a front row seat to democracy. >> i'm pleased to nominate judge jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect and a rigorous judicial record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination and i am especially grateful to the care you have taken discharging your constitutional duties, the service of our democracy with all that is going on in the world today. >> president nominates judge jackson to the u.s. court of appeals to the district of columbia circuit to succeeds retiring justice stephen breyer. if confirmed, she would be the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process and watch our live uninterrupted

coverage of the confirmation hearings starting today at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, www.c-span.org or by downloading the free c-span now video app. >> as we look ahead this morning day of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court nominee hearings, we get the first of two perspectives on this confirmation hearing today. remind us what the judicial crisis network is and how it is funded. guest: our organization is a 501(c) 4 organization. there was a lot of hostility towards george bush's nominees in the first time historically the filibuster was being used to block nominees so we were making sure nominees would be faithful to the constitution and the rule of law were able to get through the process and re-advocate into

commentary on major supreme court issues. >> host: what type of nominee is judge ketanji brown jackson. guest: she has a record on the bench but his is not point to someone who is committed to interpreting the constitution as it's written. when she was asked what her method of interpreting the constitution would be by senator cruz and by senator grassley during her appellate court nominations, she said she really has no approach to interpreting the constitution bring i find that very troubling. it's a surprising statement from someone who's had common-law in law school. it's really surprising from someone who sat at that time for a years on the federal bench. so i'm concerned public statements are i don't even know how to interpret the constitution, that means we are asking senators to vote for what

is a blank slate on the issue, but her record shows a pattern of particularly high reversal rates, not just -- in a vacuum that might not be concerning because appellate courts may -- there's a lot of reasons that could be paid but in this case we have some of the most liberal judges on an already liberal circuit who said she was going beyond her authority as a district judge, in particular doing so in political cases that had to do with trump era regulations and executive orders print that something that concerns me that she doesn't fully understand the limits on the judicial role in her policy preferences mixed in and intermingled with those legal analyses and i think in my mind that does not bode well for her nomination. host: for folks not much is in the weeds in this, explain what a reversal rate is and what that means and how judge jackson's

reversal rate compares to other judges and now justices on the supreme court. guest: judge jackson has a different background a lot of judges in that she spent most of her career as a district judge and most of the judges don't have that experience. in the federal judicial system, district judges will be hearing trials and dealing with the first level of litigation. after that, say you lose, there is an opportunity to appeal the decision. of her decisions that were appealed to the d.c. circuit judge, the court she doubts sits on, an appeals court for that region which is small in the case of d.c.. of those cases that it been appealed the district court decision, 10% of them have been reversed and that is a very high number for a district court judge.

in a vacuum that might not mean much but if you look at the opinion, one opinion in which she was dealing with an immigration regulation that had to do with when immigrants -- illegal immigrants could be expedited for removal, she spent a lot of time on that opinion talking about the merits of immigration, talking about the policy issues. that's not really a judges role. she came to her conclusion she said she tried to overturn what the department of homeland security had determined on that issue, expanding the eligibility for expedited removal. said you don't have the authority said you don't have the authority to do that. you might not agree as a judge with what the administration is doing but you are bound by those limits. you can go in and second-guess that because you think they should come to a different result.

that really shows to me the incorrect understanding of what a judge should be doing and in particular, a judge to be on the supreme court needs to be one who has really thought through how do i interpret the law and the constitution. in the lower courts she's bound by the other decisions either of the appellate court when she was a district judge with the u.s. supreme court. even if she disagrees with them she has to follow those print now if she's on the supreme court, all bets are off. now it's how do you personally think this should be determined under the constitution. so it becomes critically important to know is this someone who thinks the constitution is a living document, it can expand and change and the judge can kind of breathe new life into old phrases and make them mean different things. if that's true we really need to know a lot about her own opinions about where that's

going, but if she says i'm actually bound by these rules of how to interpret the text, the text is what was ratified by the american people in the text of the laws what was passed by our representatives. even if we disagree with it we have to follow it and then leave it to the proper role of the political branches to change that, it's really important to know that in how you interpret our founding document. we don't know from her mouth how she would interpreted. all we know are people who supported her who are in favor of reading their own views into the constitution and president biden who said he wants to appoint someone that as he said would enforce the unenumerated rights of the constitution. he wants someone who will enforce the aspects of the constitution that are in fact not written down. reading into it, other rights, we don't know what they are, that is a huge difference.

