discusses threats to get russia, cybersecurity threats, and what he says it is time for biden to move to plan b. join us through calls, this book comments, and tweets -- facebook commons, and tweets -- facebook comments, and tweets. ♪ >> -- host: good morning, it is thursday march 24, 2022. yesterday, ketanji brown jackson wrapped up her day of questioning before a senate committee. the final day of confirmation hearings is reserved for outside witnesses. this morning, we are asking for your view on judge jackson's supreme court nomination. would you support or oppose confirming her? if you support, 202-748-8000 is the number to call.

if you would oppose, 202-748-8001. you can also send us a text to 202-748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media. twitter it is @cspanwj. facebook is facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now. 10 and point -- 10.5 hours of testimony yesterday before the members of the senate judiciary committee. judge objection in giving her opening statement -- judge jackson giving her opening statement on monday. we are asking you, would you confirm ketanji brown jackson to the nation's highest court. here is one of the exchanges yesterday with the senate and senate pro tem and patrick leahy

on the issue of transparency and public confidence in the court. >> i think it is safe to say -- [video clip] i think it is safe to say that transparency is essential to the duties of a judge. do you intend to care that attitude when you will become a member of the supreme court? >> thank you, senator. the value of all the confidence which i was just discussing is enhanced when the public understands the reasons a judge renders his or her ruling. one of my mentors used to say people think the judicial ranch is so secretive but in fact the judicial branch is the only branch that has to tell everyone .

it actually has to write their opinions and explain why they did what they did. i tried in the nearly 10 years have been on the bench to make my rulings transparent. to explain all of the input i have considered with respect to the case, to lay out the law as i see it and interpreting what congress has done with a specific case and what legal provisions i think are relevant to the dispute and explain my analysis and why i am supporting or denying this claim.

my hope is that it will help people to be confident in my reasoning and -- even if they disagree with it -- they will understand what i think. i think that is important for public confidence in supporting the rule of law. host: judge ketanji brown jackson yesterday in what is expected to be her final day before the senate judiciary committee. the committee will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. for outside witnesses, members of the bar association, friends of the judge, and minority witnesses. we will take you there at 9:00 a.m. eastern and you can watch a live here, on c-span.org, and on the free c-span now video app. in terms of timing on a final vote, here's how punch bowl news breaks it down. "the judiciary committee is said to hold a meeting to consider

her nomination. republicans can delay a vote for one week and the chairman has already said he will honor the republican request. this means the committee could vote on april 4. that puts the senate on schedule for a flow board -- for a floor vote on april the eighth. we are asking you this morning, would you vote for to the supreme court? lines for those who support and those who oppose. robin supports in cleveland, tennessee. go ahead. caller: good morning. i do support her. the same line of questioning they use for her yesterday is what they used to for thurgood marshall. hello? i am -- host: i am listening. caller: it was an embarrassment.

they talked to her like she was inmate. -- like she was a maid. the way that justice kavanaugh carried himself and his hearing, hollering and screaming, she would not have done that. and for tom cotton to call a federal judge a liar when they supported a liar for years. yes, i support her. i also support the fact that ted cruz, josh hawley, tom kotten need to move their seats. host: this is christian in phoenix, arizona on the line for those who oppose. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i find it interesting that the judge ketanji brown jackson, that she does not know how to give the definition of the word woman.

supposedly the reason ketanji brown jackson picked her is because she is a woman. i find that pretty interesting. it is also interesting to me that for years democrats have pushed their political activism down the throats of the entire country. now, after the loudoun county instances where children were raped due to these policies and everything that has been bubbling over with rental rights issues, now those chickens are coming back to be roosted. now the democrats have to figure out how to safely get out of talking about these things. this is relevant.

because of the fact that the americain psychiatric association did actually redefine what being a transgender is right around the time the case made its way from 2012 all the way to 2015 to the supreme court. it is absolutely relevant to be able to answer the question on the definition of the word woman and provided that. it does not take -- and provide that. it is not take a biologist to answer that question. if she wants to be a supreme court justice and she cannot answer that question when that is the exact reason why she is up there to even be considered to be a supreme court justice, she has got to be out of her mind. host: catherine, bolingbrook, illinois supports the

confirmation of judge jackson. go ahead. caller: there is one word i heard yesterday from this wonderful judge and that is the word perseverance. when she said that, it rang in my head that the only reason i became a successful i.t. technical representative was because i, too, had to go through the bottom rung and work my way up only by sheer perseverance of will. this woman is a wonderful, great individual who understands what it takes to be great. she did it through one word, perseverance. that is what i want to say. she's an amazing person. it brought me to tears yesterday.

that is what i wanted to say. thank you. host: donald from albany, new york. you are next. caller: i am concerned about the way she judged on the sex offenders. as a person who has had that happened to me before and then have someone like her on the judge? know. -- no. she was so light on these people and she should have given them a harder sentence and she did not for some reason. she did not even think about the victims. so concerning to me. that is all i have to say. host: from the front page of the usa today, and the article focusing on judge jackson's cases when it comes to child pornography offenses, going

through 14 individual cases, what was asked for, what she virtually gave, those who were involved in those cases. you can read that in usa today. from the front page of politico, here is their headline on yesterday's confirmation hearings, "democrats reject gop charge that jackson was soft on crime." "jackson appeals to her affirmative action case." some of the other headlines on the confirmation hearings. that is what we are talking about in this first hour. let me give you the schedule of what is happening this morning. here and overseas -- we are focusing on this now and we will take you to the confirmation hearings at 9:00 a.m. president biden's travels

overseas continue, arriving yesterday in europe. today the president is meeting with a summit of nato heads to discuss the defense efforts in response to russia's attacks on ukraine. that is happening at nato headquarters. the president is set to deliver marks with the g7 leaders. that will be happening around 9:00 eastern time this morning. that is about 2:00 p.m. local time. the president also meeting with the heads of the european council and several meetings today. he will eventually be in saturday in poland. we know he will meet with u.s. troops who are there to reinforce nato's eastern flank, all part of this closely watched trip that president biden is taking overseas. here's one of the headlines, biden and allies presser --

pressure for implement. we are expecting additional sanctions against russia over the war against ukraine. more that is coming up at 8:00 a.m. one other headline, a story you probably heard about is the lead story, above the fold photo, the obituary of madeleine albright. diplomat, champion of rights, and feminist icon is the headline. she was the first he must secretary of state arrived in the u.s. from war-torn czechoslovakia, became an icon and died at the age of 84. her death was confirmed by her family in a statement yesterday. she served as secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 under bill clinton and pushed for nato

expansion eastward into the soviet bloc and led the bombing campaign in 1999 to halt ethnic cleansing in kosovo. she served as investor for the united nations from 1993 to 1997. her death was announced yesterday by her family. back to your phone calls on judge ketanji brown jackson. if she is armed, she would become the first black woman on the u.s. supreme court. we are asking if you support or oppose her confirmation. 202-748-8000 if you support. 202-748-8001 if you oppose. in california, jess, where do you stand -- jeff, where do you stand? caller: i am a 65-year-old white man born in augusta, georgia. i strongly support the lovely ketanji brown jackson on this

position for the judicial seat on the supreme court. the last question by the republican woman from tennessee, i don't recall her name -- host: marsha blackburn. caller: thank you. stated that she wished that brown jackson had cap to the constitution of the u.s. instead of the oath of office for the judicial position she was appointed. i saw a look on justice ketanji brown jackson's face, she was perplexed. that both contains the words thing along the lines "do you promise to support and defend the u.s. constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

