philosophy. in your own words, you've described that, so you don't have to go through that again with me. but if congress writes a law that does not explicitly allow private parties to sue, do you believe that the federal courts have do you believe that the federal courts have the authority to create implied causes of action, and i'd like to have you elaborate if you say yes to that. >> i would say that as a general matter, no, senator. our obligations as judges is not to create policy and if congress has enacted a s establishes a cause ofaction, tn as a general matter i don't think that courts can impose one. now, you know, i'm saying

generally because there may be circumstances that i'm not thinking of. i know that the supreme court has a very narrow circumstances at times discussed implied causes of action, but i think the charge of the judge is to impose the law as written. >> there's 115 justices that serve before you if youio are approved by the senate. is there any of them now or in the past that has a judicial philosophy that most closely resembles your own? >> you know, i haven't studied the judicial philosophies of all of the prior justices. i will say that i come to this position, to this moment as a judge who comes from practice

that i was a trial judge and my methodology has developed in that context. i don't know how many other justices other than justice sotomayor have that same perspective, but it informs me with respect to what i understand to be my proper judicial role. >> what aspect of your record as a judge do you believe have been the most important for the good of the country? >> i think that all of my record is important to some degree because i think it clearly demonstrates that i'm an independent jurist, that i am ruling in every case consistent with the methodology that i've described, that i'm impartial.

i don't think that anyone can look at my record and say that it is pointing in one direction or another, that it is supporting one viewpoint or another i am doing the work and have done the work for the past ten years that judges do to rule impartially and to stay within the boundaries of our proper judicial role. >> let's go to immigration. congress gave the attorney general quote, unquote, whether expedited removal would apply to, quote, an alien who has not been paroled or admitted to the united states. you decided a case called make

the work, where they gave gave the department of security seoul discretion to decide which illegal immigrants would be subject to expedited removal, but you still went on to renew the department's decision. in fact, you issued a nationwide injunction blocking the department of homeland security from removing immigrants from the country who had been here less than two years. in the text you said if the text was clear thaended the question. the law specifically says that homeland security, not the courts was responsible for making the decision. could you please explain why you believed a federal court could review something congress called unreviewable?

>> thank you, senator, for allowing me to address that opinion and my analysis with respect to it. as you said, make the road inv expedited removal which was a way in which congress had given the authority to the department of homeland security to make a decision about how to deport people who are non-citizens. prior to the challenge that i heard, the department of homeland security, since it received that authority several decades ago had decided that people who were in this country for up to 14 days and are found within 100 miles of the border are subject to expedited removal.

the challenge that i heard involved the department's sudden shift to a determination that expedited removal would be applied to anyone who was found anywhere in the country and who had been here up to two years. importantly, the challenge was not about the actual determination. the challenge was about the procedures that the agency undertook to make that determination, and so the statute said, as you rightly pointed out that the agency had sole and unreviable discretion to decide and in interpreting that i took into account the language of that statute and the language of another statute that congress has enacted to direct

agencies with respect to the manner in which they exercise their discretion. so i said and i believed that sole meant that the department of homeland security was the only agency who got to make this determination as to how many months a person should be in the united states, and unreviewable meant it was final once the agency decided then there was no ability to review substantively their determination, and i should say that importantly, the statute that congress enacted gave the agency the discretion to make this determination between zero and 24 months. there is a limit in the statute. it says -- excuse me, department of homeland security, you get to decide where between zero and 24 months a person who has been in

this country can be subject to expedited removal. so i read the statute. dhs gets the sole ability to make that decision. dhs makes that decision and it's final. what wasn't clear to me based on that language was whether congress intended to preclude its procedural requirements for the exercise of agency discretion. there was precedent that even when congress gives a great deal of discretion to an agency, procedural requirements may still apply. it is presumptive that the apa applies meaning that an agency can't act arbitrarily and capriciously when it undertakes to exercise discretion. it has to do certain things in order to make the determination that congress has given it.

i looked at those statutes -- oh, i'm sorry. >> no. >> i looked at those statutes, and i considered the canons of construction that said that statutes should be read harmoniously, that as a court you're supposed to understand that congress has directed sometimes in more than one statute what is supposed to happen, and so i read them together to mean that the court could still do what it almost always does in a case involving a challenge to the manner in which the agency makes its decision. in fact, i thought, as i said in my opinion that congress intended for the apa to imply, because it had not excluded it because it had done it in other parts of the ina, it had not excluded it here and it made

sense to require the agency to use its expertise. if congress wanted the agency to act arbitrarily in picking a number congress could have done that. congress said you can do it up to 24 months. it could have randomly picked a number, but it was giving it to the agency i thought and reasoned precisely because it wanted the agency to use its per expertise to figure out what amount of time is sufficient. and so it was important, i thought, to lay that out in the statute and i determined that both of those statutory directives of congress should apply. >> thank you, senator grassley. senator leahy? >> thank you, chair durbin. judge, congratulations again on your nomination to our nation's highest court. you're an impressive jurist.

i hope the broader public sees that and i enjoyed the opportunity to meet your family here yesterday, and i thought before i begin my questions, the junior senator from texas suggested that the democrats have exacted a political agenda by op potion the nomination of judge gorsuch to the supreme court. i kind of chuckle at that because along with others, i -- others repeatedly and clearly established the nomination and i explained my votes on the record. there's no political agenda. i contrast that with the republicans' treatment of judge merrick garland. we are still waiting today for

republicans to explain on the record what concerns they had with merrick garland that they blocked him for over a year and would not allow -- even allow a vote on his nomination apparently because of a politically driven agenda. all i'm saying is let's make history this week, but let's not re-write it. this is a historical time. judge jackson, one of the topics we discussed in our meeting was respective experiences you as a federal public defender and myself as a prosecutor. as a federal public defender in washington you were assigned to and represented clients who couldn't otherwise afford a lawyer. one of the valuable lessons i learned of a prosecutor was this, for our criminal justice system to function properly, you

have to have skilled, dedicated lawyers on both sides, on both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. it's equally essential for judges to have a nuance and a balanced understanding of our criminal justice system if we are going have justice done, now it is really concerning and confusing to some as view your background as the federal public defender as some kind of a liability. those of us who have spent time in courtrooms know you have to have both the skilled prosecutor and a skilled defender. i believe that -- in fact, i don't think of it as a liability. i think it will be a major asset to you, and i think it should be welcome on the supreme court. in fact, if you're confirmed by the court as i look back over, you're going to be the first former federal public defender

on the court. you are going to be the first nominee since justice thurgood marshall with a significant background in criminal defense. that's pretty impressive. so all of us should want that on the supreme court because decisions on the supreme court can have a lasting impact on our krim naft criminal justice system. my question is this, i believe your experience as a public defender has made you a better judge with a balanced perspective in criminal and other cases, and i assume you would agree with that. >> yes, senator. i think that experience on the criminal justice system whether on the prosecution side or the defense side having actual

experience is an asset as a judge. you understand the way the system works, and as a defense counselor you have interacted with defendants that as a judge, at least a trial judge, i thought was very beneficial. one of those ways is it helped me to develop a sense of the need to communicate correctly with defendants. it didn't change in any way the outcomes of the cases when i was a trial judge, but i under stood from my time as an appellate defender that a lot of defendants go through the system and don't really understand it, and the problem with that from our society's standpoint is when

people go through the criminal justice system and don't have a good understanding they tend to not take responsibility for their own actions. they tend to be bitter and feel as though the justice system has wronged them and so while they're doing their time rather than reflecting on the fact that this is the consequence that they have to face for actually committing a crime instead of doing the work to rehabilitate themselves, they're, you know, focusing on how wronged they are. how victimized they feel, and so what i decided as a trial judge was that i was going to make sure that everyone who was in my courtroom and especially the defendant understood all of the procedures that we were going through, all of the steps. i asked them.