saying i can read in new rights and who knows what those will be for a judge that could serve 30 years. versus i'm good at consider myself bound by the text and if the american people want to amend that. or if congress was to rewrite a law i will be bound by that that not to try to bring my own views into the law because that's not the role of a judge. host: let's give the american people a chance to join in on the conversation print about 20 minutes left. phone lines as democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. 11:00 a.m. today's when the first of the hearings will begin today. she was confirmed to the u.s.

court of appeals for the d.c. circuit court on june 14 of last year by a vote of 53-44. she had her undergraduate degree and law degrees from harvard and clerked for justice breyer back in 1999 and 2000. she would be the first former public defender to serve on the supreme court. carrie severino, as we heard president biden even before she was nominated, she would be the first black woman on the supreme court. what role, if any do you think her race or gender schroeder would play in these hearings the next couple of days? guest: obviously according to the president they played a narc -- large role in narrowing the field for him. at the end of the day the question isn't what her race or gender is, the question is what is her approach to the

constitution and we know that's not determined by your race or gender. we have women on both sides of the bench right now. our first black justice, a thurgood marshall on the left, clarence thomas on the opposite end of the spectrum. the real question for senators has to be what is the approach to the law and how does she carry out that role as a judge. host: you mentioned clarence thomas. news out of supreme court yesterday, justice thomas hospitalized since friday after experiencing flulike symptoms. being treated with intravenous antibodies for an infection and expected to be released in the next day or two so that comes ahead of the supreme court hearing. plenty of calls already. spencer is up first out of clarksburg, west virginia.

good morning. caller: good morning. you have crisis on the name of the title of your group. do you have any problems with justice not answering questions to the senate and kind of bypassing their answers to the questions? after the ripoff the republicans pulled, why is there such a crisis now? >> we had crisis in our name for quite a while now. i think the crisis is when we have judges who aren't considering themselves bound by the actual laws passed by our elected representatives and the constitutional text ratified by the american people. returning our judiciary to that, that's something that crosses the ideological spectrum. you do interpret law by democrat or republican legislature. as to how judges were potential

nominees answer questions, this is something that's long been frustrating to a lot of people. even elena kagan well before she was a judge when she worked on the judiciary committee as a staffer wrote in a law review article complaining like it's turning into kabuki theater we can get any answers. and the reason is because as a federal judge. you had to be careful not to answer questions that commit you on a case that might come before the court because that would be prejudging the case. any really good judge realizes even if you go in thinking i know this area of law, you may find things that come up in the briefing and the argument that says i think i was wrong. justice thomas had a recent decision he said when i voted to take this case i had an instinct

it would go one way and after hearing the argument in the briefing i realized its strength wasn't borne out by the history and the text. that's what all judges should be open to doing. is she going to be able to talk specifically about cases that might come before the court? no. that doesn't mean there's nothing you can talk about. you can still talk, and judges regularly do talk about cases they've already decided, that will be a topic we will hear a lot about. cases that are been reversed or beyond the jurisdiction. issues that she handled and she was a private attorney or public defender, and her overall philosophy and approach to law. that is something that nominees on both sides of the aisle have talked about and should be willing to talk about. another issue likely to come up is whether she would sit on a case having to do with harvard university because she's on the board of overseers for harvard.

normally if you're sitting on the board of an entity even if you own stock in the entity, you can then sit on a case where they are a litigant. i think senators will want to know. i think an area she can talk about is broader issues that come before the court like court packing, that was someone she was brought up, something the liberal dark money groups who have been the strongest proponents of her nomination have advocated very firmly, one group from demand justice has said he would be happy with up to 40 members of the supreme court. he's also set some shocking things like the constitution should be scrapped. so i think she might be asked about things about that group. are you get a distance yourself. we know justices ginsburg and breyer also talked about court packing so justices can talk about those. i hope we have the opportunity

to learn about the nominee because this is someone who could sit on the court for 30 years so we can just kind of breeze through this and go on a complete lack of information. host: there's always the tape so you mentioned that ask about court packing in the circuit court confirmation. here is that moment with judge jackson being asked by senator john cornyn. [video clip] >> are you familiar with an organization called demand justice? >> i know of demand justice yes. >> do you know they are spending money to promote candidates -- your nomination to the circuit court? >> if you mean by advertising or placements in various publications, i am aware of that.