." -- foreign and domestic?" hence the look on her face, what is she asking? madeleine albright was -- a large sunflower brooch and the blue of the ukrainian flag, bringing neblett albright's memory into that -- bringing madeleine albright's -- memory into that room. i am grateful for your coverage. i watched it cover to cover and beyond with the press conference. keep this up. it is our last bastion to know what was going on in government. thank you so much and good luck to ketanji brown jackson. host: this is done in fort washington, maryland, on the line for those who oppose. caller: good morning. i approve of her confirmation.

i think she is very knowledgeable of the law. host: you are on the wrong line to call in for that. caller: i'm sorry. thank you. what is the number on the other line? host: 202-748-8000. just try to balance that and go back and forth. we do ask you to call in on the appropriate line. this is faye in alabama. caller: good morning. i have several comments and i you don't cut me off. the last part should be set. -- should be said. my family was a sharecropper's also. i have black friends. the things that booker said yesterday, i went through all of that. i was homeless and i was beaten.

the way that the democrats treated judge kavanaugh and a judge. was disgusting -- and judge barrett was disgusting. the way lindsey graham and crews was treated -- and ted cruz by dick durbin was terrible. he kept interrupting. what they were saying, we wanted to hear as americans. the last comment i want to make, you might change your mind if the children who have been exploited and damaged for the rest of their lives, if it comes to your doorstep and you have to witness your own family and this judge does not prosecute in the appropriate manner for the that

exploited your children or grandchildren, you might have a different outlook. that is something to think about. i pray that these democrats think about this. i don't appreciate the stuff that is not allowed to be discussed. i want to hear it. i think the american people need to hear it, whether you are democrat, republican, christian, whatever. i want to hear it. i listen to all of it. host: you mentioned senator lindsey graham. one of his exchanges with judge jackson over the issue of sentencing in child pornography cases. [video clip] >> it is not rational to take the venue of choice, give child demographers the computer with images on it. we are trying to get people to stop this.

when you pull thousands of images of children from the internet, i want you to stop that. i want people to go to jail who do that. you are feeding the beast. we have a bill that would allow victims on the internet over and over again to sue the media companies that provide these images. we have differences of how you deter crime. i think the best way you do turn crime -- you deter crime is you lower the boom on anyone who goes on the internet and pulls these images for their pleasure. judge jackson: every person in these documents i sent to jail because i know how serious this crime is. every person, i discussed the harm of these terrible images to

the victims who are pretrade in them. i talked about what this crime does to the children who are being abused in these photos and on the others of their terms of imprisonment, i ensured they were facing lengthy periods of supervision and restrictions on their computer use so they could not do this sort of thing again. that is what congress has required of judges and that is what i did. sen. graham: to be honest with you, a 32-year-old man sent an image of his own 10-year-old daughter, you reduced the guidelines and the recommendation. all i can say is your view of how to deter child pornography is not my view.

i think you're doing it wrong and every judge who does what you are doing makes it easier for children to be exploited. if you are on a computer now looking at a kid in a sexually compromising situation and you get caught, i hope nobody gives you a break because you used a computer. host: senator lindsey graham yesterday in his exchange with judge ketanji brown jackson. we are asking you if you would work pose her nomination. shirley in michigan. caller: i support the judge. lindsey graham, ted cruz, jim jordan are all racist. [indiscernible]

they should be put off from the senate because they are racist. host: earl in indiana, go ahead. caller: she is black, she is a woman, she cannot tell you what a woman is. i never heard such crap out of cory booker. he acted like an idiot. he has no sense whatsoever. host: try to hold off on the name calling foot what did you disagree about what he said? caller: [indiscernible] from the president down. host: we are talking with you this morning about whether you oppose or support judge ketanji brown jackson's nomination.

we will go to carolyn in baltimore, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i love turquoise. she stood up there and took over 20 hours of questioning. ted cruz and lindsey graham were stopped because they were speaking out of turn. there are regulations and they were speaking out of turn. i want to point out that ella for education enter voice enter dana t -- and her dignity. it does not matter if she answered a question about what is a woman, that was brought up because it was a hot point. the cases they kept bringing up, they were talking about the victims. i can only imagine as a victim of molestation when i was young

if my case was broadcast over tv for two straight days. they did not care about the victims to be bringing up the case. i would rather see the perpetrator get away during one year in jail instead of 1.5 years instead of having my case blasted on tv for two straight days. that is inhuman and uncaring. for them to do that showed they are out for political votes and proving a point instead of caring about the case. that is my thought. host: carolyn bringing up judge jackson's background and her career. you might have seen this chart that has been in several publications making its way around twitter. or background in comparison to the current members of the supreme court.

her high school education, ivy league logical education, her work as a clerk for the supreme court, her work as a public defender, her nomination and confirmation as a district judge, and nomination and confirmation to the court of appeals. or comparison to other members of the court. 51 years old and she would be the first former federal public defender to serve on the supreme court. and collect two calls back brought up cory booker getting attention for his remarks to judge jackson. here is a little bit of those. [video clip] sen. booker: what did constance baker motley do? this country she saw, insulted and injured -- when she came out of law school, she was not hired because they would not hire a woman.

did she become bitter? no, she used the constitution of this nation. she wanted america to be america. as langston hughes wrote, "oh let america be america again. the land that ever has been but the land that must be. america never was america to me, but i swear this oath, america will be." that is the story about how you got to this desk, you and i and everyone here, generations of folk who came here. i am going to show this country i can be free here, i can make this country love me as much as i love it. chinese-americans forced into near slave labor building roads connecting our country.

they saw the ugliest of america but they were going to build their home here. they say america you may not love me yet but i'm going to make his nation live up to its hope. lgbtq americans from stonewall, hidden figures who did not get their place into a hard -- until a hollywood movie highlighted them. all of these people that love america -- you faced insults here that were shot me actually, not shocking. but you are here because of that kind of love and nobody is taking this away from me. you have five more folks to go through. five more of us. and then you can sit back and let us have the debates. it will be a well charted senate floor because it will not stop. they will accuse you of this and that.

you might be called a communist, but don't worry, don't worry. god has got you. how do i know that? because you are here. i know what it has taken for you to sit in that seat. host: senator cory booker yesterday with judge ketanji brown jackson. asking your thoughts on whether she should be confirmed, here are a few folks on twitter. jersey girl and pennsylvania saying she should, those who argue she shouldn't have bought into the soundbites of the ch i istofascists. this is russ saying "everything with inflation, a word about two explode in our faces and we are

venting a supreme court nominee? we could have waited." dave saying she is a woke progressive and soft on crime, no thanks. this is kathleen in florida. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i oppose. we as people need to stop voting for people because they look like us or they are our color. vote for people that have your best interests at heart and i don't think she does. i have not heard anything she has done for the urban or my community. why would i vote for her? once she gets up there, what is she going to do? she is going to put everybody that looks like her under the

bus. i oppose. host: that is kathleen in florida. this is deborah in california. good morning. caller: i do agree with nominating ketanji brown jackson. she is more qualified than anyone sitting on the bench. if you look at her record, lindsey graham, josh hawley, and ted cruz and the rest of them tried to disparage her by calling her literally un-american. she is more qualified than them to even be senators. i am disappointed. this particular seat they want to get down. when cavanagh was going through his stuff -- when judge

kavanaugh was going through his stuff and he -- they brought accusations against him and amy coney barrett. she based her whole career on faith answer comes lindsey graham nt once political theatrics. that is all it is. host: william in new york, good morning. caller: i oppose this lady, she is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a wolf in sheep's clothing. she is into critical race theory and she wants to train up kids to be racist. host: why do you think she wants to train people to be racist? caller: because she is in this public school in d.c.

