very truth of the allegations. she's in the mainstream of sentencing when it comes to these cases. seventy to 80% of federal judges diverge from the guidelines as she has in some cases. .. federal judges proposed by president trump right and left who do exactly the same thing she does. i ask consent to enter into the record a "new york times" article of march 25, 2022, entitled jackson's critics back judges with like rulings. the presiding officer: without objection. objection. without objection. >> it tells the story and the story is very clear. we have a situation in this country where we have not a greeted child and sexual misconduct statues in years. across-the-board 70 to 80% of the judges take the same

position judge ketanji brown jackson the so-called deviations from the guidelines has become commonplace. as i said the overwhelming majority are doing this. was there a problem? the problem is we have not a great of the statutes. we barely -- bear responsibility for this but the decision was made before the supreme court that these guidelines would not be mandatory. it was decision joined by antonin scalia the original is the t conservative. it put the burden back on congress and we have picked up that responsibility. so you say to yourself if she were so soft on crime is surely would have shown up in other places. let me tell you what happened the american bar association did a review of her career as a prosecutor and as a defender on the bench. they interviewed 250 individuals judges prosecutors defense lawyers and other council who

worked with her and i asked pointblank justice williams to lead this investigation byy the ada. did you hear from anyone who said she was soft on crime? atshe somehow was not in the nom i came to sentencing? none, not one. 250 people interviewed and not one came up withne it. all we have heard against her that has come up from three or four people on the committee and that's it is there's no record for. the american barci association greeted her when it was all said and done unanimously well-qualified. unanimously well-qualified. it doesn't sound like the same person we just described does its? because it isn't. you've heard it on the floor here is some mischaracterization of a record. i'm sorry to say it's unfair that i wish it hadn't been part of the record today. what about wanton amo?

i asked the serious differences from the senator of south carolina about wanton amo. hundreds of detainees in guantánamo since the war on terror began. many should have been there. hundreds and hundreds of them have been released by presidents republican and democrat. we are now down to 39 inmates and we are spending $10 million for each one of them each year at guantánamo bay. and when it comes to the resolution of who was responsible for 9/11 the families who came and testified for us over 20 years and they still don't have an answer. they understand the approach of guantánamo bay is not leading to justice and it's not answering the basic questions. what is her situation? why would she dare be called a war criminal? what was she thinking? it sounds like a charge until

you read the facts. the facts facts were she presented the brief and the briefer for two the body of law known as the alien tort statute and the person she wase representing in this brief was arguing inmates were tortured so file a claim under the alien tort statute and when you do that you see the president of united states and the secretary of defense. they were the named defendantsen that included president bush and the senator from south carolina failed to disclose and as the case was winding its way through the administration changed and if there was an allegation of war crime against president was it was the same allegation made when the administration chained and the nameme of the defendant changed to barack obama. tost argue that this was a personal charge against the president of united states as a

war criminal is a exaggeration and unfair. the main defendants were required under the tort statute for the allegations made. that was not her decision but that was the decision of congress under the alien tort statute. the third i want to make is immigration. we have challenges and i think we all know it but to say that she somehow responsible for the invasion of the crowd people coming across the border is really unfair. what happened was there was a lawsuit filed challenging the trump decision on policy and she was asked to rule on it. she ruled in one direction and the deal was taken and she was reversed in circuit court. according to the senator who just made a presentation evidence of the radical left when it comes to immigration evidence that judge soros is

controlling her decisions. it's. the fact of the matter as if you look at almost 600 decisions handed down by judge ketanji small percentage that actually were reversed and if you are looking for a second case considering she's on the radical left she is has a bounced approach. shoes ruled at kansas republican and democratic presidents and she is shown a balance you'd expect on the supreme court. i would say this notion that somehow joe biden has chosen someone who is radical is a shame. she issh not. she is as solid as they come and her testimony in appearance before the committee has proven that over and over. i also want to say i have nothing s against the south airliner judge who is in the finals.

