Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you. Judge Jackson for joining us today.
I appreciated the conversation you and I had in my office a few days
ago.
And your willingness to engage in lively, interesting conversation
during that look forward to more of that this week.
Have enjoyed also meeting your husband and your two lovely daughters.
They're wonderful people.
I'm grateful to you for your service, your service to the federal
judiciary and as a member of the bar.
Um, you bring to the court as I mentioned to you last week.
Um, a unique set of, uh, of experiences. If you're confirmed, you
will.
Be someone who was served at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
And as a result of that, you'll have a perspective that's different,
and that of most who have served on that court.
During the modern era, and I appreciate your willingness to be considered
and to be here to talk.
To us about our questions.
I echo what many of my colleagues have said today in that I am dedicated
as I always have been.
To making sure that these
Hearings are respectful.
Engaging in the politics of personal destruction is not something
we should ever aspire to. It is something that has occurred.
On this committee in the context of Supreme Court nominations. I'm
pleased to say that it has never been under Republican leadership
that such attacks have occurred.
And I intend to make sure that this hearing is no exception to that.
There are a few reasons for that.
First and foremost, the most obvious is that respect to human beings
requires it.
Secondly, it's important because
We focus on personal attacks. That means we will
Be betraying our duty under the Constitution and to our constituents
to make sure that we do our jobs fairly.
And properly
When we're focused on things that we have no business doing, like
bringing forward spurious last minute uncorroborated accusations
that are personal nature.
We neglect the importance of talking about
The jurisprudential role that
philosophy that guides individual jurors.
And they
Document that we're all sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution
of the United States.
It's also important for an additional reason. A third reason
It has to do with the fact that having been nominated to this position,
we know that you stand a a very decent likelihood of ultimately being
confirmed to this position.
In which case you'll serve as a member of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and I think it's important.
It even when especially when we disagree with decisions issued by
that tribunal.
We as it
As a committee as the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Not engaged in speech or behavior that would undermine the
Legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States. You see, it's
the legitimacy of the court that gives them their patents, their
power their significance in our system of government.
We all have a duty to make sure that we don't undermine that very
thing that we purport to be protecting.
Let me tell you some of the things that I look for.
When reviewing a nominee and I think a few things that I intend
To focus on in these hearings with you.
One of them
well, what will involve any nominees commitment to judicial self
restraint to understanding the judicial role for what it is and what
it is not.
And it
Any judicial nominee these days.
Ah will acknowledge that he or she understands that the role of the
judges to interpret the law based on what it says rather than on
the basis of the judge's personal opinion.
This is all very true.
It raises questions as to how exactly that goes about and what steps
What tools
What rhetorical
Linguistic devices. The jurist in question might follow in order
to do that. I'm looking for someone.
Who
Is ideally.
Going to echo something that Justice Amy Coney, Barrett said in her
confirmation proceedings.
In which she
Likened the constitution.
This document written by wise men nearly 2.5 centuries ago.
Wise men who I believe were raised up by Almighty God to that very
purpose.
To the extent we follow that document, it's helped foster the development
of the greatest civilization.
The world has ever known.
She? She likened this
and our commitment to it as a little like what or this serious
Told his crew, she said the constitution is like how Odysseus ties
himself to the mast to resist the song of the sirens.
She then goes on to it to explain that
he told the crew. Do not untie me, no matter how much I beg or plead.
Don't untie me from the mast.
He wanted to avoid the tempting call of the sirens.
Attempting call. The sirens is inherent. It's
in government itself. It's it's understandable.
And that's why
We tie ourselves to it critical to that.
Is the federal judiciary.
The ultimate backstop the backstop that's there to resolve disputes.
Now a constitution isn't just something for the courts. It's not
something that's owned
exclusively and independently by the federal judiciary or the Supreme
Court itself. But it does play an important role because the courts
there
To resolve disputes.
That arise within the court's jurisdiction.
As to the meaning of a particular provisions of federal law, whether
in the constitution itself or as enacted into law by Congress.
So we need
Jurist is willing to to respect that role and demonstrate judicial
humility. What I mean by that is
An ability to acknowledge that
There are a lot of things not within the province of the courts that
entailed policy.
That
The job of the court.
Of
The judiciary is never to exert will or force.
It is only judgment. It's discerning what the law says.
A nominee also, I believe needs to show
Steadfast commitment to the principle of separation of powers.
There are
Couple of forms of separation of powers required by the Constitution.
Ah, along two axes. One operates along the vertical axis. We call
federalism, it says most of the power
Of government within the United States. Most powers
The government might exercise or to be exercised at the state and
local level.
Power. That's federal is the exception, not the norm in our constitutional
system of government.
The other form of separation of powers operates along the horizontal
axis.
It's one that recognizes within the federal government, which is
limited. We're gonna have one branch. Our branch. Congress makes
the laws
Another branch headed by the president, the executive branch that
enforces the
And that their branch which interprets them, resolving disputes between
Parties coming before the courts jurisdiction.
Third
I think it's important that
A jurist within our system of government.
Acknowledge the importance of
Interpreting the law.
As it was written as it was understood by the public at the time
of its enactment, if a statute
Or if provision of the Constitution at the time of its ratification.
This is part of how we tie ourselves to the mast.
Making sure that we undertake efforts to make sure that we're interpreting
it based on how the public understood those words, regardless of
the subjective intent of any
Particular lawmaker workgroup. They're out.
Beat public meeting at the time it became law.
This is how we maintain the rule of law. This is part of how we've
We've given force to this greatest civilization that human history
has ever recorded.
It's through the rule of law and tying ourselves to that mask.
There are increasing threats.
To this
We've seen those threats arise with efforts to delegitimize the court
and I'm sick and every time I see or hear or experience one of those
efforts to delegitimize it.
We've heard some today in fact, comments that I think by their very
nature delegitimize the court.
Another thing that can delegitimize the court.
Or arguments made in favor of packing the Supreme Court.
This was attempted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. It
did lasting damage to the court. It didn't succeed as a legislative
matter.
But it's arguable that it left to market not a pretty one.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires us to have nine
and only nine justices that is under the Constitution left to Congress
is determination.
But nine is a number that works its works now for 152 years. It's
not one that we ought to revisit, and it's one that
Supreme Court justices of various ideologies.
Including your former boss, Justice. Breyer, who might really enjoyed
getting to know
one serving is a lock work on the Supreme Court enjoyed our conversations
with him.
Ah, he Justice Ginsburg, justice, commas and so many others have
been against that. We must protect the court. We may not.
Protect the court. We lose ability to protect the court if we allow
arguments to take root
Better focused on expanding that and turning the court into a political