that could lead to something more. >> and as senator rob portman said, if not a no fly zone with american jets, at least giving the ukrainians antiaircraft weapons they need now as well as those migs that they need now to have their own effective no fly zone. >> air force one is ready to go at joint base andrews. the president will be leaving for brussels momentarily to deal with all of these questions. there he is. getting ready to come in and board air force one. chris jansing is going to pick up live coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson right now. hi there, i'm chris jansing live at msnbc world headquarters in new york. we are moments away from a crucial third day for the supreme court hearing for judge

ketanji brown jackson. we are keeping a close eye on breaking developments unfolding regarding ukraine. president biden left the white house, departing soon for brussels for that critical meeting with nato allies tomorrow, and then a visit to poland on friday. he's also expected to announce new sanctions against russia. there was also some big news overnight. nbc news confirming ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy will address tomorrow's nato summit virtually. we're going to have live updates on ukraine throughout the morning. now, back on capitol hill, today's confirmation hearing for judge jackson picks up after more than 13 hours of questioning by 20 senators on tuesday. in just moments, the two remaining senators will question the judge, and then the committee moves on to the second round with senators getting 20 additional minutes for questioning. today's session begins after, let's say, some heated moments with republicans yesterday over everything from court packing to critical race theory, to sentencing in child pornography

cases. let's get right to my panel as we wait for the hearing to resume. nbc's garrett haake is live on capitol hill. washington correspondent yamiche alcindor, and joyce vance, professor at alabama law school, and msnbc legal analyst. kimberly at kins store, cohost of sister-in-law podcast, and political analyst as we watch the senators gather. let's go to you on capitol hill. democrats not surprisingly praising judge jackson's record on tuesday. a lot of republicans, though, clearly playing to their base, even to the far right. airing some old grievances. she remained pretty unflappable. what are you looking for in round 2 today? >> yeah, look, history was never far from mind yesterday. democrats talking about the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination. and the rare territory we're in

now. some republicans talking about recent history bringing back the unfair treatment of brett kavanaugh or amy coney barrett. i'm interested in two republicans this morning, both of whom are going to speak in the next few hours. if there are going to be republican votes out of this committee for judge jackson, they could come from thom tillis, the republican from north carolina who was just recently reelected and spoken well in the recent past. >> just made comments as he heads to europe. let's listen. >> i'm going to say that to their face, all i have to say, i'm going to say when i get there. i'll be happy to talk to you guys when i get back. are any of you coming? >> mr. president, how concerned are you about chemical warfare right now, how high is that threat? >> i think it's a real threat. thank you.

>> kelly o'donnell who's at the white house for us. give us some context to the answer, and the importance of a series of meetings we're going to see the president with nato allies with the g7 and european counsel. >> reporter: i'm in brussels ahead of the president when he was asking if any of the members of the press were on the trip. most of us have already arrived here to welcome the president. a small contingent will travel with him on air force one. so he was asked about his message to the other leaders. of course he'll be meeting with the 30 leaders of the nato countries. he'll also be meeting with the european union, the g7 and it is unusual to have this kind of a summit of leaders from the biggest democracies of the world coming together in very short notice. it typically takes years to put the plan together for these kind of summits but the urgency of this war has brought them together quickly.

part of the reason it is unusual because when leaders come together at this level, they want to have specific areas where they will agree, and specific things they can talk about to present to the world as an outcome of their meetings and they have already done a great deal when it comes to russia in terms of sanctions, military aid and humanitarian aid. they want to be able to step that up and where can they agree. so we expect that the president and other leaders he'll meet with her will have new steps when it comes to military and humanitarian aid and new plans to expand the sanctions against russia to try to cut off the financial capabilities. vladimir putin has to wage this war. the president will be in flight for several hours. we will be anticipating some of the steps that they'll be taking here as other world leaders have arrived here in brussels to begin these meetings. it will be an important world stage moment for president biden because this is a time where he is trying to show unity in an alliance, trying to show that he

has played a part in restoring some of that unity and cohesion in the alliance, and also showing a partnership, especially with european leaders where they have a much closer geographic tie to what is playing out in ukraine. we also heard the president there asked about the potential for chemical or nuclear weapons being used by russia. we have increasingly heard that that is a concern among u.s. intelligence and u.s. officials about that threat, and also cyber attacks, something they've talked about russia having that capability that we have not seen used in any wide way yet, and so those are some of the concerns that are ongoing, chris. >> kelly o'donnell in brussels where the president, we saw him at joint base andrews getting on air force one, headed to europe for the critical meetings. thank you for that. what a split screen morning of huge developments and stories. i want to go back to you garrett haake, one of the things we saw as ketanji brown jackson is inside the hearing room was

lindsey graham talking like somebody who hasn't just voted for her less than a year ago. on the other hand, you say there could be two republicans who you'll look for to potentially vote for her. really quickly because it looks like he's about to gavel in, dick durbin. >> thom tillis who will speak first and lindsey graham despite venting his spleen is in play. he has voted for more joe biden judicial nominees than any republican on this panel. he's upset his preferred candidate is not this nominee, but i think he's actually in play. >> let's listen in, day two of questioning for ketanji brown jackson. >> each senator will be allowed 20 minutes to ask questions if they wish but the chair is more than anxious to entertain efforts to yield back your time. i'm sure that the witness, judge jackson, would appreciate it as much as all of us in that respect. i'm going to make an opening statement. senator grassley is going to do the same, and then we will