wasn't chosen by the president and in fact president biden processes should be promoted to the federal district circuit court and i'd like to get that done as quick as wei' can. judge childs is well deserving of that opportunity. she certainly is a good jurist but the choice by president biden was there it was the right choice. these charges that somehow she softic on crime because she's an african-american woman and a public defender the record of this woman we should all be judged on our records. this notion that we are asked to identify ourselves we know that story those who sit on the side of the chamber. we are attached to labels which we embrace and some we don't embrace. most people will say they are owing to judge you by a label. judging by your record. if the judge ketanji brown jackson by her record the fact that this was the fourth time

she appeared before the judiciaryhe committee and approe three previous times serving on the commission so many other things and know she is an outstanding and stellar record if you want to be the first you have to be the best. she is the best. despite some the things that are then dried her today and other places the american people came out at that hearing and felt better and stronger about her nomination than before the hearing began. it's evident that the strength she brings to this nomination and the value t she will bring o the supreme court. i yield the floor. that the senator from texas is recognized. >> thank you mr. president. next week the senate will vote on the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as a member of the supreme court ofet the united states. judge jackson's nomination was announced i made it clear that i would go into this process with an open mind just as i try to do

with each supreme court nominee that has come before the judiciary committee during my time in the senate. this is my eighth supreme court justice to participate in the confirmation. the good, the bad and the when it comes to judicial c confirmation hearings and i know some of express concerns about the tough -- that she fielded not that she did credible job answering those questions. she's obviously -- is obviously incredibly smart. i found her personally very charmingso as well. judge jackson has received two degrees from harvard

completed her supreme court clerkship and served on the federal bench for nearly a decade. i hear no one questioning judge jackson's legal credentials for the lifetime to the sprinkler requires the right resume. our constitutional republic requires judges to rule they stunned the law not based on their personal policy preferences or believes and certainly not based on a result working your way back to a justification for that particular result. judges are required to go wherever the law may lead them. justice scalia during his lifetime said if you haven't dated decision as a judge that you personally disagree with or because the law compels it you probably aren't doing your job as a judge and i think there's a lot of truth to that.

as i say the job does not start with the result and work and cherry-pick the legal reason to justify the decision. the question we try to answer those of us who served on the judiciary committee last week is where is judge jackson in this maldef confirmed to the supreme court but would she be a partial umpire who follows the leader letter of the law or which attempt to legislate from the bench? the reason that's important is because under our constitution members of the senate are supposed to legislate. that's all the reason we were in for election and we are held accountable. each election for the votes we take in the policy positions we embrace professor of public policy in america is supposed to be made. not by judges who serve for a

lifetime and to the voters cannot elect like members of the senate. that's why it's their job is very different. before judge jackson was named as the nominee of resident bayou outlined what he was looking for in a candidate. among the many qualities and beliefs he specified the president said tellingly he wanted someone with the judicial philosophyos that quote suggests there unenumerated rights in the constitution and all the amendments mean something including the ninth amendment. those were code words mr. president and let me explain. a one-off comment by president biden even said on the campaign trail he would not nominate somebody for the supreme court

who did v not have a view of unenumerated rights that exist in the come -- constitution. translated into english that's tantamount to saying that judges shouldn't be bound by a written constitution. you might wonder if you are bound by the text in the words of the constitution what is their authority come from? the president restated a litmus test fornd his candidate and clearly determined that judge jackson fits the bill so i my time during the judiciary committee hearing asking her about unenumerated what she might call invisible rights. during her confirmation hearing. invisible because they are not in the text. i told judge jackson that five

unelected and unaccountable justices could have upend the will of the people by invalidating r laws or inventina new right out of whole cloth. we talked a lot about due process. i suggested that she and i out together. that's not a topic that people typically talk about around the kitchen table but maybe they do in the sense i will talk about in a moment. substantive due process is this theory that somehow when you combine the fifth amendment due process clause with the 14th amendment due process clause and out of t that formula unwritten and invisible rights can suddenly appear. this is really just judge made law. we have seenxa many examples of this.