she lied that she is not in this committee with all of these books. host: it works better when you turn your television down and you just talk through your phone, that is how we can understand you. here is nancy in washington, d.c. you are next. caller: good morning. i had to call because i think there are so many misconceptions about what acer and court justice vetting process should be like. the thing to look for his character, not whether you agree with prosecutors when you sentence. many of the comments from senators, laws that need to be changed which i thought she pointed out nicely. it is time for a defense lawyer, somewhat u.s. had that practice and had that career, to be on the court. there has not been one in i don't know how many years.

for those senators to act like sentencing is an issue, which is supreme court justice never has to do. with the sentencing she has done in her life is wrong because she disagreed with secures were often a wrong in the row -- in their recommendations, i thought it was a travesty. i thought lindsey graham made a full of himself. sorted ted cruz and josh hawley. this is not about politics, this is about as character and life experience and legal experience to be on the highest court in the land. they made it into a circus. they should be ashamed of themselves. it was an outrage. i would like everyone to remember how brett kavanaugh, who did not have experience of both sides, i faced him when he was a lawyer and he was an extreme the partisan man, how he reacted to the questions is what

shows your character. that is what shows if you are title -- entitled to be a church, if you have the right disposition. he was screaming at senator klobuchar and acting like a child. he is the person you don't want on the court, not this highly qualified, extremely patient woman who answered ridiculous questions for hours on end without displaying any anger or discuss. host: can you talk about how you faced him as a lawyer? caller: yes, he worked for ken starr when he was terrorizing this town by going after innocent people, including his prosecution of clinton. we have a former president now has committed every crime

imaginable. host: can you say who you are working for at the time? caller: i was a prosecutor for eight years and was a defense lawyer. sentencing decisions that are not in line with the prosecutor, that is a good thing because the is acute or sometimes don't even know the guidelines themselves. coming back to ken starr, a woman was prosecuted unfairly and never convicted. put judge kavanaugh was working on appellate issues there -- appellate issues then because he did not have experience to do anything in the courtroom. but he is a member of the federalist society. all of these people get elevated to traditions in washington, d.c. all of the time based on their membership in this

organization which is probably 95% white. it is a club. host: that is nancy anna washington, d.c.. you were talking about ted cruz and his exchanges during yesterday's confirmation hearings. here is one of the headlines focusing on that. "durbin cuts off ted cruz as tempers flare." here as part of that exchange. [video clip] sen. cruz: i will point out that -- senator hawley talked about the hawkins case where you had an 18-year-old with pictures of boys as young as eight being sexually assaulted and you sentenced him just to three months in jail. i will point out the stewart case, the last one on this list. you described that she had over 6700 images -- that he had over 6700 images and videos.

that is a lot of kids being sexually assaulted. yet taken over a minute of my time, mr. chairman. i know you want to interrupt and you don't like this line of questioning. this is a test you took up a substantial amount of my questioning. i'm going to ask my question. if you want to testify, you are welcome to. in the stewart case, you said from the bench, although this is not an atypical case, your child pornography position crime was egregious in the court's view. this is a bad one. you said this was egregious. what did you sentence him for? the guidelines set mine hundred 71 months. -- 971 months.

you come in with 57 months. why did you sentence him to just 57 months? do you want to address that? you are welcome to express -- to explain any of these cases? why did you sentence him for half of the amount? >> you are not recognized. sen. cruz: you don't want to to answer the question? sen. durbin: you have gone over time. sen. cruz: because you have interrupted me. do you not want the american people to hear why someone she described as egregious -- will you allow her to answer the question? sen. durbin: you won't allow her to answer the question. sen. cruz: why did you allow any egregious child pornography aggressor half the amount suggested by the prosecutor? will you allow her to answer the question? why are you not allowing her to

answer the question? i'm not asking another question allow her to answer the question? why do not want the american people to not know what in the stewart case? chairman durbin, i have never seen the chairman refused to allow the witness to answer a question. you can never -- you can bank it is that as you want. sen. durbin: at some point you have to do question. sen. cruz: you have taken a big chunk of the time, will you allow her to answer the question? she is welcome to answer it right now. will you letter? -- will you let her? sen. durbin: senator cowan's -- senator kunz. host: that exchange yesterday. we are asking you, would you

support the confirmation of ketanji brown jackson to the supreme court? max in michigan, good morning. caller: i would not. number one, she cannot explain to her daughter what a woman is and the problem with the democratic party and the media is they normalize and support pedophilia. what is going on there? host: this is paul in arizona. good morning. judge jackson: -- caller: good morning. i don't know how to follow ted cruz. if these republican senators -- it is like they took a really bad acting class. senator graham yesterday -- it was laughable. than never allow her to answer. ted cruz took 30 minutes of

ranting and raving and never allowed her to answer one question. he then says it is the democrats that don't let him talk? there is one way you can define this for the american people, one simple question u.s. people, where do you get your news? everybody on the no line watches fox news or for worse. -- or newsmax. she is in the norm for cities in every federal district in the country. she is not above the norm or below the norm in sentencing. she is right where congress has told her she has to be. republicans who helped pass of those laws now want to argue that it is not matter, she

should keep -- she should put people in jail for life if they have worn off of the computer -- have porn off of the computer. who is doing most of the porn watching? i would say most are republicans. host: this is bob. good morning. caller: i am a registered republican and i have watched a lot of this. i have two points. i support the nominee, ms. jackson. i had never seen a better hearing in my whole life. host: you are calling in on the oppose line. caller: i was on this line and i kept waiting. host: we are going to keep people on the lines to which they agree to make this conversation flow better. please call in on the right line.

on the line for those who oppose, this is frank. caller: i didn't know anything about the right line. i just i'll number i normally dial. i want to say i support this nominee 100%. host: kathy in ohio, you are next. caller: i support ketanji brown jackson. she is an honorable woman. she is highly intelligent. she is highly educated. she seemed compassionate, unlike the applicants who like to drive -- unlike the republicans would like to drag out everything and make it into a big circus. it is disgusting to watch. thank you. host: coming up on 7:45 on the

east coast, 15 minutes left to discuss the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson. confirmation hearings continue today. judge jackson will not in front of the panel. it is a day for outside witnesses. members of the american bar association will testify, those who have known the judge, and republicans with their own witnesses. that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern and we will show it live on c-span, c-span.org, and on the c-span video app, c-span now. these confirmation hearings were happening yesterday and it was about 10.5 hours of hearings. descendant senate is in session this week. -- of the senate -- the senate is in session this week. attributes by the senate allegation from alaska to the late don young, the longest ever serving republican in house

history, died on friday. expect to lie in state in the capital on march 29. that was announced earlier this week. greg kaplan wrapping up some of the tributes to don young. lisa murkowski saying there is no doubt congressman young lived a full life, he was 88 years young. we always refer to him as young and not old, we are now left with a hole the size of alaska in our congressional delegation. this is from dan sullivan saying that the late commitment young -- conner smith don young "-- the late congressman don young "a man who appeared demised our state to such a degree that there was this sense that he would always be there, that he would live forever."