do you understand what's happening because i wanted them to know and then even perhaps more importantly, as i said about my child pornography cases, i focused on the harms of the behavior that was at issue. when i sentenced a defendant i made clear in every case here is the problem. this is what you've done. here is the damage to our society, and i don't know if i would have done that had i not been a criminal defense lawyer. >> i was getting to the fact that you have that experience, and also it's obvious as a public defender you don't get to choose your clients. it's not like you're going out there picking and choosing. you are told you're going to defend this person, but they're given that right under the sixth

amendment, and we all -- eye member of the bar or judge or public defender you take an oath to uphold the constitution and the sixth amendment is a pretty important part of it, would you say? >> absolutely, senator. >> and it's also a very important part for indigent defendants, is that correct? >> especially for indigent defendants because they can't afford counsel. as you said, senator, for a judge, it is crucial that you have arguments that are being made and presented on both sides of the issue. that is what allows for judges to reach just results in cases and it's what makes our system so exemplary. >> it also guarantees that our constitution is going to be followed. i -- you know, i think it's

important that you were around with senator doug jones respected on both sides of the aisle, but you got to meet other -- other senators. i was delighted you came to spend time in my office, and you noted in your public remarks that the white house when you were nominated that your parents were married for 54 years, and both public servants in their own right and they are proudly watching you being announced by the president, and -- the last couple of days they were probably watching you as other members of your family. your younger brother became a police officer, detective in

baltimore before serving the army. two tours of duty in the middle east. two uncles that served as police officers. so i'm not really surprised that you understand law enforcement and the national fraternal order of police have expressed strong support for your nomination. in fact, their letter dated dated february 25, 2022, they said you have considered the facts and applied the law consistently and fairly on a range of issues and they went on to say there's no doubt you have the temperament, intellect, legal experience and family background to earn this appointment. and they added we are reassured that should she be confirmed she would approach her future cases with an open mind and treat law enforcement cases fairly and justly. chair durbin, i would ask consent that the letter from the

fraternal order of police be admitted into the record. >> without objection. >> that's a statement from the largest law enforcement labor organization in the united states. what do you say to people who say you're soft on crime or even anti-law enforcement because you accepted your duties as a public defender? >> thank you, senator, i would make three observations in response to those critiques. the first is that as someone who has had family members on patrol and in the line of fire, i care deeply about public safety. i know what it's like to have loved ones who go off to protect

and to serve and the fear of not knowing whether or not they're going to come home again because of crime in the community. as you said, my brother patrolled the streets of baltimore, and i had two uncles who were career law enforcement including one who became the chief of police of the city of miami police department in the 1990s. so crime and the effects on the community and the need for law enforcement, those are not abstract concepts or political slogans to me. the second observation that i would make is that as a lawyer and as a citizen, i care deeply about our constitution and about the rights that make us free.

as you say, criminal defense lawyers perform a service and our system is exemplary throughout the world precisely because we ensure that people who are accused of crimes are treated fairly. it is very important to me in that capacity as a lawyer and as a citizen. the -- oh, i'm sorry -- i was going to say, the third thing i would say is as a judge. as a judge, i care deeply about the rule of law and i know that in order for us to have a functioning society we have to have people being held accountable for committing crimes, but we have to do so fairly under our constitution, as a judge who has to decide how

to handle these case e i know it's important to have arguments from both sides and to have competent counsel and it doesn't mean that lawyers condone the behavior of their clients and they're making arguments on behalf of their clients in defense of the constitution any and in service of the courts and a service. >> i know in my conversation i mentioned my own experience as a prosecutor i knowed the best defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on everything was donew thedefense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on a the defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on b the defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on t the defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on e the

defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on h defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on th defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on th defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on the defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on n the defense attorney on the other side because you wanted to make sure that as the trial went on t the defen we -- i know i heard from people i respect throughout the world asking questions about guantanamo and that's precisely the situation we want our best and brightest lawyers to step into the fray however politically controversial. we have to make sure we do not become unmoored from our core commitments from the rule of law, but they're also both in our own country and outside our country, people can see this we're following that. so you were in private practice when you took on these cases. uncharted legal waters and what principles drove you to get involved with cases in such a difficult time in guantanamo

bay? >> thank you, senator. i do want to clarify, when i first started working on these cases i was an assistant federal public defender. the supreme court in 2004 issued two opinions that began this group of cases and these issues and this was in the wake of the trajic and terrible attack on this country in 9/11, and the executives' use of authority to detain enemy combatants at guantanamo bay. in 2004 the supreme court ruled that the executive did have the authority to make those detentions in one case and then in another case the supreme court ruled that anyone so detained could file a legal

challenge. they had habeas rights and as you know, habeas is in the constitution. in 2005 i joined the federal public defender's office and those cases started coming in. the requests from detainees asking for legal representation consistent with our constitutional scheme to have help to file their habeas petitions and this was very early in the days of these kinds of legal actions and petitions and arguments could be made and considered by the court and most importantly, what the facts were related to any of these individuals because almost everything was classified. so defense counsel was getting these people in with no

information. i was in the appellate division of my office and as an appellate defender i worked with legal issues and i was paired with -- i was assigned by the federal public defender. i was an assistant federal public defender and i was paired with a trial defender who attempted to do the fact gathering, who traveled to guantanamo bay. i never travelled there or anything like that. i worked on the law, and as you noted the law was very uncertain. this was brand new and people were trying to figure out what are the limits of executive authority in this context. we knew that the constitution was not suspended even though we had this emergency. so what did that mean with respect to these individuals? i filed as a federal public defender, i was assigned to work on four cases and i filed almost

identical petitions because what you're doing especially when you have no facts is just preserves legal arguments for your clients. that is consist went what lawyers do, and then you mentioned private practice. so i went into private practice, i believe it was in 2007 and by that time lots of private practices around the country had started taking on these cases because there were lots of people who needed representation and so pro bono practices were receiving requests usually through non-profits and one of the individuals that i had represented as a defender ended up being assigned to my firm unbeknownst to me. so i arrive at my firm, and the partners realize the same person

was someone that, according to the docket, i had previously represented and they asked if i would review some of his materials and continue the representation. that was the only person they represented in the context of my private firm who was a detainee. i worked on a couple of habeas briefs for judges and for a variety of -- of non-profits including the rutherford institute, cato institute and the constitution project who were all interested in making arguments to the supreme court that was considering these very novel, legal issues. >> you know, i sit here, and i think about the 20 supreme court nominees i've gotten to vote on my years here, and i think of

the remarkable praise you got from the former republican house speaker paul ryan who most of us know well. he did mention his politics may be different from your, but his praise for your intellect and integrity is unequivocal. that's powerful praise, and i think it goes to a really fundamental point and that's this. one doesn't have to have the same political beliefs or ideologies as a judicial nominee to recognize their integrity and intellect. when i voted to confirm chief justice john roberts to the supreme court i guessed that vote knowing very well that he and i would disagree on many policy and political issues, but i voted yes because i believed

he has what it takes to serve as an impartial, fair chief justice, would uphold the rule of law, and i wanted to take it out of politics. now what would you say to people whose politics may be different than yours like speaker ryan who has endorsed you. what would you say to those people about your readiness as an even handed, unbiassed supreme court justice? >> thank you, senator. i would say that i am committed to serving as an even handed supreme court justice if i'm confirmed by this body, and i have a record over the past decade that's precisely how i've treated all of my cases, and i've been serving in the district of columbia both as a trial judge and as an appellate

judge, and we see some of the most politically contentious issues. my record demonstrates my impartiality. i watched this court. i used to go there as a young law student and i continued to watch it. i see the chief judge of the federal district court, judge howell who i was privileged to have her serve as my chief counsel on this committee and i learned from her then, and i learned from her now, but i also, as a lawyer, i hear a lot of talk about reversal rates.