plessy versus ferguson the supreme court established the doctrine of separate. equal when he came to the treatment of african-americans in our country. thankfully that was overruled by brown versus board of education an example of the outcomes thatme can occur when five judges unelected lifetime tenure decide to become policymakers in their own right. perhaps the most famous in legal circles another example of substantive due process where the supreme court invalidated labor regulations with regard to how long bakers could work. and that the supreme court discovered a freedom to contract

right again nowhere written in the constitution. another example of result oriented outcome based on unwritten constitutional rights. one of the most famous examples was roe v. wade in which the supreme court found a constitutional right to an abortion. i asked judge jackson is the word abortion or the word marriage found anywhere in the constitution and she agreed with me that no they are not mentioned in the constitution. it's not the gun because substantive due process can be used for good or for ill. the good is when i grew the outcome outcome and the ellis when i disagreed. the main problem is unelected judges areg making policy findig the entire country under the

guise of substantive due process which is nothing but judicial lawmaking. this doctrine of substantive due process can be used for things you agree with and things you disagree with. butt the point is it lets us hoe in on the limitless ability of vibe justices to discover new rights that aren't even mention in the constitution. and then to eliminate any sort of debate or democratic process where people get to vote on public all of these because essentially the supreme court has taken issue out of the public square. they say we party decided then we don't really care what you think or even justice hugo black noted in a classical sense he

said the due process in the fifth and 14th amendment were designed to make sure, certain batman would be governed by law. not the opera ture fiat of the man or men in power. we had to date that the same man or woman obviously. we only know judges on the supreme court on the federal bench are unelected and unaccountable to the people. federal judges discovering rights that did not exist in the written constitution essentially provide her brother was and i would argue eventually authority to the supreme court. the very nature retrieve branches of government is to divide up responsibilities among those branches. as imagine the political

branches are the executive branch the president the legislative branch obviously the congress the house and the senate. our job is far different and it's important to have judges understand they are limited. vital role under our constitution. their job is to interpret the laws as written not to make them up as you go along or to use a smokescreen of substantive due process to define new rights that don't appear in the constitution. ifhi the american people want to amend the constitution which they have done 27 times during our nations history there is a way to do that. it's a tough battle and you have to win the supermajority of both houses and you have to be ratified by the states but you can do it. it's been done 27 times. the people want to take a shortcut and they want judges to

abuse their authority by identifying these unwritten rights. what is at stake when that happens? the judges and that new rights to side issues that are not in their lane and as judge jackson's likes to say making policy is not in my lane. when a judge acts as a policymaker by congress -- like congress is supposed to do like the executive branch is supposed to do when judges that way they necessarily undermine the american people's right to choose. the declaration of independence notes the authority of governments to derive from consent of the governing but how the judges will make enough i unmentioned rights out of whole cloth how do we is the american people getpl ticked consent or withhold that consent?

it's easy to see how these smokescreens like substandard due process or methods by which some members of the judiciary undermine the basic and fundamental premise and legitimacy of our laws because the consent of the governed to those judges is. one unfortunate consequence of judge made law as it's not in the constitution as written is anybody who disagrees with you and this judicial activism can easily be accused of discrimination or even labeled a thief. even if they are believed is derived from religious conviction which is expressly protected by the constitution.

this is what happens when invisible rights conflict with rightsct that are written into e constitution like the first amendment like the right to religious liberty. president biden made sure he dwould nominate someone who believed in unenumerated rights and asked judge jackson a logical question what unenumerated rights are there? the american people deserve to know is certainly casting her vote for or against the a nomination for the senate deserves to know. she refused to provide an answer. this is the only place where judge jackson was less than candid. myon colleagues and i repeatedly asked judge jackson about her judicial philosophy a standard question during his confirmation hearings.ju judge jackson has a marvelous

legal education. she has vast practical experience because she was a public defender a federal district judge a circuit court judge and now will serve on the supreme court. when you ask the judge with that sort of pedigree tell us about the way you decide cases and what is your judicial philosophy , it's not a trap or a trick question. it's something that every supreme court nominee has been asked to describe. most recently judge barrett identified her judicial philosophy describing herself as a textual list and in the originalist and those are terms. i think what that means is she believes in interpreting the law as written and is as understood at the time it was written. that is what she refers to as a

written constitution. judge jackson previously suggested she didn't have a judicial philosophy at all something i find impossible to believe was somebody with this sort of experience and background and incredibly impressive education. during her confirmation hearing she failed to provide much clarity beyond offering vague statements about herff methodoly the methodology m is not a philosophy. we need a clear understanding of how judge jackson made law. invisible in the mice they unenumerated in the words of president biden in the