with some of the pictures of him and don young on the floor of the senate. back to your phone calls on the nomination -- the confirmation hearings of judge ketanji brown jackson. this is james from virginia on the line for those who would oppose her confirmation. caller: good morning. the reason i am opposed is because the way she described free speech and how she determined -- [indiscernible] speech can be interpreted by whoever is listening to it. the second thing, if fellow americans are watching this, they need to watch -- ♪ -- [indiscernible]

host: sorry, you are going in and out but i think we got your point. caller: i support ketanji brown jackson 100%. all of these people are talking about she is not qualified and this and that. lindsey graham is not qualified to do nothing as far as i am concerned and he is sitting up there. so why can she not get what she has deserved to get? i support her 100% and i hope she makes it. host: dennis on the line for those who oppose. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't understand why she cannot describe what it is that makes a woman. host: dennis, do you think the democrats are going to pack the supreme court? caller: she won't answer the

question. she has been asked the question and i believe republicans fear that the most. host: is something like that were to happen, it is not a decision of the justices, it is action by congress and by the legislative and executive wrenches in terms of -- and executive wrenches -- executive ve branches. caller: the only reason she is being question is because she is a woman of color which narrows the field. i don't believe that is fair. host: pauline in michigan. you are next. caller: i support judge ketanji brown jackson. the behavior that has been displayed before this country and the world on behalf of the

republicans has been absolutely ridiculous. they have confirmed or two or three times already. she is a judge. and now this time they are playing political theater? they should have stuck with the questioning needed to ask to confirm someone for the supreme court. they are asking her about children's books that she has never read. absolutely ridiculous. there tractor painter as someone who is soft on crime? she is working within the guidelines they set. host: that is paula in michigan. if she is confirmed, it is expected to happen before the easter recess set to take place april the eighth. we are expecting a committee vote around april 4. before that can happen, there is one more day of confirmation

hearings today at 9:00 a.m. we know outside witnesses, members of the bar association, punch bowl news with a wrap up of who those witnesses are. the chair of the congressional black caucus will testify as will wade henderson, ceo of the leadership conference on civil rights. the first woman to serve as dean as you a's -- as ua's law school, frank tom is of the national black law enforcement offices. steve marshall, an assistant law professor at george mason, na antiabortion rights activist, and an anti-human trafficking activist.

those will be the individuals appearing in three different pedals today. -- three different panels today. all of that begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch it all here on c-span. this is david from weatherford, texas. you are next. caller: the confirmation of a supreme court justice is not just based on a resume, she has a stellar resume. it is also about your ideals and how you are going to put your own frame of mind into the everyday lives of people of the u.s. it being and non-electoral position, you have to answer questions about your ideals. her answers were nonanswers. that is what is frustrating

senator cruz and other senators. they were answers on procedure of law or answers of a history lesson or answers other precedent. that is not what confirmation is about. that is what was giving these senators frustration, these answers are almost scripted. host: anne is next in texas, the line for those who support. caller: i don't understand all of these people coming on here talking about ms. ketanji brown jackson. she is definitely credible and the other gentlemen called, he is out of his mind talking about she did not answer the questions. how can ted cruz and senator graham act like children and rave about her occasions and she did not answer their questions? ted cruz left the state of texas

and went to cancun while people were freezing to death. he doesn't have a right to answer anything. wrong holly -- hawley put the insurrection on the capital. but they're going to sit here and they are more credible than the judges on the court. i support her 100% and i hope she is confirmed and that these right-wing people who keep talking about it is because she is black -- you can see the color offers again she is black. that will not change. she still has qualifications over other churches -- over other judges. i applaud her for her way of handling yourself and not getting angry. as a black woman, i would have smacked hawley, ted cruz, and lindsey graham. it is about the president of the united states.

host: martin in bakersfield, california. go ahead. caller: first i would like to thank c-span for being unfiltered and truly interesting to watch. host: happy to do it. caller: i oppose her nomination. the soft on crime -- for lack of a better term, the probation and prosecutor when she went under gave me an idea of how she perceived cases. i would have liked to have seen other cases other than the child pornography. i did not like the fact that she could not define woman. to the 80 who said perseverance, the woman was on the supreme court that showed perseverance more than any other was sandra day o'connor.

when she graduated from law school, she was not even allowed to take the bar to be a lawyer, she can only be a legal secretary. that is the definition of surveillance. host: marianne, beverly hills, florida. you are next. caller: i would like to make two points. they black lady who is a post, it does not matter what her squint -- what her skin color is but the qualifications. and she has qualifications, more than the rest of them if you look at the chart. the other caller who said democrats are pedophiles has their head buried in the sand and is listening to the long stations. that is such a blanket misrepresentation of democrats and anyone else who's ketanji brown jackson. host: out to honolulu, hawaii.

this is -- did i get that right? caller: yes. thank you for airing this. it has been a very interesting confirmation. i think she is qualified. i think she is very supportive. it is almost like interrogation. you have to be ready for it. i think she is, just keep at it. i appreciate your time and occasions. -- and qualifications. host: from the bluegrass state, this is betty. caller: i oppose her because of the fact that she acted like she could not even remember the case they were talking about after she had been grilled about it. for her to give child

pornography's like two months, knowing -- child pornographers like two months, knowing they are going to get out and do it again. she would not even give a -- a chance to prove their case. as far as biden and kamala harris picking her, that says it all. host: this is rudy, douglas, georgia. good morning. caller: i am very supportive. she was clear, qualified, graceful. she has come from that same vein of people who have prepared themselves for such a time as this. i think america should be proud that someone from the public

school system that went all the way to harvard can support themselves in the manner in which she did. god bless america. host: maria, chapel hill, north carolina. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that i do not support ketanji brown jackson. the way i see it, it is terrible she allowed criminals get out of jail sooner. i am one of those children that guthrie as a baby -- that got raped as a baby. i am so upset that she can let those criminals get out sooner than they are supposed to. they don't pay the price they are some stupid -- they are supposed to pay. if she has to pick, she is going

to be on the supreme court for at least 34 years. do we want somebody like her to be on the supreme court for 34 years, who has allowed criminals to get away early, doing the terrible things they did? whether they are child pornographers, drug kingpins, dealing with people dying over the place because they are overdosing. she did not care about those victims from the drug kingpin because there was nobody alive to complain. host: our last call in this segment of the "washington journal." but we will return to your calls on judge jackson before the hearing, a little before 9:00 a.m. eastern. first, we turn our attention back to the russia-ukraine

conflict. president biden's nato meeting is today. that conversation with jamil jaffer of george mason university's national security institute. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> focusing on the presidency of lyndon johnson, the 1960 four civil rights act, presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of these conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure the conversations

were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door in his office. >> and you will hear some blunt talk. >> a number of people signed to kennedy the day he died, a number of signed to me now. i promise you i will not go anywhere. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app. downloaded where you get your podcasts. book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the founder and executive director of a danish think tank. in the host of podcast clear and present danger. he talks about his book,