now no judge goes somewhere if they haven't reversed or heard many cases, but your time in the d.c. district court, less than 2% of your 550 cases were reversed. considering the fact that the d.c. circuit hears an average of 13% of the cases, it -- it hears. you have a pretty good record, and -- but what does a judge who has been reversed, what do they take from that reversal? what do they or what should they think about? >> well, you obviously look at it very carefully, what it means

is that a panel of judges who have reviewed what you determined for some reason has decided differently, and there are times when panels of judges decide differently because they are making a new statement about the law or they're establishing a standard that had not previously been the case in the area, and so you learn, oh, this is a new standard now that i need to apply. there are times when you disagree, that people can disagree about the way in which the law works and that's why we have panels because people have different -- judges can have different perspectives and in good faith, reach different results and so obviously when you're on the trial court, the

court of appeals is binding and they tell you in this case, no, we're going to -- no, the result is something different and so you learn. >> you know, any time i had the opportunity to argue cases on that level i don't think i ever thought about who nominated or appointed the judges as before. i just want to know about what i would think about their experience and i would think about that when i made the argument. i don't think i've ever had the opportunity to argue before anybody and had your breadth of legal experience and you served as a federal trial court, a federal appellate court judge for almost ten years. you clerked at all three levels of the federal judiciary. you practiced law as a federal

public defender in private practice, and i know we confirmed you as a member of the u.n. sentencing commission opinion this may seem like an easy question, but i just ask you, you've had such broad experience, but they're all different in a way. how does that shape your approach when deciding a case? >> thank you, senator. as i mentioned at the begin, i have a methodology that i apply when i'm deciding cases and maybe my various experiences helped me to get to the point of understanding the importance of impartiality, staying in my lane as a judge because the prior

experiences were different roles in the system because i saw the different roles i think i have a good appreciation of what it means to be a judge and the limitations on my own authority. the sentencing commission was a policy making branch of the judicial branch that the commission and the commissioners developed sentencing policy. congress delegated that authority to create the commission and so they're doing the policy work, gathering data and making recommendations and that is totally different than the work that i do as a judge. advocacy on behalf of your clients making critical arguments and the best arguments you can come up with is a

service to the court, but it's a totally different thing than operating as a judge, and so i think that having had those various experiences, i am now really mindful of my role and limitations in the judicial branch. >> well, the president referred to you as a consensus builder and i think he was also thinking of your predecessor justice breyer in that regard, and i think over the years how important that is even in a body like the u.s. senate. i see senator tillis here. he and i worked together on i.p. issues. senator cornyn and i on freedom of information issues and senator grassley and i and other issues and graham and i on various issues and -- and

usually in the senate, at least, if you work across the ideological spectrum you get better results. so let me ask you, how would you describe your approach on building consensus on cases related to intellectual property that are less likely to break along traditional, ideological lines? >> thank you. thank you, senator. one of the things that i was able to do when i worked on the sentencing commission was work with people who had very different perspectives than i did about the criminal justice system and come to consensus. it's very important, as you've

said to try to find common ground and justice breyer was such a wonderful model, a role model for that kind of ability as a supreme court justice. it's something i learned from him, and something i tried to model on my work on the commission, that i tried to model in my work as an appellate judge and that i would model or do if i were confirmed to the supreme court. >> thank you, chair. >> ranking senator leahy and then senator graham. >> thank you, judge. again, congratulations. i want to talk to you about family and faith because in your opening statement and the people who introduced you, the committee, was there very glowing prize of you as a person, a good friend. you have a wonderful family, you should be proud.

what faith are you, by the way? >> senator, i am protestant. okay. >> non-denominational. >> could you fairly judge a catholic? >> senator, i have a record of -- >> i hope the answer would be yes. >> i believe you can, i'm just asking this question because how important is your faith to you? >> senator, personally my faith is very important, but as you know, there's no religious text in the constitution under article 6. >> there will be none with me. >> and it's very important to set aside one's personal views. >> yeah. >> -- about things in the role of a judge. >> couldn't agree with you more, and i believe you can. so on a scale of one to ten, how faithful would you say you are

in terms of religion? i go to church probably three times a year so that speaks poorly of me or do you attend church regularly? >> senator, i am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because i want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views. >> how would you feel if a senator out here say that the dogma that lives within you and that's of concern. how would you feel if someone on our side said you attend church too much to me our your faith is too different for me and they would suggest that it would affect your decision? would you find that offensive? >> senator, i am -- >> i would, if i were you. i found it offensive when they

said it about judge barrett. the reason i ask these questions i have no doubt that your faith is important to you and i have zero doubt that you can adjudicate fairly if they were an atheist. i would say so. you're reluctant to talk about it because it's uncomfortable. just imagine what would happen on late-night television called you an f-ing nut speaking in tongues because you practiced the catholic faith in a way they couldn't relate to or found uncomfortable. judge, you should be proud of your faith and i am convinced whatever faith you have and how often you go to church it would not affect your ability to be fair and i hope going in the future that we all can accept that, and that judge barrett, i thought was treated very, very poorly. so i just wanted to get that out. let's talk about family. do you know janice rogers brown?

>> yes, i do know her. >> how do you know her? >> she was a judge on the court they now serve. we didn't overlap, and i'm struggling to remember whether i ever met her, but she was a judge on the circuit court. >> right. you were a district court judge, is that right? >> i was, but i don't know whether she had -- >> thank you. >> are they in the same building? >> they are in the same building. >> so you really don't know her. >> know of her. yes. >> what do you know of her? what's your reputation? >> i know that she's a very well-respected judge on my circuit. >> okay. >> in terms of family, she was the daughter and granddaughter of share croppers. she was raised in alabama under jim crow. despite this adversity, she put herself through law school as a single working mother.

that's pretty impressive, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> your background is very impressive. you seem to have a great family. if family mattered we would not have done to her what was done to her here in the united states senate. do you realize that she was filibustered for two years when she was a part of the d.c. circuit. >> i didn't know that. >> did you know that joe biden actively filibustered janice rogers brown? >> i did not know that. >> did you know that he told "face the nation" if bush nominates her for the supreme court i can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered. is that news to you, too? >> yes. >> okay. >> now that you know that, how do you feel about it? >> senator, i can't speak to something they just learned two seconds ago in your conversation

with me. >> fair enough. >> you're in the black law school society, right? >> the black law students association. >> okay. black law students association. >> yes. >> you're a member at harvard. >> yes. >> and in some time, the mr. jefferies thing, do you remember that whole dust up? >> only in preparation for this, and i think i was in college at the time. it was my senior year of college. >> so you weren't in the group when he was indicted to speak? >> i don't know which group invited him to speak. i was a black student at harvard both in the harvard undergraduate black students association and the harvard law school black students association. >> do you remember going to a speech given by mr. jefferies? i think he's uncle of hakeem

jefferies? >> i did not go to the speech. >> are you familiar with what mr. jefferies' views are? >> just in preparation for this. >> do you associate yourself with those views? >> i do not, senator. >> fshth sma as a matter of fact, he is anti-semitic. he called you skunk that would stink up the place. you don't agree. >> i do not, senator. >> it would be wrong of me to speak against you because he spoke somewhere where you were a member of. >> yes. >> i thought that was the right answer with judge alito when they made a big deal about some group he was in that had views that he didn't agree with and tried to call him basically a racist, and found out that senator kennedy, god rest his

