recommendations, whether they're in congress, they're not the kinds of things that i can opine about. >> so you don't want to opine whether 17 years is too long or too short a sentence for murder? >> senator cotton, the congress has prescribed a number of factors that judges look at when they sentence. it may in many cases not be. i can't answer in the abstract in the way that you -- >> these are very concrete. let's turn to rape. do you know how long the average inmate convicted of rape serves in prison in america? >> well, senator rape is not a crime in the federal system that i'm familiar with working with, so i don't know. >> it's 7.2 months. do you think 7.2 months is too long or too short for someone convicted of rape to be sentenced to prison? >> senator, that's a policy

question about the egregious crime of rape and congress has said that the court is supposed to take into a number -- take into account a number of factors when sentencing. >> okay. >> i can't answer in the abstract. >> judge, these are not abstract, these are very concrete. remember, these are just the length of sentence. if you're caught convicted and sentenced, let's look at cases in which people are never caught. in 2020 murders increased by the fastest rate ever. do you know what percentage of murders are solve d in america? >> i don't. >> 50%. should we catch more murders or fewer murderers? >> it's very important people be held accountable for their crimes so that is a fundamental tenant of the rule of law.

>> is that a yes, we should catch more murderers, specifically the 46% of murderers that get away with it? >> senator, i'm not -- you're asking about enforcement or law enforcement, those -- >> judge, it's a very simple and common sense question. 46% of all murders go unsolved. should we catch more of those murderers or catch fewer of them? >> senator, we should hold people accountable for their crimes and so if people are not being held accountable, than that is a problem. >> let's turn to assaults. do you know how many assaults were solved in this country in 2020? >> no, senator. >> 44%. so 56% of all assault victims did not receive justice. do you think we should catch and imprison more criminals who commit assault against innocent people or fewer? >> senator, it's very important people be held accountable for their crimes so if they're not, then it would be a problem for

the rule of law. >> let's look at sexual assault and rape. do you know what percentage of sexual assault and rapes go unsolved in this country? >> i do not, senator. >> 77%. more than three quarters go unsolved. should we catch and imprison more rapists and sex criminals or fewer? >> senator, one of my two uncles was a detective in the sexual crimes and battery unit so i'm very familiar with that type of crime. it's a horrible type of crime as are all of these you are artic -- articlating. it's fundamental to the rule of law. >> so in 2020 alone, well over 1 million, 1 million violent

crimes went unsolved in america. do we think we imprison too many violent criminals or not enough? >> senator, it's important for our rule of law to ensure that people are held accountable who are breaking the law in the ways that you mention and otherwise. >> where do you think the families of all those victims think? do you think we should arrest and convict and sentence all these criminals who get away with it? >> senator, i know what the families of law enforcement think because i'm one of them. i know what crime does to our society. i care deeply about public safety and as a judge, it my duty at the trial level. i'm no longer there. at the trial level to ensure

that people are held accountable for their crimes. >> let's turn to child pornography. there is a lot of talk about it today. a lot of people have tried to explain the various differences in the cases and presentencing reports and sentences they got so let me just ask you a simple question about it. should the united states strengthen or weaken sentences for child pornographers? >> senator, that's not a simple question. the reason is because what this country does is in your province. you decide what the personalities are. you decide what the factors are that judges use to sentence if you determine any set of penalties is in sufficient then it is in your perview to make that determination. there are many crimes congress

termed warrant, mandatory minimum penalties, warrant other kinds of penalties and that's in your per view to determine. >> whether we should strengthen or weaken child pornography sentences, we'll move on. whether public defenders, think that sentences for child pornography are too hash. i don't. i bet a lot of normal americans don't, either. you've said repeatedly that sentence something a discretionary act and i understand that and agree with it. but you always seem to use discretion in child pornography cases to reduce sentences. if i have that discretion, i'd throw the book at child pornographers. maybe that's me. let's turn to drug crime. last year more than 100,000 americans died from drug overdose, drug overdose deaths