free-speech, history from socrates to social media. then, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine and author of lessons from the edge, a memoir reflecting on her career, u.s.-russia relations, and her testimony during the first impeachment hearings a former president donald trump. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we returned to the russian invasion of ukraine, joined by jamil jaffer, founder of george mason law national security institute and a senior vice president at iron at cybersecurity. mr. jaffer, i want to start with the cyber side. you assess the state of the cyber battlefield. have we seen russia change its

cyber strategy over the past four weeks? and have we seen it change its ground war strategy? guest: russia has been very active in the domain of cyber size, deploying a variety of forms of malware, particular viruses that are used like in the past and they both ukraine and other parts of eastern europe. these are viruses designed to go into systems and delete large amount of data. we have seen three or four instances of those already the concern is russians will get more aggressive on that front, coming after infrastructure in ukraine, but also coming after the u.s. or allies. we have seen the president say he is worried about the threat of a cyber attack by the russians. he warned the private sector to be on guard. the cyber infrastructure security agency at dhs has been on top of this for a while and need to partner together with

the government. they need to put shields up to get protected. there is an active conversation going on within the government and with the public and private sectors about the need to be prepared for russians to scale this work, both in ukraine but here in the u.s. also come against our private industry. they will try to pressure us. host: the warning from the white house coming monday, including from the white house deputy national security adviser. here is about a minute of her statement from monday. [video clip] >> there is no evidence of any specific cyberattack we are anticipating. there is preparatory activity we are seeing, and that is what we shared in a classified way, with companies we thought might be affected. and there is a broader awareness in this morning. >> when you say a call to action, many who hear you say that might leave something is

imminent. is it? >> first, a call to action is because there are cyber attacks that occur every day. hundreds of millions of dollars were paid in ransom by u.s. companies just last year against criminal activity happening in the u.s. today. every single day there should be a call to action. we are using the opportunity of this evolving threat of intelligence regarding potential cyber attacks against critical infrastructure to reiterate those with additional focus, specifically to critical infrastructure owners and operators to say you had the responsibility to protect the could also -- protect the critical services americans rely on. host: jamil jaffer, what sectors were you the most right now? guest: look, what i think you heard her say is interesting, one, it is not a specific attack but we see preparatory activities, and that means russians are putting in place the capability so if they want to attack, so there gaining

access to systems. we have seen that they are interested in critical industries in the u.s., oil and gas sector, banking sector, and the like. defense sectors of government. the russians understand that crossing that line, going after american industry and a big way, could be crossing the line and the u.s. will need to respond, so they will act carefully. same time, russians can use proxies, like they often do with ransomware attack's, they can use critical hacker groups to make it look like it is designed for money. so i think the thing for industry to do is to be prepared to respond, but also, she said, look, industry has a responsibility. the reality is that american industry cannot possibly protect itself standing alone against a mass attack by the russian government. they have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, cyber deployed

folks looking at this stuff. no private company can spend their way out of this problem. it has to be companies working together with one another and with government. the government has a responsibility to take action to protect the private sector, too, as they would with a russian bomber coming over the horizon. no reason why it would be different with cyber. the government and industry has to work together to make this effective and to defend ourselves effectively in the cyber domain. host: jamil jaffer with us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. staying on cyber and the state of the battlefield can you talk about the role nonstate actors are playing here when it comes to responding to russia, hacking groups, this group we know

anonymous, and others, the target that russia has become for these groups. guest: it is interesting, in a lot of ways you see more nonstate actors being more active against russians then you see state actors. the ukrainians are doing a heroic job on the battlefield, pushing back russian forces around kyiv, really stalling the russian attack on the ground. and you see activists getting out there, groups like the group anonymous. you see pro ukrainian groups going up against the russians in the cyber domain. there is a lot going on in this state a lot of it is in the messaging variety. you engage the battle in this domain and see this playing out, and it is interesting that you do not see the government going toe to toe other than what we know about the russian attack in the ukraine and the defensive efforts on the potential of a russian threat against the u.s. and our allies.

there are two things that could happen, he could go more aggressive after civilians, which he has already done, and then go after the cyber domain. there has been a lot of talk about chemical and nuclear weapons. it is hard to see him using those in this conflict because i think he realizes it would be catastrophic. chemical and biological highly problematic and would be difficult for the u.s. and europe not to respond. does not mean he will not use them, but it is less likely. cyber attacks on civilians, these tactics are the more likely way he will go, which is bad for ukraine. it will get worse before it gets better. host: what is the most interesting or perhaps successful cyberattack either against russia or ukraine or other nations in this conflict? guest: in this conflict, there has been a lot of small scale cyber attacks by the russians against the ukrainians. the ukrainians have been pushing back online in almost what i

would call a nuisance way. the russians could get more aggressive in a big way. there was an attack designed to look like ransomware, but it was wipe her malware and they ukrainian government in 2017, and that caused tens of billions of damage worldwide, including $500 million to individual western companies that were not the targets. so russians could get very aggressive in this space and could also cause significant damage outside of ukraine, either intentionally or collaterally. recent evidence, four or five years back, this happening with that attack. host: this is steven in windham, connecticut, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to expand on cyber and talk about the second phase of the war. i read a paper over this fall

about eabo, a justification of why the marines were -- from missiles. you see the burnt out columns. i think they were right on the ball. i think the management of the war, like mariupol looks like the alamo. our management from our side, it looks like national security is doing it. i think we need to step it up for the second phase of this war. if it was up to me, i would train 50,000 divisions of ukrainians. there is a ton of video where there are amateurs and then really high professionals, and it is a complete mess. what can we do to up our game on the second phase? guest: well, you raise a really

good point. i think what he is pointing out is that the u.s. has done a lot, supplied weapons to allies, and we have done training early on, but there is a lot more to be done. ukrainians have done a heroic job pushing back. but end of the day, at the russians really want to dribble down, they have a longer staying power and a lot of forces, a lot more weaponry -- if they want to triple down, they can stay and win this conflict. but we need a lot more weaponry and a lot more training. look, there are other things people have talked about, the potential need or use of a no-fly zone. i tend to be supportive of that. people are concerned that that means we will be in direct conflict with the russians. the russians do not want a were with the united states as much as we do not want war with them. but they can make this very painful. we've seen confirmed casualties of over 2000, with nearly 1000

civilians killed. 3.5 million refugees outside the country. 10 million displaced inside the country. it is likely to get worse before it gets better. he has no incentive right now to negotiate. a u.s. no-fly zone supported by our allies can help with that. the reality is this war is expanding. putin responds to force, and we have not been prepared to do that yet. we have to be prepared to say, look, enough is enough. host: lancaster, california, this is glenn. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about when the invasion first happened in crimea. right before that, we sent a bunch of money, plane loads in the dark, and it helped fund crimea because they bought weapons from russia. now we are in this again. biden is back in there again.