soul, would beat the crap out of the guy for being part of some supper club that was actually in some organization called the owl that didn't admit women. so i guess the reason i'm bringing all this up is it gives me a chance to remind this committee and america there are two standards going on here. if you're an african-american conservative woman you're fair game to have your life turned upside down and be filibustered no matter how qualified you are and if you express your faith as a conservative, all of a sudden you're an f-ing nut and we're tired of it and it's not going happen to you, but it just appalls me that we can have such a system in america that if a conservative woman wants to stand out and say i love my family just as much as you love yours and my faith means just as much to me as it does you that all of a sudden they're some kind of weirdo, a guy like

justice alito who is in the same type situation you're in, being in a group doesn't agree with everything they do or what people say in a meeting and all of a sudden they own it. that stuff needs to stop. our people deserve better respect, and i hope when this is over people will say you were at least well treated even if we don't agree with you. so now let's talk about gitmo. being a public defender, did you consider that rewarding? >> senator, yes, i did because public service is very important to me. it is an important family value. it is something that now i dedicated my career to. >> yes. >> and do you think it's important to the system that everybody be represented? >> absolutely. it's a core constitutional

value. >> you'll get no complaint to me. that was my job in the air force. i was an air defense counsel. i represented anybody who came in the door whether i liked them or not. i did my best. is that what you did? >> yes, sir. >> okay. good. now so the american people deserve a system where everybody is represented whether you like them or not and anybody who takes up that cause, no problem with me. you're just doing your job and i think you'll make the country strong e but there's another part of the story that never gets told whether i talk to gitmo, they keep terrorists off the battle field. they deserve a system that understands the difference between being at war and in crime. do you consider 9/11 a terrible, tragic event. would you consider it an act of war? >> yes, senator. >> okay. i would, too. i think that was an act of war that al qaeda and associated groups against the people of the united states.

so as you rightfully are proud of your service as a public defender and you represented gitmo detainees which is part of our system i want you to understand and the nation to understand what's been happening at gitmo. what's the recidivism rate at gitmo? >> senator, i'm not aware. >> it's 31%. how does that strike you? is that high, low, about right? >> i don't know how it strikes me overall. >> you know how it strikes me as terrible. >> yes, that's what i was going to say. >> okay. we found common ground. >> of the 329 detainees released from gitmo, of the 729 released, 229 have gone back to the fight. here are some of the notables. former nato detainee was named

the interim defense minister of afghanistan. i don't know exactly what his job is today, but during the transition they made him the defense minister and he was in gitmo. of the five men we released from gitmo as part of a prisoner swap for sergeant bergdahl, mohammed fazal was appointed deputy minister of defense noor was appointed acting minister of borders and travel affairs, aziki was appointed as acting intelligence director, acting minister of defense, and omar was appointed director of the southeastern province of khost. these are five people that we had in our control that are helping the taliban run the country. would you say that our system in terms of releasing people needs to be re-looked at? >> sen, to what i say is that

that's not a job for the courts in this way, that -- >> as an american, does that bother you? >> well, obviously, senator, any repeated behavior or repeated attack, acts of war bother me as an person. >> it bothers me. while i will not hold it against you the fact that you represented gitmo detainees, when 31% of the people are going back to fight and kill americans are running the taliban government, we have gone somewhere. are we still at war? >> so the aumf, the authorization for military force is still in effect. congress has authorized the use of force against people in this

way. >> but do you personally believe that al qaeda, isis-type groups are still at war with us? >> i think yes. i think -- >> so we're still in a state of war with certain elements of radical islam to this very day? >> believe that's documented, yes. >> okay. >> now what's the process to determine whether one is an enemy combatant under our law? >> well, i believe that the executive branch makes an assessment of whether or not someone has taken up arms against the united states somewhere in the world related to all of this. >> so it's an executive branch function determined whether or not this person qualifies as an

enemy combatant? >> well, i believe that they make a -- >> under current law. >> under current law, i believe that determination is made by the executive branch and the person is put into -- is detained and then the question becomes whether they are able to bring some sort of legal challenge to that -- >> they have a habeas right. >> yes. >> okay. so the law is that the executive branch determines if you're an enemy combatant, and under our law, you can appeal that decision to a federal court through habeas, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> okay. is it your view that we can holden me combatants as long as they're a threat to the united states? >> i believe that's what the supreme court has determined. >> okay. did you argue that that should not be the case in an amicus brief? >> i'm trying to think. i had two amicus briefs that i

worked on -- or three, technically, but two different cases. >> we'll have another visit tomorrow. >> yes. >> go back and check. >> yes. >> i'm pretty sure that in your brief you argued that the executive branch should not have the ability to hold an enemy combatant and you'd have to try them through some process or release them. yes, senator, as you were talking, my client, the cato institute, the rutherford institution and the constitution project made that argument and asked me to draft their brief. >> yes. do you agree with that argument? >> senator, my responsibility was to make my clients' arguments and as a nominee to the supreme court that's the kind of issue. the supreme court did not address that issue. they, in fact, the case became moot. >> did you organize an effort to get 20 judges to file a brief to

the supreme court on this issue. >> not on that issue. >> on another issue? >> yes, senator. >> did you act life go out and recruit 20 judges to help you file a brief on another issue regarding detention? >> not technically. >> what do you mean by that? >> what i mean is that i was at morris and foster which was my law firm in an appellate group. one of the partners at morrison and forrester was a former federal judge who wanted to make this argument and who said we -- i have former federal judges who are friends of mine who would like to join with me to make this argument, so i worked with her, the partner at my firm, who was a former federal judge. >> it was her idea to get formal

judges to write this? >> yes. >> and you helped in the implementation of that idea. >> so, senator, as a member of the supreme court and appellate group and a law firm, that is the practice. amicus practice. >> it wasn't your idea. it was somebody else. >> yes. >> okay. so now there are people still held at gitmo today, do you understand that? >> yes. >> okay upon. what system is in place regarding their future?. what system is in place regarding their future? >> i am not aware of the system right now. i'm not sure exactly what you mean. >> let me tell you what it is. >> yes. >> there is a periodic review process made up of an inner agency where they go through the

files of these folks and they determine whether or not they still present a threat to the united states or the world at large. >> we are interrupting here for just a few seconds as we approach the top of the hour. some of our stations will return to local programming. for everyone else, our coverage continues on nbc. >> -- this person still represents a threat to the united states this person still a threat to the united states, they are continued to be confined. that is the way this system works. are you okay with that? >> as a policy matter, senator, i'm not speaking to my views. my understanding is that the periodic review system is an executive branch determination of whether or not they are going to continue to hold people that they -- >> does that make sense to you as a way to deal with these detainees. >> senator, i'm not in a position to speak to the policy or discretion of the executive branch regarding how they are going to handle detay knees.