and gang crime have both skyrockets in recent years at the same time a lot of sentences have been advocated for sentences from judges like yourself. should you strengthen or weaken fentanyl traffickers, not users? >> senator, whether or not congress chooses to strengthen or weaken personalities for any crime is a determination of this body, which is ordinary made after study and review determination that is in the province of congress. >> judge, you've said before sentencing is a discretionary act. it's the judge's decision to have a shorter or longer sentence. >> the judge makes that

determination not based on one data point in general, which is what you asked me in general should we lower or heighten sentences, a judge is making a determination in a particular case looking at all of the factors. it's discretionary for sure but we do so within the bounds of a sentencing range that congress prescribes and at times in which congress decides a personality needs to be heightened, they impose a mandatory minimum and our range is shorter. and when looking at the crime, we're not looking at a policy matter across all fentanyl crimes and determining whether the penalty should be increased as a judge, we are asked in the context of a single prosecution regarding a particular person who has committed a horrible crime but also says congress is a person who has a life, who has

a job, who has all of the other factors that congress has told judges they have to look at when they decide what penalty to impose in that particular case between the range that congress sets so it's not a situation in which i can in my role as a judge tell you in a general matter whether penalties should be increased or decreased. >> i have to say, i think that not many americans especially not 100,000 americans that lost someone to drug overdose think these are tough questions but let's move on. let's talk about retro activity. when you were on the sentencing commission you were retroactively reducing drug trafficking sentences. this is a case where a drug king pen dreaming fentanyl gets a sentence and next time gets in front of a judge who thinks he had a raw deal and maybe in front of the same judge, a few

years from seeing the faces of the victims of this crime. do you believe that resentencing years after a conviction tends to reduce sentence lengths? >> senator, respectfully, i wanted to remark on your previous question and your statement that these are not difficult questions. it's not that they're deaf cult questions, they're not questions for me. i am not the congress. i am not taking policies around sentencing. my job is to look in a particular case and decide what the penalty should be within the range that congress prescribes. >> i understand. you were making policy, though at the sentencing commission and you're implementing changes to sentencing guidelines so my question again is do you believe

resentening after a conviction tends to reduce sentence lengths? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. obviously, if you resentence, you're giving the judge another opportunity to look at the circumstance in light of the changed penalties. sometimes the judge in that new situation will keep the same penalty. a resentencing is just an opportunity for the judge to reevaluate in light of the change circumstances. >> okay. almost without exception retroactively weakening sentencing laws and guidelines, lets hardened criminals out early. i always hear the argument. i hear from senators on this panel and a version of you each case will go before a judge and it won't be an automatic release because each judge will assess the facts and hear the arguments. in 2014, you said that judges would not, would not likely

reduce the sentences in the vast majority, vast majority of cases if sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking were reduced. i think you missed that one, judge. since 2014 retroactive reduction took effect, approximately two-thirds of all convicted drug traffickers who asked for early release got it. that's 31,614 drug traffickers back on the streets and 7,500 of those use weapons in their crimes. so that means that only one-third of these drug traffickers who sought to have retroactive reduction of their sentence were denied one-third a vast majority? >> senator, it's hard for me to answer questions about these numbers because i'm trying to decide if this is a retroactive of congress.

congress made a decision about retroactive reductions in drug penalties so i'm not sure what -- >> but judge in both cases we hear the argument from members of congress or the sentencing commission we shouldn't worry, there is individualized case by case determinations. >> and that is my experience. that's -- when there is a retroactive change, what happens is that whether it's the guidelines that are changed or the laws that are changed, which happens in congress there is a sure kwenlt determination whether or not to apply that reto actively, apply the change so those convicted of that personality moving forward and the people already convicted, both of them get the benefit of the change if the determination

is made to make it retroactive. under that circumstance where you're talking about a penalty change applied to prior people, each one of those prior people goes back before a judge and a judge usually the sentencing judge in the first instance will reevaluate whether or not to -- this is generally. there is some exceptions but generally speaking, the judge will reevaluate whether or not to give that person the benefit of the change. this is an individual assessment. that's what congress requires in every sentence and ultimately one that benefits all of us under the law because judges are being asked to look at these cases and not make generalized determinations. >> so the 2014 comment was specifically about the sentencing commission but