the corrupt, nonrepresentative -- he does not even take a question from our press that is right in bed with him. here is another thing, mr. biden is over there pushing the green deal, he does not even really care about the ukrainian people, does not care about the american people. he is enriching himself through the green new deal and all his friends. host: you bring up president biden's trip overseas, in brussels. it is a nato heads of state meeting right now, addressing the g-7 leaders in about an hour's time. there is the photo of the arrival of the various leaders. that was from very early this morning in u.s. time, that was about 9:00 a.m. this morning brussels time. meetings throughout the day. what does president biden need to do over the course of these

meetings? guest: i think glenn raises an important point, which is that when crimea happened in 2013 much when he 14, the u.s. response is largely what it is today, sanctions -- when it happened in 2013, 2014. here, we have talked about economic sanctions, punishing sanctions, and we have gone further than expected with imposing sanctions and doing it consistent with our allies. the biden administration should be credited for that that said, it did not do the job, did not deter putin from going in, did not deter him from war or from killing hundreds and thousands of civilians. the question becomes, what more do we need to do to bring this war to a close if what we're doing is not effective? there is a challenge with pouring weapons into the conflict but not doing what we know it would take, which is

engaged militarily. the president has warned vladimir putin might use chemical weapons, but he has not said what we would do. it is not clear what consequences we laid out. in dev the day -- end of the day, glenn is right, when it comes to war, you have to look at the consequences, you have to be credible, and when the line is crossed, you impose the consequences. but we are not prepared to say what we're going to do and how far we will go and actually be credible in stop and think this from happening. host: two that point, -- to that point, and this paragraph in the washington post today about nato meetings happening, some policy leaders in europe worry there has been too much public messaging about what the alliance will not do, not centrist to ukraine or send fighter jets -- not sending

fighter jets to ukraine. guest: it is interesting to see our nato allies pressuring us to do more. in a lot of ways, people were critical to president obama with the red line in syria, and even more critical when the red line was crossed and there was no force. so president biden has been hesitant to set a redline, but he has done the exact opposite thing, setting a redline saying we will not put troops into ukraine, meaning that the russians have free reign to do whatever they want in ukraine. that is not a good message. i think that is what our nato allies are responding to. set a redline, if you cross it, we will do this, then you have to do it. but if you do not, they can do almost anything. here we are, and the problem is the russians are taking advantage of that concession. host: new hampshire, this is

cutler, democrat. caller: yes, hello. a few weeks ago, you had a lady from the ukrainian parliament on, and she requested planes. and i do not understand why we have not made them available. [indiscernible] you had a lady on he was very knowledgeable about the situation over there, and she had the feeling that the administration is afraid of putin. the other thing is, now the president is talking about the use of chemical warfare. well, that is a fear tactic, i believe. and there is nothing to fear but fear itself. this is not a war, not a

conflict, this is genocide. armies fight armies. nobody has said that. armies fight armies, not civilians. so this man has to be stopped. host: jamil jaffer? guest: your caller makes three really good point spared the first one about these midplane fighters the ukrainians want and the poles have and are willing to give to the craniums, and we have said no, for two main reasons. because they will not make a big difference in the conflict, and two, it might raise the pressure and the u.s. applying the may suggest the u.s. is more engaged in the conflict than we want to be. the problem with that is we are already supplying other weapons to the conflict. the russians know. the mig 29's, if they could have an impact, which they clearly do , seems odd to supply javelin missiles and stinger missiles

and then save mig 29's will not help. your caller is right, and it is odd for the administration to say that is a line too far. same thing with the chemical weapons the russians are testing to see what the u.s. would do. they make clear we will not do anything, the cross into ukraine. chemical weapons, we respond but not saying how. putin is a former kgb officer, and he responds to power. if he hears the u.s. say that -- say they will not say what they will do, he hears that as they will not do anything. our inability to be clear and say we will not accept this and we will engage militarily is causing the war to get worse for civilians. as he pointed out, it is supposed to be against military, not civilians. but they have responded by killing more civilians.

they say they will use chemical weapons. the lack of belief you will actually do it, even with red lines, will cause this war to get worse, not better. host: on killing civilians, this headline from the wall street journal, u.s. formally excusing russia of war crimes in ukraine. here is a portion of the announcement from yesterday from the state department. [video clip] >> today secretary blinken issued a statement announcing that based on information currently available, the u.s. government assesses that russian forces are committing war crimes in ukraine. i wanted to provide you with some additional information underlying this assessment. we have all seen really horrific images and accounts from the extensive and unrelenting attacks on civilians and civilian sites being conducted by russian forces in the ukraine . there have been numerous credible reports from hospitals, schools, theaters, etc., that

have been intentionally attacked, as well as indiscriminate attacks. schools, hospitals, and public buildings have been destroyed, critical civilian infrastructure. we have been shocked by images of russian forces and strikes hitting civilian strikes in mariupol, including a maternity hospital, museum, an art school. the united nations and other critical groups have confirmed hundreds of civilian deaths. we believe the exact civilian death toll will be in the thousands. last week, secretary blinken expressed his view that some of russia's reported attacks did constitute war crimes. he says the department of state and other u.s. departments will be documenting and assessing the facts and the law surrounding these reports. the assessment has now concluded with careful review of currently available information, both public and some intelligence sources. this review underpins the

assessment that the secretary announced today, that russian forces are indeed committing war crimes in ukraine. host: that from the state department yesterday. jamil jaffer on that announcement. guest: the biden administration is correct, that the russians are attacking civilians in significant numbers and doing it intentionally to try to break the will of the ukrainian people, and that is a war crime. so putin and his government are war criminals. the question now, what are we going to do about that? are we going to intervene, like we did in bosnia? are we going to engage and protect civilians? or do we simply say he is a war criminal, terrible, and the fighting continues? that is the real challenge to the administration. what do we do about it now? there are so many questions nato allies have to talk about at this upcoming summit, at the g7. host: pawtucket, rhode island, brenda, independent. caller: i was thinking about

what we heard reported, that putin has two people he is associating with closely. one is a topline physicist. secondly, a biblical mist assist -- mysticism. maybe what is in putin's head is more of a spiritual war rather than material war. if so, under that logic, the majority of research in spiritual mysticism was a topline physicist. host: tough to get into vladimir putin's head, but do you want to take a crack at it? guest: it does make you question, what is going on with vladimir putin? why is he so invested? what is in his psyche, his belief that russia is no longer what it needs to be, not as powerful as the soviet union was, and part of him wants to

gain back that could ability from that old ward. he has gotten more aggressive in syria over the past few years, and he has now invaded ukraine for the second time. we have seen him sell weapons to nato countries like turkey. vladimir putin is trying to reestablish russia's role in the world, and that is very much a prize mission, and it is why right now the russian people, while they are concerned that they have lost thousands of soldiers in the ukrainian conflict, there is still support back home and you have seen that in the messaging. the question becomes, how do we change what is in vladimir putin's head? in my mind, that includes engaging the russians directly and making it clear that there is a lot more work to do, and the conflict needs to close sooner rather than later. host: fredericksburg, virginia, sam, republican. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking michael. i have two questions for your destiny comment. my comment is, we're in the u.s.