>> and on their website they say they advocate adding additional seats to the supreme court. do you think congress should add additional seats to the supreme court? >> senator, as a sitting judge, i am bound by the supreme court and i don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the structure or the size of the court any more than it would be to comment on the court's rulings. regardless of the size i would follow the precedent of the supreme court. >> demands justice claims the supreme court is broken. do you think this record is broken? >> senator, i have never said anything about the supreme court being broken and again, i am not able to comment on the structure, the size, the functioning even of the supreme court. >> demand justice says the

supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interests on their website. judge jackson, do you agree with that or disagree or do you have no opinion? >> again senator, i am not able to make any comment about whether or not the supreme court is influenced in the way the demand justice apparently, as you say, believes that it is. i don't have a comment. host: terry severino, are we likely to see a replay of that exchange? guest: i hope not because listening to some of her comments she said she's bound by supreme court precedent.

it was of the appellate level pitch wouldn't be in this case. she may still try to take it but i don't think senators should allow her to say she's bound by it. she's not. every one of the nine has said multiple -- has a multiple times overturned former precedent. on top of which supreme court precedents doesn't speak to how many justices around the court. everyone agrees that something that can be changed by congress and has been changed multiple times so it's a question of do you think these ideas of a partisan motivated packing of the court, adding justices for the goal of shifting the balance of the court, are you in favor of that were opposed. many supreme court justices have spoken about this. there's no rule against a sitting judge or justice commenting on it. while i know she will want to say that, i hope we don't have four days of simply i'm not today answer that, i can answer that. because that's can provide -- if we do that, why are we wasting

our time with hearings at all? this is a crucial moment for our country. it's a historic moment every time we had a supreme court justice. this is not something that happens every day. we need to make sure we are doing due diligence and understanding the judges approach and not just simply rubberstamping anyone who comes across the desk because that is the role of the senators in the constitutional check on the president. they have a duty and they've taken an oath to uphold the constitution. host: rick, republican. caller: good morning. i hope she is given a fair chance. i watched the cavanaugh hearing and it was definitely not fair and it was biased and i would be disappointed if they go that route again. guest: 100% agree.

i think that something you will not see today. you're not, see all the crazy protesters dressed up in cosplay outside. you are knocking to see personal smears being brought against the nominee. i think that all should be completely abandoned by whatever party. we have seen one party only engaging in those kinds of attacks on the politics of personal destruction and i think brett kavanaugh and justice thomas's confirmation hearings stand out historically as examples of that. this will not happen now and i would never support it happening grade that doesn't mean we just let the nominee through the whole time because it is a serious debate and we need to revise in our country the ability to have a serious discussion, to engage with real facts and to even disagree about them in a way that still civil. it doesn't mean you have to vote for every single person. but it can still be a civil

discussion that really gets at the meat of the issue and that really holds someone's record in close scrutiny because that's what we are required to do as americans and that's what our senators are required to do. host: i wonder your thoughts last week on that twitter thread by senator josh hawley, a member of the committee will be asking questions on judge jackson's record in child pornography cases in the sentencing of child predators. he got a lot of pushback after that. i wonder your thoughts. guest: i think that's an issue that will definitely be delved into and this been some debates about the quotes. it's hard to read a transcript or look when she's engaging in a conversation with someone else, is she taking seriously some of these claims being made or is she really just reflecting the argument being made to her. in terms of the sentencing, she

definitely does have a pattern sentencing well below guidelines. there debates whether those guidelines are correct, but when you look at her all record, that pattern of sentencing well below sentencing guidelines plays out in other areas. i think that will be interesting to watch out in these hearings because people need to know especially for someone who's talked a lot about sentencing, she was on the sentencing commissioning -- commission for years. is this someone who has a broad view of crime in general or sex crimes in particular that says i actually don't think they should be treated this harshly. she was a law student she published a note that suggested perhaps sex offender registries came out of a climate of fear and invention and may be should constitutionally not be allowed. i think that might be the idea that shouldn't be real concern about the recidivism of sex offenders something that i thing a lot of americans might disagree with.