constitution m in order to meeto fulfill my responsibilities as a member of the senate to provide advice n and consent the need to know understand how judge jackson interprets the law and the constitution. not asking heron to make specifc commitments for results or outcomes. i would never do that because judges are supposed to interpret the law case-by-case. repeated questioning the judge refused to answer that question. the prism or philosophy through which the supreme court nominee views the law interprets the constitution is a critical indicator for determining if a judge will stay in her lane and again those are the terms that judge jackson used. whether she will become a policymaker president biden and

outside groups like demand justice want her to be. demand justice is inefficacy group that advocates defunding the police and progressive solutions to society's problems. they don't want her calling balls and strikes. they want her putting herself on their side of the scale and judging in a results oriented fashion. as i reviewed judge jackson's record i found examples of back oozes -- activism leading heard decision. one of judge jackson's the opinion on her time in the d.c. district court demonstrates a serious concern that i have about her ability to follow the letter of the law as expressed by congress, as opposed to her personal preferences.

in the case a progressive organization should challenge the trump administration regulations of expedited removal proceedings for people who illegally enter our country without the appropriate paperwork. immigration and nationality act gives the department of homeland security and that quote soul and unreviewable discretion to apply expedited removal proceedings. expedited removal is actually did turn for illegal immigration because migrants realize without authorization they enter the country and are going to be removed on expedited basis. alle whole lot of them won't spend money and take the time on that dangerous journey from their home to our shores for two hour orders if they know they are going to be successful so this was not a minor manner.

but the immigration and nationality act doesn't leave the gray area fory interpretatin soul and unreviewable discretion is as clear as it comes. judge jackson who decided over this case decidedly did not stay in her reign. she went beyond the unambiguous text to deliver political win to a progressive group in the process entered an injunction barring the use of this tool needed by her border patrol and immigration authorities in order to deter people from violating our immigration laws. unsurprisingly her decision was appealed and overturned by the d.c. circuit court. i think this is a clear-cut example of judge jackson ignoring the laws written in order to achieve a result that she preferred.

a critical point to underscore is that as members of congress we arees elect did and accountable. we can get elected and we can get unelected when our constituents don't like what we are doing. our authority comes from the electoral process which is another wayra of saying the consent of the government as i mentioned in the declaration of independence. each bills signed into law we are interacting with the role of our constituents and if they don't like what we are doing we hear from them and certainly will in the next election if not for. by ignoring these laws passed by congress and signed by the president judge jackson is doing more than just disregarding congress, she's j rejecting the right of the american people to govern themselves. the consent of the laws or

withhold her consent. it's given a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, i have to wonder how many other laws did judge jackson ignoring how many other presidents did she seek to overturn simply because she doesn't agree withve them? how far would you go to achieve a specific result by discovering unenumerated and hence invisible rights? r weather relates to immigration, abortion religion the 2nd amendment or any ring else she might imagine the supreme court might consider. .. between the coequal branches of government is part of our democracy. not only do we have three branches, we have multiple levels of federal, state, and local government. a federal system. that's because the founders of this great country and the

of this great country and the people who ratified the constitution believe the best way to protect their liberty was by enacting checks and balances on the authority of government because they didn't trust any person to stay in their lane. they wanted to checks and balances to make sure there was a method of and enforcing elected officials including judges to stay in their lane. six circuit judge, chief judge jeffrey santon recently wrote a book whose title sums up the overarching debate with a single succinct question. ultimately this is a question of who decides. do we the people decide, do our

elected representatives who we delegate the authority to make decisions on our behalf, do they decide or do unaccountable federal judges are they free to be roaming policymakers and acting judge made law which contradicts or conflicts with the will of the american people as evidenced by the law passed by the elected representatives. when there's conflict between the different levels or branches of government, who decides is how we determine who holds the power to make decisions that impact every citizen in this country. and as i've said, all power political and government authority is derived from the people. voters select senators,