>> the reason i mention is because in one of the briefs you argued that the executive branch doesn't have that option. if you had had your way the executive branch could not do periodic reviews a to be danger the detainee presents to the united states. they would to make the decision of trying them or releasing them. is that not accurate? >> respectfully senator, it is not my argument. i was filing an amicus brief on behalf of client, including the rutherford institute t cato institute and the constitution project. >> when you sign on to a brief, does it not become your argument? >> it does not, senator. if you are an attorney and you are representing a client in am kis -- >> -- your position when erp in private practice?you were in private practice?

you sign to this brief making this argument but say it is not your position. why would you do that if it is not your position? why would you take a client that has a position like that and this is voluntary, nobody is making you do this. >> senator, i would refer you to the same sorts of statements that chief justice roberts made when he came before the committee, which is that lawyers represent clients and -- >> i get that. i'm not holding the clients views against you. like the people you represent at gitmo. they deserve representation. but this is an amicus brief where you and other people try to persuade the court to change policy. the policy i described is a periodic review. if the court had taken the position argued in the brief that you signed upon, would have to release these people or try them. and some of them the evidence we can't disclose because it is

classified. you are putting america in an untenable position. this is not the way you fight a war. if you tried do this in world war two they'd run you out of town. there is no magic passage of time that you got to let 'em go. my question is very simple. do you support the idea -- did you support then the idea that indefinite detention of an enemy combatant is unlawful? >> respectfully, senator, when you are an attorney and you have clients who come to you, whether they pay or not, you represent their positions before the court. >> i'm sure everybody at gtmo wants out. i got that. this is an amicus brief. and i just don't understand what you are saying quite frankly. i'm not holding it against yao because you represented a legal position i disagree with.

that happens all the time. i'm just trying to understand what made you join this cause. and you say somebody hired you. did you feel okay advocating that cause? when you signed onto the brief were you not advocating that position to the court? >> senator, as a judge now, in order to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any particular issue, i need to receive briefs and information making positions on all sides. >> i got what a judge is all about. i'm not asking you to decide the case in front of me right here. i'm asking you to explain to me the position you took as a lawyer regarding the law of war.

and i am beyond confused. i know what you said in your brief. whether i agree or not is not the point. i think it is important to understand where you were coming from. if that brief had been accepted by the court, it would be impossible for us to fight this war. because there are some people that are going die in jail in gtmo and never go to trial for a lot of reasons because the evidence against them so is -- that we can't disclose it to the public. we're not charging them with a crime. what we're doing is saying you engaged in hostile activities against the united states. i you are an enemy combatant under our law and you will never be released as long as you are a danger until the war is over or you are no longer a danger. that is the difference between fighting a crime and a war. did you ever accuse in one of your habeus positions that we

were acting as war criminals? >> senator, i don't remember that accusation. but i will say that -- >> do you believe that's true? that america was acting as war krlsz criminals in holding these detainees. >> senator, the supreme court held that the executive branch has the authority to detain people who are designated as enemy combatants. for the duration of the hostilities. and what i was doing in the context of the habeus petitions at this very early stage in the process was making allegations to preserve issues on behalf of my clients. a habeus petition is like a complaint that lawyers make allegations. >> i've been a lawyer too, but i don't think it is necessary to

call the government a war criminal in pursuing charges against the terrorists. i just think that's too far. i don't know why you chose those words. that's just too far. but we are where we are. so let's talk about the nomination process. have you ever had any reaction with a group called "demand justice". >> no. >> >> directly or indirectly. >> no. >> have you ever had connection with a group "american prospect"? >> no. -- >> do you know anything about them. have you had any contact with them. >> no. >> in your nomination did you

notice that people from the left were pretty much cheering me on. >> a lot of people were cheering me on, senator. >> that that's true. did you know that a lot of people from the left were trying to destroy michelle childs? did you notice that. >> senator, a lot of people were supporting various people for this nomination. >> so you are saying you didn't know there was concerted effort to disqualify judge childs from south carolina because union busting, unreliable republican in disguise? >> senator, i was -- i'm a sitting judge, i was focused on my cases. >> the answer is no i didn't know that. >> no, i didn't know that? >> and would it bother you if that happened? >> senator, it is troublesome that people are or were doing things related to the

nomination. >> i think that is the best way to say it. people have a right to speak out and pick the person of their choice. but all i can say is if you miss the fact that there was an organized effort. here is president biden has only a certain amount of political capital for keeping his party united. if he needlessly anger progressives on this s.c.o.t.u.s. pick that could protest problems for him down the line, jeff houser, revolving door projects. let's see. i just got so many quotes. it is difficult to imagine someone with a record like judge childs winning votes from criminal justice advocates like senator cory booker, even dick durban. childs experience is nothing like the diversity of experience that biden administration has championed. this just -- let's see.

picking her, childs, would demoralize the base, side with corporate america. the fact that lindsey graham was vouching for her should give the white house pause. our revolution, joseph jervanji whatever his name. is sorry about that joseph. he's bernie sanders pac director. you didn't know all declaring w childs. >> senator, i did not. >> okay. well i'm not saying you did. if you say you didn't know, i'll take you at your word. but i am saying that what is your judicial philosophy. >> so i have a methodology that i use inmy cases in order to ensure that i am ruling impartially. and that -- >> so your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially. >> my judicial philosophy is to

rule impartially and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge. and so my methodology actually helps me to do that in every case. >> so you wouldn't say that you are an activist judge. >> i would not say that. >> so we'll have 20 minutes more later on. but here is what i would say. that every group that wants to pack the court that believes this court is a bunch of right wing nuts are going to destroy america that consider the constitution trash all wanted you picked. and this is all i can say. is the fact that so many of these left wing radical groups that would destroy the law as we know it declared war on michelle childs and supported you is problematic for me. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. let me mention a few points here. congressman jim clyburn was strong supporter of michelle

childs and now i believe. we'll take a pause here. we've been watching the confirmation hearings fur judge ketanji brown jackson. they have been going on for about two hours now and you see the rotating, the form and fashion of it now. each senator from each party getting about 30 minutes of questions. we've heard her talk about some of the hot buttons of the day. contentious questioning there before senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina, about in particular her past representation of detainees at guantanamo bay but as a defender but also in private practice and one issue that came up the court backing if you add more members of the court it will diminish its now right leaning ideology. she said she could not opine on that, something justice amy coney barrett also said. >> authority as a judge which she could do. she stressed that many times. she said anyone could look at

her record -- no one would look at her record and see her as leaning one way or the other. that's obviously up for argument in the hearing. >> lot of questions about judicial philosophy. her approach to the law. also came across as a pre bubble. first question by senator dick durban, the chairman of the committee. as i go to our correspondent, garrett haake. one of the issues previewed by republican opponents of this confirmation is that she is soft on crime by virtue of some of her work as a federal defender and decisions she's made in the area of child pornography and we really saw garrett, an impassioned defense by judge jackson of the decisions in those cases, both legalistic defense but also one that made clear how -- how important she consider these cases and how personal they are to her. >> yeah, judge jackson said as a mother nothing could be further from the truth than the idea she might have somehow been soft on child predators in her

sentencing and she actually turned the issue back on congress saying it is up to congress to set the statute, up to congress to set the sentencing guidelines that she must follow as a judge, suggesting that the guidelines that were in place for her then were way out of date. you mentioned it was dick durbin, the democratic chairman of this committee who really took the wind out of the sails of some of the republican arguments we were expecting today. both on that question, on the question of court packing which allowed judge jackson to lean into what is now justice barrett's answer on this question saying that's not an issue for me to talk about. and you saw that kind of a m the waters for the next several senators to ask questions. until we got to lindsey graham, who it should be noted voted in favor of judge jackson's confirmation to her current role. all the issues about guantanamo bay and her work as a public defender, defending some of those inmates there would have been known to him at the time that he cast his last vote in favor of putting her on the circuit court.