generally whether in front of the commission or congress, we hear the argument judges will make individualized cases and not many people will be released. of the one-third that were not reduced, the vast majority of those were not eligible. the percentage of cases in which a sentence is not reduced for public safety reasons because someone is viewed as too dangerous is 1%. 1%. judge, do you remember a man named keith young? >> yes. >> good. for the benefit of my colleagues, let me quickly cover the basics of his case. you sentenced him in 2018. he was a career criminal that had previously been convicted of trafficking cocaine. in 2017 he was running a drug business in his house where his children lived and was found with 2 1 kilogram bricks of heroin worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with a gun, ammunition, thousands of dollars in cash and equipment to cut and package heroin for retail sale.

the drug lab confirmed there was fentanyl in both bricks of heroin and one of the bricks there was more fentanyl than heroin. at the d.c. jail awaiting trial, he bragged about his arrest and how he was a kingpin. his words, not mine. kingpin. he was even recorded calling his wife and mother giving them instructions on collecting drug money from people for him. the prosecutors filed a notice of young's criminal history which meant he faced a mandatory minimum of 20 years. you didn't like that. at his sentencing this is a quote you shared his frustration that you couldn't give him a lighter sentence. i was shocked to see this in the transcript and shocked that you apologized to this drug kingpin for having to follow the law. you literally said you didn't think 20 years is fair. this is the quote and for this i am sorry.

mostly because i believe in second chances. you apologized to this career criminal, a drug kingpin in his own words. he's not a low level drug offender that made a bad choice. that was in 2018. in 2020 he got a second chance. after young's sentence, congress passed the first step act that reduced sentences for drug traffickers with lengthily criminal records. during the pandemic, lots of criminals tried to twist the passionate release provision which was intended for terminally ill elderly inmates to get early release and blame it on covid. you had none of that and that's good you said covid isn't only present in prisons and you said that young's past as a smoker and his claim of various other health issues did not entitle him to early release. if you stopped there i would

have cited that as a great example. you didn't stop there. you said in the resentencing quote congress did not make their changes under the first step act retroactive. that if they had you could have given him a reduced sentence but then you said no matter what the law says and this is a quote, judge, the court feels as though in this moment per mr. young's compassionate release, the court is being called upon to evaluate the length of his sentence under the revised sex of law so it's almost as if i'm sentencing him today and if i were to do so, he would face a sentence well below the 240 months mr. young received and so for that reason, i will grant mr. young's motion. judge jackson, before you granted this fentanyl kingpin's motion, did you contact victims

from his case? >> senator, thank you for allowing me to address mr. young's situation. >> i asked a simple question, did you contact the victims in his case or not? >> senator, mr. young was not released. his sentence was reduced and i did not contact the victims in the case because there were no victims. he committed a crime, a drug crime. there were no identifiable victims in his case. >> drug crime is not a victimless crime. 100,000 americans were killed by overdoses. >> understood, senator but there was no one to contact because there were no identifiable -- >> do you acknowledge you did not release him. you're right. he filed a motion for compassionate release. you denied that rightly but you reduced his sentence. he didn't file a motion to reduce his sentence. he wasn't eligible because it wasn't retroactive towards him. you took a motion for compassionate release to get out of prison and turn it into a

motion to reduce the sentence so he'll be released seven and a half years earlier years from now. last week, judge, when we talked in our office, you talk about judicial restraint. is transforming his motion for compassionate release into a motion to reduce sentence for this drug trafficking kingpin and example of judicial restraint, judge? >> yes, senator, it is and i'll explain how. mr. young as you say was facing originally a sentence of 20 years in prison which i imposed. i tried mr. young who went to trial primarily because he was facing such a long penalty. i looked at the evidence in his case. he was absolutely the kingpin that you're talking about but the way that our laws work the