congressmen, even the president of the united states, but they have no direct say in the process of selecting supreme court justices. that's why our response ability, part of the constitution known as advice and consent, that's why our constitutional obligation is so important. we have the responsibility to determine whether a nominee understands the important but limited role of federal judges and can be expected to act with restraint, fairness, impartiality and best interest of the american people. ultimately, i fear judge jackson has a blind spot when it comes to judge made law and she would use her seat on the supreme court to create new rights out of whole cloth and engage in

result oriented to decision-making. mr. president, for that reason i will oppose judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court of the united states. i yielded the floor. >> my intention to vote for judge jackson to be an associate justice of the supreme court and to congratulate her on the recent dignity with which she withstood the chair man called her trial by ordeal in the judiciary committee. last week, judge jackson said the gold standard for patients and courtesy from a supreme court nominee. she demonstrated hour after hour

in plainview the qualities that rhode island and reagan first circuit appointee judge has praised in her, and outstanding legal mind, an exemplary judicial temperament and a depth of experience in the courtroom that none of the sitting justices defenses. judge jackson reminded us through her personal story of perseverance and hope how historic and important it is to have a black woman about to serve on the united states supreme court. that story of perseverance and hope stretches back beyond her own life and work into the experience of black women

through american history and it illuminates a brighter american future. i will be proud of to cast my vote for her confirmation. during the judiciary hearing there were efforts to rewrite judge jackson's own history to assign. she dispensed with those attempts so effectively that i will not dwell on them here. a e

has to have one. and i'd actually suggest we're better off if judges don't, because judicial philosophy can so easily be code for predisposition. republicans persisted in that judicial philosophy quest, judicial philosophy quest, asking about judicial philosophy over about 50 times. the favorite theme appeared to be the so-called judicial philosophies of regionalism and textualism. doctrines which illustrate my

concern about the predisposition. the big dark money donors who ushered the last three justices on to the supreme court loved the backward look of regionalism. a backward look to the era when industry regulation did not exist because the big industry did not exist. moreover, republican justices completely ignore the regionalism when it suits them. as i pointed out in committee, the entire vast structure of corpn america erected by republican justices over years is a continuing affront to the

regionalism. there was no corporate role in politics in the constitution or the philadelphia debate or the federalist papers, any of the customary wellsprings of regionalism would say that this is a country to be run by we, the people. but how happy corporate political power makes big republican donors. so, a regionalism goes out the window and corporate power gets baked into the system. unlike those judicial philosophies of predisposition and of convenience, judge jackson said her judicial philosophy is herl methodology. consistently apply the same

level of analytical rigor- to a case no matter who or what is involved in the legal action. for a judge, following your oath of office, the constitutional precedents of the court and the text of the constitution itself should suffice. you don't need a judicial philosophy. so, where did this republican fascination with judicial philosophy c come from facts hee are talking points distributed by right-wing influence groups, the so-called independent women's law center and the affiliated so-called independent women's voice. these groups are tied in with

massive, secretive $580 million plus front groups that make up the a right-wing donors operati. they sent these talking points to republican senators even before judge jackson was selected. these dark money groups noted this nominee is likely to be a woman of color and urged the argue that the president's selection process led him to choose someone who may not be the best person for the job. they said it is important that you focus not on the selection process, or on the nominee's qualifications, but rather on the need to learn more about the

nominees judicial philosophy. the marching orders were clear and we sell these talking points play out in the hearing. this rewrite of history, to presume every nominee should have a judicial philosophy just because right-wing nominees have a fake judicial philosophy over regionalism turns out to be sourced to right-wing dark money talking points seems to me to be an effort to erase the dangers of having a judicial philosophy particularly if it is judicial philosophy that masks the predisposition and is selectivelyel applied. another rewrite of history came through the witness chosen to highlight judge jackson's amicus

brief, defending a 2000 massachusetts law establishing buffer zones for protests around abortion clinics. the witness was a sidewalk counselor, someone who encourages women not to go in and exercise the rights. she seemed like a veryer nice woman, and she testified she acted with compassion and love. but history, and my experience, don't align with that image of clinic protesters as i recall personally. crowds outside of clinics in rhode island in those years leading up to the 2000 law were hostile and intimidating, screaming and accusing of murder, to the point where patients coming in required security escorts to protect