constitution does it say that the president can unilaterally declare war and send men and women to war? i hope you will let your guest answer that question in my second question is, how many of his kids is he willing to send to go and fight? because as far as i know, congress is the one that declares war. so if he really wants united states to go into this war with russia, i think he need to focus his attention on congress and not president biden and his administration. they are doing their best. your guest, i do not think, if he has the intelligence on what is actually going on. host: i will let jamil jaffer respond. guest: sam is right that the constitution provides that congress declares war, and we have not declared war since

world war ii, but congress is authorized use of military forces in a number of conflicts, including the war and terrorism come at the two iraq wars, and the like. it is congress' role to declare war. at the same time, the constitution provides the president's commander-in-chief of the armed forces, presidents have taken the view that that allows the president to deploy u.s. forces overseas, including in the conflict for at least some period of time before congress needs to act. often congress will act by providing funding for the conflict. there is some tension here. when i served as chief counsel on the senate foreign relations committee, there was debate on the obama administration and giving them authority to go into the conflict in syria. the president said he did not need that authority because he made a deal with the russians to bring chemical weapons out of syria. but you are right that congress has a role to play here, and they do that with sanctions. if we get into a conflict, it is

critical that both congress and the president come together and do what is right for the nation. my view is now is time for american leadership, time for the president and congress to get engaged and say enough is enough, vladimir putin. we do not want work, but we will commonly and start ash we worst -- we will start coming in with our jets. host: can you briefly explain your efforts when it comes to guantanamo bay detainees? guest: sure, the senate foreign relations committee is responsible for working with government to figure out what the president needs in terms of foreign affairs and the like but also to authorize conflicts. one of the things we looked at with lodgment -- guantanamo bay detainees, there are a limited number remaining on the detention camp. the challenges what to do with the detainees.

do you prosecute them? some you can and some you cannot because you do not have evidence that can be used in open court. and because we have an ongoing conflict with the war on terror, al qaeda, isis, they will want to attack americans and the u.s. so do they release detainees? host: some of that debate playing out yesterday in the confirmation hearings, or on tuesday when it took place, and the confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. i want to play about a minute and a half of that. [video clip] >> on the issue of guantanamo, there are currently 39 guantanamo detainees remaining. the annual budget for guantanamo is $540 million a year, which means each of these detainees is being held at the expense of $12 million or $13 million per year. if they were incarcerated in the colorado at the super max

prison, federal prison, it would be dramatically less. since 9/11, nearly 1000 convicted in the u.s. on terrorism charges. since 2009, beginning of the obama administration, the recidivism rate of the guantanamo detainees is 5% when released. >> the director of national intelligence says 31%. i will respond to what you said. if we closed gitmo and moved them to colorado, do you support indefinite detention for these detainees? >> i would say, given the facts -- >> the answer is no. >> the 31% you referred to goes back to -- 2009? 2003. >> what does it matter? we had them and they got released and they started killing people. if you were one of the people killed in 2005, doesn't matter when they were released. >> i am suggesting the --

>> i am suggesting it was a failure, miserable, and she was advocating something that would not protect the country. we are at war, not fighting a crime. it is on the passage of time event. as long as they are dangerous, i hope they all die in jail if they go back and kill americans. it will not bother me one bit if 39 of them die in prison. that is better than letting them go. 500 million dollars to keep them in jail, keep them in jail because they will go back to the fight. look at the freaking afghan government, made up of former detainees from gitmo. this whole thing from the left about this war ain't working. host: jamil jaffer, your thoughts on how that played out? guest: obviously, heated debate between senators graham and durbin, playing out in the context of the hearing on judge ketanji brown jackson and her nomination to the supreme court. the reason why it came up is that during her time as a public defender and later on in private

practice, she represented a number of the detainees, as have many law firms. look, i was at a hearing earlier this year, before the same committee on the same issues. the question is -- i think everyone agrees that the war on terror continues. al qaeda still wants to attack americans in the u.s. and our allies. the question, is it possible to keep these 39 detainees at guantanamo bay? is there someone else to hold them? if we bring them to the u.s., what happens? can we prosecute them? if we release them, and number, whether it is 5% or 31%, some return to fight, some return to leadership in afghanistan like the taliban. that is a problem for the american people and for our national security. how do you weigh those things? it is ongoing debate in the senate and amongst members of congress. judge jackson is got in the middle of that. host: jamil jaffer, no stranger to this program, the founder of

george mason university law national security institute, nationalsecurity.gmu.edu. we will talk to you again. the road. next, in about 25 minutes or so, before the senate judiciary reconvenes for its final day of confirmation hearings, we return to this question on judge jackson's nomination to the supreme court. would you support or oppose the confirmation? if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose (202) 748-8001. ,go ahead and start calling in, and we will be right back. . ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network.

unfiltered, unbiased, word for word for word. it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> if judge ketanji brown jackson is confirmed by the u.s. senate, and the nation will have the most diverse supreme court in u.s. sunday on q&a, university of tennessee professor benjamin barton, author of the credentials court, has a closer look suggesting there is a radical some military -- similarity among judges, especially with educational and career paths. >> judge jackson continues the trend, spending more time living in washington, d.c., than any previous one, and the reason why is this common career path of this very hyper version of a

meritocracy. after they clerk on the supreme court, they stay in town and working a big law firm, work for the senate. there is a great study in what this type of lawyer does over the course of their careers. it doesn't tend to cluster geographically around washington, d.c. -- it does tend to cluster geographically around washington, d.c. and they started harvard or boston and then go down to d.c. and capture years and years of life experience. >> benjamin barton, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now at. >> " washington journal" continues. host: a live shot of the senate judiciary committee hearing room, the press and staff members getting ready together for the final day of confirmation hearings for judge

ketanji brown jackson. she will not be testifying today. today is the day for outside witnesses, members of the american bar association, some friends and former colleagues of the judge testifying, republicans with their own slate of witnesses. you can see seats for the 22 members of the senate judiciary committee. it is a day in which the judge is not testifying, so there may be a few more guests and comings and goings by members of the judiciary committee during the questioning today. not expected to be as long of a day as it was yesterday or the day before. 10 and a half hours yesterday of hearings and questions. the day before, nearly 13 hours of questioning of the judge. we are asking you this question this morning as we wait for this hearing to begin, would you support or oppose the confirmation of judge jackson. if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. tim is up first out of tucson,

arizona. good morning. line for support. caller: good morning. it seemed there was an awful lot of banter about unenumerated rights that are not spelled out in the constitution. and i was very stressed -- i was very frustrated, frustrated that i could not text the candidate right then and there and say, what about the preamble? i mean, yes, the bill of rights were delineated, the first 10 amendments, but the forerunner of that was the preamble, which includes the right to the pursuit of happiness, if i recall, from the first line. that is where you find the right to gay marriage and transgender and all kinds of unenumerated rights. that is all i have to say.

thank you. host: we, the people, of the united states, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare, lessons of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america, and so on from there, u.s. constitution. greg in rental town, maryland, good morning. -- greg in randall town, maryland, good morning. caller: support denomination for judge ketanji brown jackson. however, and i have to say this, i do not appreciate the line of questioning, some has no merit, and i understand this was just politics. i do support her but with a little bit of caution. i would like to know more about her stance on abortion. i am a pro-lifer. i would like to see more in terms of how she feels about roe

v. wade. i would like to see more of her judicial philosophy towards the center and not only on the left or the right. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: republicans on the judiciary committee pushing judge jackson yesterday on the issue of abortion. this is john cornyn, republican from texas, asking judge jackson about her views of the viability of a fetus. this is what she had to say. [video clip] sen. cornyn: justice brennan, at a later point in his career on the supreme court, admitted that the viability line was an arbitrary line. do you agree with him? judge jackson: senator, i am not able to comment on viability. there is a case pending in the

