you very much. Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you for your good work.
Um, you know, we have heard a lot from some of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
Not all of them. Um and I think there was a mix of questioning that.
Somehow she would have the judge would happen agenda of a personal
agenda of her own that she would bring to the court.
And after hours of listening to her answer questions.
I think it is pretty clear to me and to anyone that watched the hearing
that that just isn't true.
You did a careful review of her background and her record and I assume
you were able to watch some of the hearing.
I don't think you were like sequestered during the hearing. Um is
there anything in her record or in the answers she gave before the
committee that make you believe that she will be anything but impartial,
evenhanded?
Justice.
There was well number one, Senator, We were not glued to the hearings.
We were preparing for our testimony. Okay. Okay, so I can't test
two or or or speak to everything.
But certainly there's nothing that's come to our attention to change
are well qualified rating. Very good.
I, You know, as someone who myself I will call it was in the arena
as a prosecutor. In my case, hundreds of thousands of cases over
my years and
Supervising hundreds of lawyers. It's always easy for anyone to step
back and pick apart any case. I think Senator Blumenthal knows that.
I think Senator White House knows that you can say someone is too
tough. Um
Which I've heard. Or you can say they're too weak, which I've also
heard. Um, but I think your review and actually talking to the people
who, um
Work with her and appeared before her is really quite important.
And I know this is the same kind of review you have done for other
justices, regardless of the political party of the president. Is
that right?
Correct.
One of the things that I brought up with her yesterday. And this
Whatever bad discussion you wouldn't have had to see was that, um
of her over 500 opinions? I think nearly 600 opinions.
She only had a 3% reversal rate. And in one case that she and I discussed
involving Guam, she actually wrote an opinion of the D C circuit
reversed her. But then the U. S. Supreme Court
Reverse the D C circuit and sided with horror unanimously and Clarence
Thomas wrote the opinion. I just think it's an interesting twist
on if people have an agenda and also about a judge.
That is calling things as they are. And just in general when it comes
to reversal rates. Is that something you look at, Um would you be
alarmed if she had a very high reversal rate?
As opposed to what we see here. Well, we certainly look at reversal
rates and I think Mr Drayton can comment on
The reaction of our reading groups who looked at specifically those
cases as well and what their conclusions were.
Well, first senator. The conclusions were that in cases in which
he was reversed, she was analyzing unquestioned, Uh, legal questions
under settled legal questions.
And thus they will questions of first impression.
They when they looked at her and analysis. In those cases, they found
her analysis to be reasonable. Um, and so they felt that she had
to difficult questions of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation.
And so they felt that her record was excellent given the fact that
only
Less than 2% of her cases were reversed. Mhm. Very good.
All right. Well, I want to just thank you for your good work. I read
some of the comments, which I will. I'm sure in the record of some
of the people that you interviewed, but I guess I end with that.
Out. She's one of the brightest legal minds in the country. Um, we
have a lot of smart people, but she is brilliant.
Studying her opinions. This was my favorite. It's like a masterclass
in judicial writing.
And then finally, I think, which is very important. After hearing
yesterday, Judge Jackson has the perfect temperament for a judge