them. i remember being sweatshirts the safety escorts war outside of planned parenthood's of the patients could identify who was there to help them and then pass through safely. activists went back and forth between massachusetts and rhode island to protest outside of clinics. on the morning of december 30th, 1994, bad went to worse. a man walked into a pair of abortion clinics in brookline massachusetts. at the first clinic, he shot and killed the receptionist with a modified some semi automatic rifle then turned on others present, patients, their

accompanying partners, staff. he left that clinic and traveled to the second clinic and continued the slaughter. the man killed two people and wounded five others in his rampage. this shook new england to the court. i was the united states attorney when word came out of the shootings. at clinics just one hour up the road. and the shooter was still at w large. t i thought rhode island might very well be next. so, i went and stood outside the planned parenthood clinic just off the highway, with my friend and federal law enforcement colleague marshall laden.

we stood there on that cold morning until the police cruiser could be posted outside. i will just say that the environment that led to massachusetts buffer zone while wallpassing in 2000 was not an atmosphere of compassion and love, and it is a disservice to the facts to try to rewrite history and pretend that it was. another rewrite of history that took place in this hearing was a rewrite of the brett cavanaugh hearings. the dew judiciary committee had been provided evidence that he was an out of control drinker with a bad history of behavior

around women, most particularly the testimony of this woman that she had been physically assaulted as a young woman. you would never know if her testimony from the history rewrite offered by republicans in the recent hearings. you would never know that she came to the judiciary committee, that she testified under oath and in intense public scrutiny, that she weathered the attention of a professional prosecutor hired by the republicans, that she was calm and credible. and you would never know that the fbi kept its supplemental background investigation into these allegations, including a tip line, who steps received

zero fbi investigations. i've described it before [inaudible] the tips related to the nominee were segregated from the regular stream on the tip line and sent without investigations to the white house. republicans sought to erase all of a that. by rewriting kavanaugh history during the supreme court s hearing. while, she has a face and a name, doctor christine ford. the big rewrite -- the big

rewrite is to ignore all the evidence that the supreme court is now a captured court captured in the same way that agencies and commissions are sometimes captured by big special interests. there is a whole literature in the administrative law and economics about agency capture or regulatory capture. even before the trump presidency, big powerful right-wing donor interest began spending massive sums of money to install justices on the supreme court whom they expected to rule reliably in their favor. very often as the presiding officer knows if you can pick the judges, you can pick the

winner. the 5-for announced to the majority on the court has been steadily delivering for those big donors. over 85-for partisan wins for the big corporate have partisan donor interests under chief justice roberts. in those partisan decisions by the way where there was an identifiable republican donor interest involved, it wasn't just the 80 decisions that stood out but the score was 80-0. every single one went their way. the dark money lurked behind and depicted the justices.

it lurked behind the secretive agency down the hall from the federalism society that ran the ads for them. behind the flotilla's of the front group who told the justices in orchestration how to rule. you would never know any of this from our republican friends in the committee. but the american people have seen those decisions and more and more, they understand the court is rigged and it is now the court dark money belt. judge jackson by contrast is a walking reminder of what the court ought to be. she didn't pass through the dark

ftmoney funded society. she arrived after a lifetime of accomplishments against unimaginable odds through a fair and honest selection process through her merit and abilities. the attacks on her in the committee were unseemly, but there is no need to dwell on that because at the end of the day, they were sound and signified nothing. a judge jackson will excel on the supreme court and i will proudly cast my vote to put her there.

they shared how the federal government impacts their lives. the winner of the first prize middle school went to an eighth grader in mountain view california. tenth graders from richard montgomery and maryland and marilyn andwinston churchill hil won the first prize high school award. the first prize central winners are 11th and 12th graders from college street vocational center in lake charles, louisiana. ninth graders from foothills community christian school in montana in high school west. the $5,000 grand prize winners are seventh graders tyler and jonah from eastern middle school

in silver spring maryland. starting april 1st you can watch the top 21 winning entries on c-span, and you can watch all of the winning student can documentaries anytime online on student cam.org. the world changed in an instant, but media com was ready to get internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual. we powered a new reality because of mediacom, we are built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom, supporting c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat into democracy. always glad to welcome back nebraska republican, member of the house armed services committee and also served in