20-year sentence that he received for the amount of heroin that he had was increased based on a sentence he received i believe 10 or 15 years before. he had no criminal history between the already, already sentence -- forgive me, i can't remember exactly. i'm sure people will look it up. ten, 15 years before he has some minor sentence then he had this really obviously serious terrible sentence and the government filed what is called an 851 which is an enhancement based on his really, really old prior criminal history. i followed the law which said that he had to go to jail for 20

years. it would have been more like ten years if the government hadn't taken into account his very old criminal history but i said fine, this is the law. i'm following it. you're going to jail for 20 years. in the interim, covid happens. we get lots of compassionate release motions and there is a statute that congress has enacted which allows defendants to seek compassionate release, to seek reduction of their sentence, not just release, reduction, release, some adjustment to their personality -- penalty under the law if there are extraordinary and compelling reasons to do so. that's the quote. extraordinary and compelling reasons. it doesn't say anything more narrow than that although you have to look at the guidelines related to compassionate release, which i did related to his motion and he argued several

things. he argued his smoking, his asthma, these were reasons he said for compassionate release and i disagreed. what i did find extraordinary and compelling is the fact between the 20-year sentence that i gave him originally and the compassionate release motion that he filed, congress changed the law. congress decided that the old penalty, the old crime was no longer eligible for the increase so a person who was convicted at the time of his compassionate release motion for doing exactly what mr. young had done would not get a 20 year sentence. that would not be lawful for a person at that moment and one of the things that congress says to the judges is care about

unwarranted sentencing disparity. care about the fact that the person you're sentencing is being treated differently than someone else who committed exactly the same crime. and i understand it wasn't retroactive in the sense that everybody absent to compelling, absent to compassionate release motion wouldn't have been eligible for resentencing but here i have a defendant before me and all of the factors that congress has asked me to take into account and a compelling argument that there were extraordinary and compelling circumstances that is a change in the law that would create unwarranted sentencing disparity if i didn't take account of it. what i determined under those circumstances is i would sentence, resentence mr. young to the penalty that congress had

decided was the appropriate penalty for the conduct he committed as of the time of his motion. >> judge,, congress did change law in the first step act. congress specifically did not make that change retroactively. you saw that and thought it was extraordinary and compelling even though congress specifically did not make it retroactive. you chose to rewrite the law because you were sympathetic to a fentanyl drug kingpin whom you had expressed frustration at having sentenced him to his 20-year sentence in the first place. you twisted the law and you rewrote it to cut the sentence of a drug kingpin. >> respectfully, senator, i disagree. congress provided judges through the compassionate release motion mechanism with the opportunity to review sentences.

congress -- prior to the compassionate release mechanism being enacted, a judge who imposed a sentence would have no opportunity to revisit. in mr. young's case, the question is with this compassionate release motion under a circumstance congress changed the law was that an extraordinary and compelling circumstance to revisit his sentence and i made a determination that it was. >> i suppose if you're confirmed, we can count on you to always rule in favor of retroactively no matter the facts of the case because it was a blatant, blatant rewrite of the law so you could resentence a drug kingpin you didn't like the 20-year sentence in the first place? >> no, senator, it was not. >> senator booker?

>> approaching 11 hours now of a long day and forgive me, i want to go back to one of myerly -- my early senators lindsey graham. on a scale of one to ten, how deep is your faith that i won't ask that question. >> you're asking me or won't ask me. >> i'm just joking. [ laughter ] >> okay. i want to go through some of the things that some of my colleagues did on top line and forgive me i don't want to dwell too much. some of it i found today just to me really didn't hold water and i want to start with my friend and colleague ted cruz who is my friend. he's a texan, one of my favorite texans who says he's hard to hate up close so pull people in and a lot of times in this culture of triable politics, the reality is we know each other over years and i've had the privilege of working with ted on

a lot of really good policy. so i went back to my office and relistened to his questioning of you about critical race theory and he referenced your speech, which i hadn't read. you harvard folks are so well focused on these things. i read your speech. and i was very surprised. ted had a very big chart. i think he needs to give senator white house some advice on charts. senator white house was very small. almost as if they were proportionate to state sizes. [ laughter ] >> easy there, new jersey. [ laughter ] >> mr. chairman, i request my democratic colleagues would stop interrupting me. [ laughter ] >> but he talked about your speech and when i read your speech, there is a couple things that jumped out. first of all, he acknowledged was a very powerful speech and moving speech about

extraordinary black women. i have a criticism your mother wasn't in it. he honed on some accusations that don't hold merit to me. we have a saying in new jersey. i felt it was all hat and no cattle. so here we -- he said that you called the woman who wrote the 1619 project that you called her provocative. that is not a compliment necessarily if you call someone provocative, is it? >> no. >> i think ted cruz is very provocative and that doesn't mean i agree with what he's saying, his philosophy and his 125i789ds. but he pointed out you also called the author acclaimed. she won a politzer prize, correct? >> she did. >> in journalism. >> she is acclaimed. >> she is. >> in nowhere are you heralding her this is effective of your philosophy, correct? >> correct. >> i don't understand that. part of his chart is a lot of e

-- ellipses. i went back to that talk to and i saw you threw everything in there, psychology, economics, all sorts of disciplines touching in the law. there is everything in there except for astrology. >> correct, senator, that speech was not related to what i do as a judge. that was talking about sentencing policy and all of the different academic disciplines that might relate to it. >> finally, we're entering an age that's supporting to me in american society where lots of books are being banned and lots of talks about books being read. you're on the board of a private school and you have no supervision or authority what books children read in a private

school, correct. >> correct. >> i appreciate that. jumping quickly to talk today about the child ex plowation cases and senator, i think that josh hawley used the work attacked. i don't understand what that point of sensitivity was. i -- individual cases we've heard about two, you've presided over as a judge more than 10, 15 cases. >> i've presided over 14 cases that involve child sex crimes but -- over my career as a trial judge, i've presided over more than 100. >> right and cases are heavily fact specific, right sm. >> that is true. >> did you remember all the facts of the case that senator hawley was -- >> i did not. >> you did not, right. and the facts matter, right? >> they do. >> and as a judge, you're

looking at all the facts of the case, not just what might be talked about later or what people are honing in. you have to take everything into account and make a decision, correct? >> yes, that's what congress required judges to do. >> to clarify the congress thing. again, you went to this elite law school, i went to a gritty inner city law school, yale. you know this better than me. it was actually 1984 that the sentencing laws -- the sentencing patterns were passed down, correct? >> i believe so. >> later in 2002 or 3 things were updated and 1983 was before the internet completely. the booker decision, could you clarify for the record, no relation to me whatsoever, correct? >> so, the booker decision, which earlier i mentioned i thought justice scalia wrote, in fact, it was justice stevens but

concurred, he had is separate opinion and wrote a previous decision that was similar. the booker decision made the sentencing guidelines advisory. >> why? why would supreme court joined by some of the most conservative members, why would they do that? >> they determined that in essence, the booker, that if the guidelines were mandatory that it would violate the right to a jury trial to have jurors decide every aspect of your sentencing. >> it's sort of the separation of power, sixth amendment. >> yes. >> this is really important. >> yes. >> and so that gave judges latitude. >> yes. >> if you were falling out of the norm and this is where i've now read conservative looking at this line of attack that's not a negative. again, my colleague himself used

it. this line of attack on you. i've seen conservative papers, main stream papers say this doesn't hold water and the reason is and again, i unlike the white house and cruz, i don't have a chart. i'm uncharted but i would like to hold this up for you. you are well within the norm nationally for going below the sentencing guidelines because of this problem where you have people of both sides of the aisle have seen. i want to make it clear, you're well within the norm of quite of america. a former mayor, one of my favorite mayor friends said in god we trust but everybody else bring me data. the data shows you're not an out liar and forgive me because this is -- you're not allowed to do this but i sat here and was a little insulted about the

accusation that somehow this mother of two confirmed three times by the united states senate has victim advocacy groups writing letters for you, has child victims advocacy groups supporting you and fact specific cases of the most heinous crimes that somehow the implication that you are somehow out of the norm of other federal judges we've confirmed where issues have never come up who again i held up this chart but the majority of the decisions a percentage of sentences below guideline range in non-child pornography cases in d.c. 80% of them are under guidelines and miss 77% and iowa 62% and north carolina 72% and nebraska 81% and so on and so on and so forth down to utah alphabet kill order 71%. this implication that somehow

your thoughtfulness on these dense fact specific cases is out of the norm to me does not hold up, and you add that to the endorsements that you've gotten from folks that deal with victim advocate groups is a line that doesn't hold in no way for me. i'm sorry. and the totality of your career, which you've accomplished and what you've done, i just think it's unfortunate that unlike the sort of fair arbitrators of this who dismissed it, i appreciate the way you've stood there and sat there and address that stuff and that brings me to the larger implication.

you talked a lot about your uncles. one served in baltimore as a police officer? >> my brother was a police officer in baltimore. >> the gentleman over there. >> yes. >> who volunteered to serve in the united states military? >> yes. >> and you have talked about that police work, right? >> yes. >> i live in newark. i love my city. if you cut me, i bleed bricks. and the nickname of our city is brick silty. your brother and i probably understand something, the majority of murder victims in the united states of america, do you know who the majority of murder victims are? >> i don't. >> they're black men. i imagine in your conversations with your brother and your two uncles, you who patrolled some of these streets, i imagine you feel in a different way about the anguish of what many communities of color struggle with when it comes to crime.

am i right there? >> you are right, senator. it is very anguishing and something that i know all too well. >> and you are a person that has the same fear many mothers have for their daughters who do go out in this world. my mom used to say when you have a child, it's like your heart going around outside of your body all of a sudden. and i just find it hard to believe given your law enforcement background, you're a mom, that you take any of this urgency to keep america safe and then i see the folks i know well, i've worked with the fop. i've began negotiating with them. i have to say i thought jim pasco before i knew him, bring

people closer. first i thought he was on ogar, biggest police union. i had tough negotiations. we sat down and shared our stories and i think we realized we were coming from the same place when we were working on police reform. fop enforced you and they wrote a powerful letter. i won't read it again. the iacp represents the largest -- that's the rank and file. the managers. they endorse you. there is another group that maybe my colleagues don't know as well as i do called noble. do you know them? >> i do. >> they're the black law enforcement organization, people like your brother that love their communities and seen like i have too many young men lying with bullet holes, bleeding into our pavements, these are folks who come from communities like your brother knows where you too often see sidewalk shrines to

murdered youth. i've talked to the women and men of noble so many times and anybody ever accuse them of being soft on crime, complicated factors what they have to say to you is just beautiful. law enforcement family, mother of two, law enforcement organization of law enforcement organization. judges, democrat appointed judges, that's who is in your corner. we're politicians. i've just watched you with dignity and grace. behind those questions is a

stout scene when it comes to my family's safety, newark, new jersey or my state, i trust you. i trust you. now, i brought in your mother and i have to go back there. my mother has a saying when she talks about me. she'll introduce me and say behind every successful child is an astonished parent. [ laughter ] but there is something about your mother looking at her, she doesn't seem too astonished she seems almost very slyly she knew a day like this might come and so i want to share with you i've done a lot of hiring before i was in a legislative body, i ran new jersey's largest city and i could write a book about the

management mistakes i made in my first year and how it made me a really good manager and the first mistake i made, i was looking for the most talented credential skillful, smart people to help me run things and i soon learned it wasn't enough. i made mistakes in hiring and i began to see those skills you have a tremendous amount of i've -- it's been said so many times. stacking you up against other supreme court justices, you have more qualifications and credentials than many but i learned you should hire first that's necessary credentials but not sufficient that you should hire for character. that's what made me hire a great team in newark eventually and we operated so well and so i believe i've gotten to know your character over these weeks but i want america to know a little bit more about your character right now so i know my values.

booker t washington said it -- excuse me, james baldwin, children are never good at listening to their elders but they never fail to imitate them. if i want to know your character, you haven't let me do this yet but i want to hang out with your parents a little bit so let's draw them into this conversation. we won't swear them but could you share with me what are their bedrock values that are most a part of your values now that you hope and pray are your grandchildren's, unborn grandchildren's values. who are those most important values you inherited from those two folk over there? >> thank you, senator. i inherited a number of bedrock values as you say from my extraordinary parents. as i mentioned, my parents grew up in a time in this country in which black children and white children were not allowed to go to school together.

they persevered. they were the first in their families to go to college, to have that chance, they each went to historically black universities and they taught me hard work. they taught me perseverance. they taught me that anything is possible in this great country and i think that it came as i said in my introduction from the seed change that we had in this country from the 1960s when congress pasted two civil rights acts and african americans finally had the chance to become a part of the dream to become a part of the fabric of this wonderful nation, my parents moved to washington d.c. because

this is where it all started for them in terms of having new freedoms and i was born here on that hope and dream. i was born here with an african name and my parents gave me to, to demonstrate their pride, their pride in who they were and their pride and hope in what i could be. >> it seems to me as a guy whose parents came here in and you and i were born here months apart, i would hear my parents' tough stories at the dinner table about facing bigotry. here in the city my father told me stories about his early jobs but i never noticed a hint of bitterness or that hate he saw never generated hate with him. in fact, he just loved people,

all people. >> that is correct, senator and i would say that my wonderful parents went on to become extraordinary public servants. they had new opportunity. they could have done, you know, other things but each of them decided to give back to the community. my mother was in the public school system. she was a administrator, became the principal of a magnet school for the arts in miami, a new school that started up and became this beloved principal of new world school of the arts and so many of her students continued to see me, meet me and they know me for my mother, which is fantastic. >> she had diverse students. >> she had extraordinary -- >> she loved on all those children. >> every one. >> black, white, asian -- >> every one. let me ask you this.

i'll push you harder. again, i have people i really respect on the other side of the aisle. my friends and i talk about religion sometimes. faith is important. i was teasing senator lindsey graham earier but i don't want to ask you anything specific about your faith except for this because you brought it up in your opening statement and i have to tell you, i don't think black women have any providence over struggle. people from all backgrounds in america struggle. but i do know often as the trail blazing black women, they have often faced many challenges being the first or being a trailblazer or breaking glass ceilings but i know on your journey this to moment now, you've faced very tough moments. probably you've been knocked down by life. i always say if america hasn't broken your heart, you don't love her enough. you have been heart broken by something circumstance.

you have been like neal who said i've been through sorrow's kitchen and licked out all the pots. you've been like hughes to -- that poem mother to son, life for me is no crystal stair. could you talk to me maybe about one what you do when you get knocked down with that. where you get the grit and guts to get back up and keep going. >> well, senator, i think that too is something that i learned from my grandparents who didn't have it easy. my grandparents who got up every day and put one foot in front of the other and provided for their

families and made sure their children went to college, even though they never had those opportunities. i reflect on them in the context of this historic moment. i stand on the shoulders of people from that generation and i -- and i focus at times on my faith when i'm going through hard times. those are the kinds of things that i learned from my grandmother who used to have those family dinners and bring us all together. and i think that's a common experience of americans that when you go through difficult times, you lean into family and you turn to faith and that's part of my experiences. >> my colleagues and i on both sides of the aisle leaning on that faith and that family. i want to give you -- there is one thing about your opening

statement. i have to say, i haven't actually shaken your husband's hand yet but yesterday i was mad at him because when he started tearing up at your remarks about him, it triggered -- i don't have it but it triggered a sympathetic cry in me, as well. so i'm a little upset at him but i will deal with him individually. [ laughter ] but

. maybe take one more beat and explain to me what it means to you to be the mom of -- women growing up in america today. >> thank you, senator. what i said in my statement was that -- that i had struggled, like so many working moms, to juggle motherhood and career. and it takes a lot of hard work to become a judge, to do the work of a judge which i have done now for almost ten years, you have a lot of cases, you

don't have all that many resources, comparatively speaking, and it's a lot of early mornings and late nights. but that means is there will be hearings during your daughters recitals. there will be emergencies on birthdays that you have to handle. and i know so many young women in this country especially once we have small kids who have these momentous events, and have to make a choice. you talked about your mom making the choice to make sure that she cared for you in that moment, and there are times where obviously you have to care for your family members. there are other times when there are events that you wish you could be a part of, but here's the emergency case that you have to deal with. so i said in my opening that girls, you, know you've had to

deal with me juggling motherhood and job responsibilities, and i didn't always get the balance right. so i would hope for them seeing me, hopefully you will all can for me, seeing me moved to the supreme court. so they know you don't have to be perfect in your career trajectory, and you can still end up doing what you want to do that you just have to understand that there are lots of responsibilities and the world and you don't have to be a perfect mom. but if you do your best, and you love your children, things will turn out okay. >> i'm sure your mom probably feel like she wasn't perfect, but things have turned out

okay. and i will tell you this. i'm sure they will say it, even if they haven't, the older i get the more i appreciate my parents. i know they are proud of you. but as a guy who does have faith, i sit in a room in -- which generations of my ancestors up, and they're black folk and white folk. i have an interesting family tree. i sit there to feel my ancestors sometimes and think about them. i hope right now, in this questions that you know that at that desk, there are all sorts of spirits around you, not only are your children's yours and your parents proud, but your ancestors. to chairman, thank. you >> joining me now to talk about this second of confirmation hearings -- very good, very gracious, very

poised judge ketanji brown jackson. very good, man senator brooklyn wrapping it up. paul butler joins me now and for miss u.s. attorney harry lippman. i have been watching what you've been tweeting. i want you to give us what you thought of today. >> today was solid for her, but this last hour i think -- i'm a little reeling from an emotional reaction. that's the best hour i've ever seen in a confirmation hearing. she was totally -- she took up a foolish line of questioning and she clawed him with temperament. and this with booker, it was completely genuine, moving, dignified, emotional. i really think it's the best hour i've ever seen on both sides of the aisle in any

nominee have. and i've been watching these awhile. >> after agree with you. i agree. i'm not an expert like you are, harry. but i agree. the word i would use for top cut is thuggish. i thought he was sluggish. >> [inaudible] >> i want to go to you, paul. these men thought of themselves as prosecutors today but tom cotton did understand that there's a -- there's not you would contact, i thought that was embarrassing. i thought lindsey graham was screaming and weird. it was a performance. josh hawley, ridiculous. your thoughts. >> the exam republicans are ignoring their constitution -- they are using their time to film campaign commercials about critical race theory and how tough they are on crime. this has nothing to do with judge jackson's work. she testified today that her

judicial decisions are based on the facts of the case, the arguments that both sides make, and what the law says. and that's why she has an excellent record on why her decisions have rarely been reversed. when you look at the record she makes objective decisions. including on the case where the republicans wanted hillary clinton's emails during the presidential campaign, and she decided against hillary clinton and in favor of the rnc. that's not the work of a critical race theorists. joy, when you look at her actual record, the claim that judge jackson is a critical race theorists, it's nothing more than a right-wing ally, and i guess judge jackson's detractors have to make stuff up because her actual record is unimpeachable. >> by the way, they still think that ibrahim candy is a critical race theorists. i've asked him. he is not. they don't know what critical race theory is.

they're not smart enough. supposedly, ted cruz went to law school, apparently only ketanji brown-jackson was in class and he was given classic sleeping because he doesn't know what critical race theory is. he abraham candy is not a critical race theorists. anyone who says he is a liar. i'll talk to you harry. what bothered me about watching this today was man, and i will specifically say josh hawley, who had nothing to say, and fully supported brett kavanaugh. they are claiming that they are the defenders of the -- they will defend the integrity of childhood. brett kavanaugh was accused, credibly, of rape and the victims were teenage girls and college students. so josh hawley, and ted cruz, and lindsey graham and all the rest of, them all of you, tom thuggish cotton, you didn't

defend the teenage victims of the man you gleefully put in a lifetime position on the supreme court. you don't get to say anything about judge ketanji brown jackson. she bested you intellectually and you're mad about it. statement about. it all and was chris hayes starts now, hi chris. >> joy, that was a great point. one of the things i was thinking of as i was watching this, and i, agree just extremely like gross reactionary appeals to the kind of worst instincts in law, was precisely the sort of -- particularly judge hawley is really disgusting, luxuriating in the details and stuff -- the crimes that they are talking about are some of the most horrifyingly common in america. and they are, despite the way that they're talked about in our public discourse, more often than not committed by trusted people. by