supreme court right now concerning the issues. sen. cornyn: i am asking you about previous decisions, but i hear you. no one suggests that a 20 week old fetus can live independently outside the mother's womb, do they? judge jackson: i do not know. sen. cornyn: i mean, the child will need to be fed and sheltered and all the other essentials to sustain human life. so there is no suggestion that after 20 weeks, that a child can live independently, correct? judge jackson: senator, i am not a biologist. i have not studied this. i do not know. sen. cornyn: you do not know whether an unborn child can live outside of the womb at 20 weeks gestation? judge jackson: what i know is that the supreme court has tests and standards it has applied

when it evaluates regulations of the right of a woman to terminate their pregnancy. the court has announced that there is a right to terminate up to the point of viability, subject to the framework, and there is a pending case right now that is addressing these issues. host: senator john cornyn and judge jackson yesterday. if you missed any of the proceedings and want to go back and watch all nearly 23 hours or more, actually, over the past few days, you can do so on our website, c-span.org. to brenda in georgia, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i totally, totally support her nomination. and if you look at the aids in

the back of the clowns up there, they are -- their expression was even totally embarrassed at the way they were acting. and on top of that, the callers that are calling in are not even looking at what was happening. they were strategically not allowing her to answer and picking excerpts of what she was saying, and they were in agreement with one another to keep her from answering, to have it as though she did not know she was saying. she knew exactly what she was saying. she also kept her cool because

she knew that they were trying to force her to get belligerent, as they were, so they could say, ah-ha, you see what i am saying, she is not qualified. host: you talk about keeping her cool, there was one moment where she did get emotional and dabbed a tear from her eye. did you watch the exchange between her and democrat cory booker? caller: yes, i did. host: what did you think about that? caller: i agreed with everything cory had to say, and i applaud him because when he finished, did you see how they were more subdued in their attack on her? but then blackburn came, and she

also wants to more or less say how glad she is that she is up there and wants to have a conversation with her and then come right back in and then try to attack again. cory had already called it out, had already said it is five more to go, but it is going to continue. which it did. host: that was brenda in georgia. here is part of cory booker's remarks to judge jackson yesterday. [video clip] sen. booker: i look at you and start getting filled with emotion. i was jogging this morning, and at the end of the block i live on -- i put my music on loud while i am jogging to try to

block out the noise of the heart attack i am having. [laughter] and this woman comes up on me, practically tackles me, an african-american woman, and they look in her eyes, she just wanted to touch me because i think because i'm sitting so close to you, and tell me what it meant to her to watch you sitting where you are sitting. and you did not get there because of some left-wing agenda. you did not get here because of some dark money group. you got here how every black woman in america who has gotten anywhere has done, by being, like ginger rogers said, i did everything fred astaire did but backwards in heels. host: that exchange between cory booker and judge jackson yesterday. some headlines in today's papers about yesterday's proceedings. 10 and a half hours yesterday,

this from a column in the washington post, racial overtones from gop senators. this from politico, democrats reject republicans' charge that jackson is soft on crime. washington times, democrats are confident that jackson will be confirmed. republicans ask about her cases and punishments. a call from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i definitely oppose jackson's nomination, and for several reasons. one, the low sentences she has even to the child pornography folks. i worked with foster care children in south carolina, and many of those cases come up where those children are harmed for the rest of their lives. i think she did the benefit to the perpetrators, rather than to

the victims, and the victims never get over it. it also bothers me that she handled a case where she was opposing those protesting at abortion clinics. it was above the line there, and she did not favor -- she voted against those that were protesting against the abortion. life is very meaningful to me. i think she definitely is an activist judge in those cases. and then there are the gitmo cases, defending those that have harmed our country. also in the case in new york, immigration laws, she is an activist judge. she does not interpret the law. she actually takes her own views and puts them in her judgments she is giving out. by the way, i do think our republican senators have done a better job of handling her than the democrats did with cavanaugh. that was a disgrace, and i say kudos to the republican senators

who questioned her yesterday. they did a much better job than the democrats did with judge kavanaugh. i am definitely against her nomination. host: you said she is an activist judge a couple times. are there other activist justices on the supreme court bench right now? caller: yes, there are. and i do not think we need another one. the two ladies that are there are still activist judges. her especially. these were cases brought up by the republicans, and i think if some of the democrat senators, when they vote, they need to look at their states and who they are represented, just like marsha black and said, she represents the state of tennessee, and they need to look at the people they representing and vote in accordance to what those people believe. host: there are three women on the supreme court, and you say the two ladies, justice barrett,

justice kagan, justice sotomayor. who do you refer to? caller: not justice barrett. justice barrett has pretty much stayed the line and interpreted the law. the other two, you know how they're going to vote no matter what comes up. they are going to vote as an activist judge. i just have a hard time and putting another one on there. thank you. host: if justice jackson is confirmed to the supreme court, it would be five men and four women on the supreme court. in terms of a confirmation vote, the expectation is that is likely to take place before the senate easter recess. the senate has one more day of hearings today, and then the earliest that the senate judiciary committee -- the senate judiciary committee has one more day of hearings today, and then the earliest they could

vote as early next week, but republicans could delay that up toy week. the expectation right now is that a committee vote will take place on april 4, setting up a final vote on her confirmation before the april 8 date, the beginning of the senate recess. roy in california, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i am in support of ms. jackson. i found the confirmation to be very informative. so many things that came to light, like shadow documents and also dark money. it is quite a bit to take in. i am in support of her. i just want to speak to her nomination of being confirmed as a judge for the supreme court.

everything else is going to fall into place. i am just taken back as to just how corrupt our system has become and how influenced money and certain groups have over it. that is where i am at. host: time for maybe just one more call. that is because witnesses starting to arrive for day four of judge jackson's confirmation hearing. she will not testify today, it is a day for outside witnesses, punch bowl news, a wrap up of who the outside witnesses are. congresswoman joyce beatty of ohio, democrat, chair of the congressional, will testify, along with wade henderson, ceo of the leadership conference on civil rights. risa goluboff, first woman dean of ucla's law school.

also an appellate lawyer will be there and a member of the national organization of black law enforcement executives. judiciary committee republicans have invited steve marshall, alabama's attorney general, and jennifer mask up -- mascott of george mason university. also an antiabortion activist. a first liberty advocate. and an anti-human trafficking activist. so appearing over the course of three different panels today, those are the witnesses. they are starting to arrive in the room. members are starting to arrive, as well. we will try to get in edwina out of texas, last call. she is no longer with us, so we will go to rita in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just think she is wonderful. to have a woman of color on the

supreme court come she deserves it. she has worked so hard. and i believe that she is more than qualified. and i think that is what they should be looking at, her qualifications. i think blackburn in a couple others were completely out of touch with exactly what goes on with the supreme court. that is the way i feel. but i think it is wonderful, and i will back her. so thank you very much. host: that is rita out of pennsylvania, our last caller today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific we now take you to the senate judiciary committee hearing room. senator durbin greeting some of the witnesses that have already arrived for day four. it is judge jackson supreme court confirmation hearing, live

coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indiscernible chatter]

>> today is the last day of the senate judiciary committee's hearing for supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson. this day is set aside for testimony from outside witnesses. among those who will speak, representatives from the american bar association. we would hear from joyce beatty, wade henderson, alabama attorney general steve marshall. each witness will be given five minutes to speak. but hearing is expected to gavel in in a few minutes.

coverage on c-span.org and our free video app, c-span now. [indiscernible conversations]