savannah. >> and he made clear as somebody who worked in the jag core as a lawyer in the military that he takes no issue with her work as a public defender, but did get into it and drilled down some of the choice she is made as a private attorney signing on to amicus briefs on behalf of some gtmo detainees. that is what we were hearing fards the end. and hallie jackson. >> nbc senior washington correspondent, halle, amy coney barrett, if not just her name. her experience in her hearings was a major part of what republicans want to talk about. >> and you heard about that from senator lindsey graham and that moment that i think caught people's attentions there. when he started grilling, frankly, judge jackson about her faith. asking how often she went to church. on a scale of 1-10 huh religious is she, et cetera. she was reluctant to get into these questions because she wanted to make sure she separated her personal philosophies and decisions on

faith from the way she would rule as a justice essentially. and what was clear, senator graham acknowledged this he was referencing to questions about now supreme court justice amy coney barrett and her faith and the way that had come up previously. specifically from, for example, senator dianne feinstein who we'll here from shortly in the confirmation hearing for judge jackson. she remains a shadow hanging over this in some ways. the specter of the amy coney barrett as you referenced. judge jackson rempbs her answer on the issue of court packing. it will i'm sure not you not at all there is some political posturing here. we're going to see that throughout the day today. we've already seen some of it on the democratic side you heard references to, for example, what happened with merrick garland, somebody who democrats wanted to be the former president wanted to sit on the supreme court whose nomination did not get moved forward. you also heard from republicans i think senator graham. we expect to hear it later in the afternoon from senator josh

hawley of missouri. senator marcia blackburn later any day i'd be watching too given how sharp her omitting were. but overall you really saw judge jackson try to put line, barriers around her judicial philosophy. she said a couple of times she believes in staying in her own lane. this is a question when you look broadly at the way you would rule as a supreme court justice that democrats and republicans are interested in. the political piece though, you do have folks who are sitting on the committee who have potential 2024 ambitions, not all conservatives disagree with judge jackson's ascension potentially to the supreme court. i talked with one republican strategist this morning who said listen, people aren't going make news unless they want to make news from a political perspective, you also have a group of several dozen conservatives signed on to a letter saying they do back judge jackson's ascension to the courting in former new jersey republican governor christine today whitman who said she

believes judge jackson has the temperament to be able to sit on the supreme court and be a excellent supreme court justice. the question isn't necessarily, right, because we know how this is likely going to go. she's all by certain to get 50 democrats to back her. the question can they get any republicans to join them on this. lindsey graham who previously voted to confirm her to her current job, essentially. plenty of other republicans watching. senator susan collins et cetera. the question how many republican kansas they potentially get on board. so far there's been a couple of spicy moments but i think this is larkly going as expected. you can imagine judge jackson is extremely prepared for some of those questions related to her sentencing of child predators. you heard that in the opening salvo from the pre buttal from senator dick durban. >> halle points out the bottom

line here as we turn to our nbc news washington correspondent and nbc news politically analyst. the outcome isn't exactly in spence barring something unforcen. democrats have 50 votes 51 when you count the vice president. that is all it takes to get nomination. when asked about her background she noted she went from being child of parent who is attended segregated schools and in one floridian she said. so that was a humorous moment to get on the supreme court. how do you think she's doing, gene? >> i thought that was a great moment actually. that she twisted it that way. you know, i think she's doing really -- i'm really interested to hear how she judges cases. i think she actually has given a full of how she looks at issues and looks at the law.

she mentioned the word "text" again and again. which i found interesting. as a message to conservatives who believe in textualism and you know what did the founders intend. and i think she's making clear that she is not a judge who believes the constitution is what we think it is, you know, right now. it is what it is. and we have to interpret it. but i think thought that was kind of interesting. in a way it seemed to me she was saying, i'm more keggen than sotomayor in a way. you know legal scholarship. and i don't judge on the basis of passion and you won't see that that -- >> remember she's got over 500 opinions and i think she mentioned yesterday in her opening remarks a lot of those are long opinions. she writes a lot.

she says she wants transparency. >> exactly. i think she's kind of -- it's a fascinating legal seminar. anybody went to law school may be having flashbacks. >> rely on my partner here -- >> -- warning we have administrative law. we haven't had tax law yet but i'm sure it is coming. in a way it is always like this with confirmation hearings. you see the democrats in this case because it is president biden's nominee, they try to build her up or prebutt some of the arguments and then republicans come long and take, a lot is airing of grievances. we certainly heard that from senator graham asking some uncomfortable questions. it was uncomfortable when he's saying how often do you go church? what can your religion? and his reason to ask that was to point out the unfairness of that line of questions and that line of attack in amy coney barrett's prior confirmation hearing and that is a lot of the

jockeying and politics we've seen in these hearings. >> absolutely. watching these hearings you realize both sides really have a bone to pick with how supreme court nominees have gonna on in our country. they brought up merrick garland. and lindsey graham is bringing up a leadout. bringing up amy coney barrett. he hasn't got on the brett kavanaugh and there is always tomorrow. to effect these hearings aren't goig to be unruly in the way they think democrats made them. i was struck by the fact that this judge, judge jackson, used the word impartial. she used text a lot but also impartial over and over and over again. and while she was marking the fact that yes she's making history and marking that she does have loved ones in law enforcement. she saids not a political slogan to me. it is not abstract. and also talking about her children when she was talking about very forcefully i would

say, the child pornography cases that she really did have a view based in law based in harms of society but also being very careful to say i'm a judge who really does care being methodical the way i think about things. literally laid out three points how she thinks ebb about them. i clear my mind, look at the test and hear the argument. and this is a judge trying to be direct as possible. the only time you really saw her be evasive is when she was asked directly how many times do you go to church. and there was a pause and she's like i'm not answering that. and it was a more remarkable moment in that she didn't want to go so into her personal life because she didn't want it to be used against her. and she's trying to be very open with her questions but also against her. >> also split hairs on the interest in gtmo and stats of prisoners versus her own

opinion. she didn't want to go there. >> exactly. this is what the firm thought. this is what i had the to do. i thought it was very important talking about gtmo bay to say public defenders cannot pick their clients and there is a constitutional requirement that people have representation. so she was being very very careful there, as lester pointed out, about not saying what she thought specifically about sort of enmy combatants or use of guantanamo bay. coming back to the legal text saying the supreme court ruled this is what is possible and what is allowed. >> they really got into it over her work as private attorney, writing and signing on to an amicus brief because that was something she chose to do in private practice as opposed to her role as federal defender. and i think they had to agree to disagree on whether those views and that amicus brief that she was council of record for whether that represented her personal views or mr. she was as cline.

. >> i'll let you weigh in on her advocacy and amicus brief in guantanamo bay. that a rich issue that needs to be fleshed out more? >> not for me it is not. some. obviously the lawyer and the bush administration of course this whitehouse council and attorney general we debated these issues about guantanamo and the rights detainees should have there and clearly subject to constitution. and i think these individuals are going to be evaluated and perhaps, you know, suffer some kind of punishment. i think it is totally appropriate for them to be represented by counsel. i'm with senator graham in terms of not having any kind of issue with respect to her work with respect to guantanamo detainees. >> do you think judge gonzalez,

that this soft on crime critique that we saw previewed by senator josh hawley, republican of missouri yesterday and talk about this morning with the question with senator durbin. is that a furtheral line of attack as far as you are concerned, the criticism of sentencing child pornography to sentences under the guideline consideration. tried to throw it back on congress a little bit saying well congress if you want to fix this problem, you ought to change the guidelines and give us some guidelines here. do you feel like that attack was dealt with sufficiently? or do you think this is something where republicans will be able to lay a glove on this nominee? >> i donate think it will be successful in derailing her nomination quite frankly. and it is true. judges do have discretion with

respect to sentencing. and if congress is unhappy with the sentences, the sentenced administered by the federal judges they can simply pass a statue and change the range or limit that discretion. so politically it sounds good to say that she's, if you are opposing her, to say that she's soft on crime, she's imposed lighter sentences, maybe some outside the range. but in the end i don't think it is going to make a difference. >> and judge, how do you think from what you have been able to see this morning, how do you think she is, her body language, all the things that people are measuring right now. how is she doing? >> i think she's doing good. you know, to prepare someone for supreme court hearing, there is a lot of work behind the scenes that goes on, in terms of how you sit, how you respond to a question. how you address certain senators. and often times you will have an idea ahead of time what questions are going to be. so you are about as well prepared as you possibly can be.