there's a lot of room for discussion for these things. i think the challenge will be to get to the bottom of what judge jackson's real approach would be and i hope she's willing to answer questions on it. this is something she has dealt with as a judge. she can talk about what her reasoning was in this case or we can find out if she still stand behind her words in those notes she's written. it's been cited a number of times. that suggested we shouldn't be as careful in tracking and monitoring sex criminals even after they are convicted and when they are back in society to help prevent further abuse of particularly women and children. host: this is 45 seconds from yesterday's abc's this week, dick durbin was responding to that series of tweets by josh

hawley, he was asked about it. [video clip] >> as far senator hawley is concerned, here is the bottom line. he is wrong. he is inaccurate and unfair in his analysis. judge jackson has been scrutinized more than any person i can think of. this is her fourth time before the senate judiciary committee. the three previous time she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support. now senator hawley is making these charges that came out of nowhere. fact checkers have discredited these claims already. there's no truth to what he said. he is part of a fringe within the republican party. this was the man who was fist bumping the murderous mob who descended on the capital january 6 of last year. he doesn't have the credibility he thinks he does. host: senator dick durbin yesterday. just a few minutes left for you, callers still waiting.

mount rainier, maryland. independent. caller: thanks and good morning. you mentioned somewhat dismissively president biden's preference to protect americans unenumerated rights. i wonder if you can tell your listeners what the ninth amendment to the constitution says and how a narrow originalist interpretation of the ninth amendment would go? guest: the ninth amendment does reserve certain rights the state gives to the people. the enumeration of constitution of certain rights should not be denied or disparage others by the people. that doesn't mean the federal government then -- it does not list certain rights that the federal government is required to protect in a certain way. the danger is if that language is red completely broadly to allow judges to insert their own

opinions and their, that's really dangerous. if you're reading it as an originalist, what were the rights generally presumed to be out there and you can just say i'm good to read it in my own favorite right of the day. in particular when president biden use that language, he has used that repeatedly particularly in the board hearing which he presided over in the 80's as the senate judiciary chair. as kind of a shorthand for abortion. roe v. wade did not rely on that, it had different arguments. but the way biden uses that, i think most of that for him was a shorthand for thinking abortion is one of those rights. clearly abortion having been illegal throughout the time would not of been one of the rights that the framers would've understood as retained by the people. this would have to be a right that was well understood in british law going into the

founding in the first place. it couldn't be a new right because then you're not retaining it, you are inventing it post hoc. host: let me try to get in one or two more calls. baltimore, a democrat go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call in and say i think you guessed today -- your guest today is a perfect example of what we will see from the senate. it will be let's talk about a memo you had as a law student 20 years ago. i think there's a bunch of ways caller: maybe your guests can speak to that. the last three justices, none of

them was under any scrutiny. have a good one. thank you. guest: i take issue that the last judges had no scrutiny. all of them, just this george's for example, just as brett kavanaugh, there was a lot of discussion of things she had written, her approach to the law. it is always a frustrating moment. i can't comment on how i am going to decide this case. there was still a lot of discussion about, can you at least discuss how the supreme court has approach this issue. it is frustrating for all of us

there is not a little bit more, that we cannot get some more details. we understand why that is true for judicial ethics reasons. we can't just throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can know about this judge. why are we spending four days on this hearing if that is the case. we have to talk about her records and the things she has written. she can illustrate by her career since then if she has changed her position on those issues. that is fair game and this is her opportunity to do so. it is fair for the american people to know that. and for those who vote for her to know what her position is on these issues.

it is fair if you say i cannot endorse the way this person will represent the constitution. you cannot ignore that. we need to be able to have that discussion. and say you could be a nice person but i have to vote against you. host: four days of hearing starts today. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> broadband is a force for empowerment, that is why charter invented billions in building infrastructure, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >>