years engaging and thinking about our constitution and
laws as surely formed a judicial philosophy.
This is not your first rodeo.
You've had an impressive career judge as a Supreme Court clerk, appellate
advocate and trial court judge.
I like the fact that you've had such broad experience in our judicial
and legal system.
But there's still unanswered questions remain.
I'm a bit troubled by some of the positions you have taken and arguments
that you've made representing people who have committed terrorist
acts against the United States.
And other dangerous criminals.
As someone who has deep respect for the adversarial system of justice.
I understand the importance of zealous advocacy.
But it appears that sometimes this zealous advocacy has gone beyond
the pale.
And in some instances, it appears that your advocacy has bled over
into your decision making process as a judge.
You've had some cases reversed, like all judges do
But some of them were particularly high profile when you rule against
a Republican administration.
I'm eager to understand why, In some instances you found that you
could not decide to particular issue while and other instances you
enjoined a Republican administration from implementing its policies.
I'm also interested as others have
Mentioned in your opinion, why pro abortion dark money groups like
demand, Justice and anti religious liberty groups are pouring millions
of dollars into a public campaign.
In support of your nomination.
Judge Jackson. These are some of the questions and concerns I have
I assure you that you will have every opportunity to address these
concerns as a committee of Value Eights, your ability to fairly and
impartially delivered justice should you be confirmed?
So I welcome your
Testimony. These hearings and I look forward to our give and take.