and i from what all indications are, she's -- she's doing what she should -- what she needs to be doing to receive a -- a positive confirmation vote. >> thank you for joining us this morning. >> thank you. turn now to the dean of the harvard radcliffe constitute. professor at harvard law school and author of "civil rights queen." about the first black woman to serve as a federal judge and someone who judge jackson says inspired her. they also share a birthday 49 or 50 years apart. >> i for one am thoroughly enjoying the legal seminar. and i also have to say. and i very much enjoying the way

judge jackson is --. they grew up under jim crow. attended segregated schools in the south. and she is says -- she has profited from american ideals from the civil rights movement. she has said that she is standing on the shoulders of judge motley. and i agree that she is. i see in these hearings continuity as well as change. motley was the first black woman federal judge. and litigated cases including brown versus board of education that allowed ketanji brown jackson to attend integrated schools and to be in the position that she's in today.

she was touted to the supreme court but couldn't get to the court of appeals because some senators held her practice background against her as a civil rights lawyer. we have seen a lot of of discussion in these hearings of judge jackson's practice background as a public defender. i think she's done a very effective job of leaning into the basis for that experience. first of all she's performing public service. she says she has a family tradition of public service, and of course the right to counsel is rooted in the american constitution. and she's very effectively answered questions about her -- her cases, both in terms of guantanamo, but also she's mentioned the child pornography cases. and i've been impressed with how

she's once been passionate and firm in the way she's speaking but she's also shown damm. -- calm. and that is of course is very important in displaying the temperament to be a justice. >> and i wonder how much they would get deep into her world view. how it shapes her overall view as a judge. >> and we haven't touched on biggest hot button issues before the court now and professor thank you for your time. speaking of affirmative action or abortion. we talked about administrative procedures, law, international law. interestingly to the panel here, i think chuck grassley who got her to break with her former boss, justice breyer. and this is an issue that is very -- conservatives and liberals have disagreed over this for a long, long time, whether international law should be applied in interpreting our united states constitution. justice breyer having said in a

prior statement he thought it was relevant. and here today judge jackson disagrees with a boss and says there are very few cases where international law applies. >> think she could recall an instance, did she? >> she was saying she didn't think that was, that had much relevance. >> exactly. she didn't see that really coming up very much. she said if a case involving a treaty. right. >> yes interpret -- >> -- exactly but not in terms of interpreting our rights. >> what's funny about it is it is not the legal point. it is the point that there was a point -- there was a time when she was willing to take on and say directly her answer. we talked about some places where she was maybe a little more evasive but that's one where she wept can approximate disagreed -- >> and we saw her leaving the courtroom a momentum ago. that is washington, d.c. that is going conclude our coverage. you can catch updates throughout the day on msnbc or nbc news now. we have more tonight on nbc

"nightly news." for savannah, and all the team, i'm lester hotel in new york. good day everyone. thank you for watching. al everybody -- >> -- get ow. >> you've got some makeup on your shoulder. you can keep that. >> whose makeup was it yours or mine? >> pancakes. let's show you what we've got as far as your weather is concerned today. that storm outbreak continues down through the gulf. record highs out west. and then for tomorrow, wet weather moves into the southeast with severe storms there heavy snow up into the upper good morning, i'm meteorologist kari hall. we are going the see some record

high temperatures with our inland valley high reaching to 80 degrees today, starting at 50, heading back to the 40s tonight. tomorrow, more of the same. we will see highs in the 70s by the end of the week, so it does cool down by the weekend, and it's looking much more seasonable. we will have a chance of rain late sunday but most likely monday into tuesday. san francisco will see highs until the 70s. >> and that is your latest weather. >> okay. just ahead let's say you're the parent of a picky eater. this one is for you. camila alves mcconaughey is ready to help. she's gotten creative in a new children's book. children's book. he puts a twis did you t know that renovating your kitchen and bathroom is one of the best ways to increase the value of your home? i'm mike holmes here with ivan from agm renovations america's number one kitchen and bathroom renovators thanks mike! we make kitchen and bathroom renovations easy for everyone. we quote and design each project

and help customers select all finishes without having to leave their home! wow! agm are the only kitchen and bathroom renovations specialists i recommend. ♪ agmrenovations.com ♪ [announcer] call now and get $3,000 off!

we're back 8:36 busy mom, healthy mom food advocate, camila alves mcconaughey.

>> she's got a brand-new children out it's called "just one bite." how many times have we just said this in our lives? it flips the script on picky eating in the story, it's the kids teaming up to get their stubborn parents to try to eat healthy foods. by the way, brilliant concept. i thought when i opened it, i said, i kind of know what this book is and i saw two people who look like you and matthew as the parents, and your kids were trying to force you to eat broccoli. >> i'm not here to tell parents how to feed their kids, this way or that way, right but i am here to remind parents that the conversation around food, what's good, what's not, how it works in your body, where it comes from is extremely important, right if you start that conversation early on, most likely you're setting a child up for a lifelong of good habits. >> your kids kind of helped out with this book. >> they really did they really did. and it's -- we started that conversation early on in our household. i'll give you an example

i grew up in brazil. my dad is a farmer understanding where our food comes from, very clear but we never talk about sugar. what am i struggling with today? sugar. my husband, which they had the conversation in the household and limitations around it, he had an understanding he can sit at a dessert table and have a little bit -- >> what is that conversation about? >> even if we had the conversation, i think i would still be you, don't you think. >> definitely me my kids think they should have a treat every night. what should we be telling our kids about that? >> in terms of treats or how to introduce vegetables >> i'll take both. >> start with veggies. >> a lot of times, our kids say, i don't like that, i don't like this introduce the vegetables cooked different ways my daughter said to me, i can't

stand spinach. the other day, i was like, let me try to sneak it in there. i cut it fine and she ate the pasta and i introduced by going, it's not really good, just work with mama, this is what we got, right? and she ate it and said this is so good. i love this. and i'm like, do you know that's spinach, right and i said, see, it's not that you don't like spinach, it's that you haven't had it cooked the way you like see the difference there. >> you say cook meals together my daughter is 7 she's learned how to make an egg. >> that's how i started with my kids. >> it's to fun. >> that's the best way start your kids by cooking a meal together. that way, they're not just remembering their memories by doing treats in the kitchen with the parents, right >> i like this make a deal with a throwup vegetable. what does that mean?

>> my mother-in-law is a spicy little one -- >> she lives with you guys, right? >> yes she did this with matthew. they had a throw-up vegetable. you make a deal with your child. you choose one vegetable that makes you gag. they choose that one any time we cook that vegetable in the household, you don't have to have it you don't have to touch it but everything else on your plate, you have to try just one bite. >> it gives them a little control. >> mrs. mcconaughey. living with your mother-in-law, that's a pain? >> how is that >> it's awesome. somebody said yesterday, she's so sweet i was like, i don't know about sweet. she's feisty she just turned 90. >> she did >> she did she brings the spunk to the household. and we've become really, really close friends. she's stealing my clothes.

every time we travel, she goes, oh, can i borrow a sweater can i borrow a jacket? >> how is matthew doing, by the way? >> he's doing great. "green lights" is still on the "new york times" -- it's amazin saying how much the book g to see how many people come to him saying how much they like "g "green lights. >> well, come back >> you're going to be back with jenna and i in the fourth hour. >> yes. >> we're going to get together. >> the book is "just one bite. you can find out more about it on our website coming up next, the fix for coming up next, the fix for your denim dilemmas.

oh, wow barbara corcoran! good morning. sorry, but we don't need any business help now. we're gigillionaires. what? we're gigillionaires now. i don't get it we have at&t business fiber with hyper-gig speeds. -but i just... -so thanks, we're doing great. i'm so happy for you! but i'm just here for my order. oh. entre-pin-eurs? yeah, my bowling team. i like it. there's money in puns. do business like a gigillionaire at&t business fiber, now with speeds up to 5-gigs. limited availability.

welcome back. this morning on "today" style, hot new trends reinvigorating the denim domain. >> here with the latest on trend is style expert melissa garcia. >> get out your smartphone, you can shop along with us. hi, melissa, good morning. we're seeing a lot of denim trends, it's hard. it's decades past. it feels like it's nostalgia going on. >> it always comes back around, right? hero seeing the high-waisted, the crop. >> i'm happy for the high-waisted. i like what you're wearing. it looks like it's on a diagonal. >> you're our first model. >> a little outside my comfort zone, but here we go. i'm petite.

it's pretty hard for me to find, like, a pair of petite jeans that fit well and fit my figure. these are from abercrombie. they elongate your frame. they make you look taller. they make you look slim. they're great. >> that's an asymmetric waist. >> it's a modern take on a high waist. it draws the eye in, it makes your waist look a little slimmer. it comes in sizes 23 to 37, extra short, short, regular, tall and extra tall. >> thank you. >> let's talk about beautiful grace. >> grace is wearing a pair of jeans. she said she found it was hard to find jeans that flattered her midsection. we wanted to give her a pair of jeans that she felt comfortable. they're sculpting jeans that have a ton of lycra in them and they have a tummy panel to slim everything out. >> and i like the dark colors.

>> we're seeing skinny jeans, right, they're not out of style. >> i'm not getting rid of mine. here we have phyllis. >> first of all, we love phyllis. out a ton, but she has a beautiful hourglass figure and it's hard for her to find jeans that fit well. these are great. we went with a straight line to really just balance out her curvy proportions. and she said she has a hard time finding jeans that don't gap in the back. these are really creative. she doesn't have any of that gap. she doesn't have a belt on. it fits really perfectly. >> i like the crop, straight leg crop. >> crop just make sure it hits at your ankle and wear a heel. >> who do we have here >> katie one of our today food stylists

>> for katie, we wanted to give you a jean that every woman could wear these are from athleta but what better brand to have to make you a pair of jeans, so comfortable. these have incredible technology to have a 360-degree fit they're like a mid rise. they hug you in all the right places great for travel and they come in regular, petite, tall and tons of sizes. >> are they comfortable? >> i've been wearing them all morning. >> you can even workout in these. >> they kind of have a flare she's rocking those sneakers. >> you want to make sure that th when you're wearing a flat with a flare. >> beautiful these great options, you can go to today.com/shop. coming up next, the secrets behind a classic favorite family dish first, this is "day" on nbc. to

we're back with today food this morning, it is winner, winner chicken parm dinner chef daniel holzman out with a new cookbook called "food iq." this is a beautiful morning. i love what i see on the chicken parm on long island, the chicken parm is so thick. do you pound it? >> i'm a butterfly and a pound guy. >> sometimes it's way too much cheese and sauce yours looks refined and beautiful. >> you don't want a superthin slice of chicken you want a little bit of meat in there. the trick is, you can buy it from the butcher, prepounded or if you feel comfortable, you can pound it yourself. >> that's the chicken breast that you butterflied and pounded it out a little bit. >> pound it out.

in the flour you want to completely coat it, but shake off the excess the egg goes next and we're going right into the breadcrumbs. a fork is a big help. >> what kind of bred cadcrumb do you like >> people love preseasoned because they save you from the work for me, i like to add the seasoning myself. >> this is what i grew up on you got two right here. >> you don't want to go crazy hot with the oil, because you're going to burn your chicken you want it to cook all the way through. a lot of oil is the trick and that's extra virgin olive oil. >> i'm always afraid to cook with that. things can burn

>> it's fair >> the temperature of the oil -- >> i'm never invited yet >> you're thinking -- >> what did i do to dan? >> thank you, sir, may i have another. >> they talk about the smoke point of oil. >> what is that called >> that's the smoke -- olive oil is a bit thicker olive oil gives it that great flavor we're sauteing the chicken with plenty of oil so that it has -- it has room if it's too dry, the bottom tends to burn and then it's just one flip and i always keep a tray over here ready. >> you don't check the temp, you do, three, four minutes a side >> give it a little touch. the thing about chicken parm, we're going to bake it again it's going to have a chance to cook the rest of the week. and we have a tray here so that

after it comes out of the oil, it has a chance to drain so it's not greasy fair enough? >> fair enough moving down the line. >> we have a ton of garlic in this sauce it's a new thing for me. garlic is really sweet and it brings out -- it brings out the flavor of the tomatoes i have whole cloves that i just crushed. they go right in the olive oil it's nice and thick. people are always in a rush to get the tomatoes in the pot. we want to cook the garlic slowly so it cooks through otherwise you're going to have that raw garlic flavor. >> when do you know when to put in the tomatoes? >> once you smell it, if you were to feel with a spoon, you can crush them soft. before they get quite brown we're going to throw our tomatoes in. if i pour the tomatoes against

the back of the pot, it will stop it from splashing that's a great trick i'm not wearing an apron today i'm on tv. i don't want to be that guy. i'm always gentle with the seasoning in the beginning because we don't -- the sauce is going to reduce. if we go crazy with the salt at first, it could be oversalted in the end. >> you can always add, you can't subtract. >> al, how is the chicken parm >> it's terrific >> do you break these tomatoes down >> i -- here's the deal with tomatoes, right? they're cooking for a long time or cooking really slow, i like to cook them hotter. at 180 degrees the pectin in the tomatoes burst and the tomatoes will thicken and emulsify so that the oil doesn't separate out, doesn't get greasy. you want to heat it a little bit

faster and hotter. we cook it for 45 minutes. so it's quick. so the last step for chicken parm, i think this is overlooked, we want to put plenty of sauce on top of the chicken and then, you know, i bake it with the sauce and the cheese on top. so it's not just -- >> it's a melt >> you got 15. >> we got to go. >> you can do eggplant, veal >> thank you, brother. that looks delicious the recipe is at today.com/food. dan, you're back in our next hour with a recipe too for the perfect mac and cheese before we run do you remember that beautiful couple we met, mother and daughter, there's the selfie that we took with them. we just wanted -- we have a memory too thank you for coming to see us today, guys.

>> we should have people send us selfies every day. >> after your local news ♪♪ a very good morning to you. it is now 8:56. i'm laura garcia. b.a.r.t. today holding the first of several outreach events for its fair hike planned for july 1st. b.a.r.t. originally approved the

fare hike for this past january and then delayed it for six months. commuters can provide feedback from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. upcoming sessions include the el cerrito del norte session tomorrow, also montgomery station thursday and the south hayward station one week from today. b.a.r.t.'s red line service resuming between richmond and milbrae. riders on those lines are being advised to wait mid-platform for their trains. head to our home page for all the details.

and now most admired alum! get up there. this is so embarrassing. there's no way it's me. you know her.... you love her.... ruh roh. what are you doing here? it's anna gomez! who? our first gigillionaire! with at&t fiber, anna's got the fastest internet with hyper-gig speeds. i didn't know you went to this school. we have a lot in common. live like a gigillionaire with at&t fiber. now with speeds up to 5-gigs. limited availability.

this morning on the third hour of "today." tornado outbreak. nearly two dozen twisters in parts of the south. and we're going the track all. and our consumer confidential. how to save on gas, and even you are precipitations. and john cho stops by and we're going to ask about the big "star trek" news.