proceed with the questions by the two senators. first i would say, judge jackson, that i thought that president biden got it right yesterday. he tuned in and watched the proceedings and said you showed both grace and dignity. i've used the phrase grace under pressure, and it's been referred to by many people. this is a tough assignment, and many have risen to the challenge but none as well as you did yesterday. thank you for doing it so much. i would say this, much of what we heard from a handful of senators yesterday has to be put in context. the overwhelming majority of senators on both sides, i thought, were asking appropriate questions and positive in their approach and respectful of the nominee before us. but for many senators yesterday was an opportunity to showcase

talking points for the november election. for example, all democrats are soft on crime, therefore this nominee must be soft on crime. well, you've made a mess of their stereotype. the endorsement of the fraternal order of police, the international association chief of police doesn't fit with their stereotype of harvard grad, black woman aspiring to the highest law of the land. law enforcement is on your side because you've been on their side in critical moments and your family is dedicated a big part of their lives to law enforcement and you obviously believe it at your core. you've said that over and over again, so the soft on crime charge, which leads all others, falls on its face. the second thing is that you are somehow out of the mainstream when it comes to child pornography cases. and of course that gets down to the question of sentencing and your choices in sentencing. it is difficult if not

impossible for each of us to put ourselves in your place when you are facing all the totality of facts concerning a certain defendant and looking at your requirements under the law as enacted by congress in trying to do the right thing to keep america safe but to meet justice. you are in the same place as 80% of federal judges when it comes to sentencing on child pornography cases. 80%. and of course congress is not without fault. we have failed to pick up the responsibility that was assigned to us from 17 years ago when the supreme court decided that the basic guidelines would not be mandatory on judges. we should have stepped in at that point, but it's a tough, hard controversial subject, and we've stayed away from it. and what has happened is the judges have tried to make do with a fractured situation where they have guidelines that are

advisory. they have opinions coming to them about sentencing from the government as well as from probation office and others, so i would say that the bottom line is this, you have done what 80% of the judges have done. you are in the mainstream of sentencing when it comes to child pornography cases. i also think it's ironic that the senator from missouri who unleashed this discredited attack refuses to acknowledge that his own choice for federal judge in the eastern district of missouri has done exactly what you did. you also have been criticized as having been wrong to be a public defender or even to be in a law firm representing a guantanamo detainee. it's interesting that republican judges, very conservative ones don't see this as a blemish on your character. they understand as we do that the 6th amendment that creates a responsibility that the people have a right to counsel. you have exercised that responsibility in your professional life.

this incidentally yesterday, your nomination turned out to be a testing ground for conspiracy theories and culture war theories. the more bizarre the charges against you and your family, the more i understand the social media score board lit up yesterday. i'm sorry that we have to go through this. these are not theories that are in the mainstream of america, but they have been presented here as such. finally, you are a respected, successful woman of color, you have been approved three times by this committee for increasingly significant judicial assignments, now the president of the united states has chosen you to serve on the highest court of the land. america is ready for this supreme court glass ceiling to finally shatter and you, judge ketanji brown jackson, are the person to do it. senator grassley. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, i think you've -- in the main provided

both sides an opportunity to be heard and ask their questions, but unfortunately i noticed that after every series of questioning on this side of the aisle, you choose to editorialize and contradict the points being made by this side of the aisle. i don't know whether we will have an equal opportunity to editorialize about the advocacy that you and your colleagues, the points that you're trying to make. i especially was concerned that after my questioning yesterday, i left the hearing room, and you chose to come back after a break and raise with the judge a point that i had asked her about and which i frankly think was misrepresenting my position, and what the facts are with regard to whether the judge has accused president george w. bush and donald rumsfeld of war crimes.

my language was -- i asked her whether she called him a war criminal, and she said under oath to you, no, i did not, although the record is plain as it can be, that she accused them of war crimes. now, i don't understand the difference between calling somebody a war criminal and accusing them of war crimes. maybe in some other foreign language that i don't frankly understand, maybe that would make sense, but not in accordance with the common understanding of the english language, so i just don't -- i just want to lodge a protest and say that i don't think it's appropriate for the chairman after every time on this side of the aisle asks questions of the judge, you come back and you denigrate, and you attack and you criticize the line of questioning. i think the judge is doing a pretty good job of defending her own position and answering questions, so thank you for giving me a chance to express my objection to the way that you've been editorializing after each

time this side of the aisle asks questions. >> mr. chairman. >> excuse me, thank you, senator cornyn, it's known as chairman stein. >> you want to make your statement? >> may i respond to what senator cornyn said. >> if you want to speak before your -- >> may i? thank you. >> mr. chairman, i agree with senator cornyn, you i and talked about this before. i have great respect for you. you know that. but i've had the same issue in normal hearings, nonsupreme court hearings where you make editorial comments after i question. i appreciate your input. but they're not offered in an even-handed way, and i just don't think it's productive. i mean, you just referred by name to senator hawley. i think he should have a chance to respond. you know, this is america. we have the right to express

ourselves. you know, you're not free if you can't say what you think, and i just -- i want to join my colleague senator cornyn. i just don't think it's appropriate mr. chairman. >> it's called chairman's time, it's a tradition in this committee exercised by senator lindsey graham as chairman, and senator grassley in previous court. >> they don't do it the way you do. >> i'm going to allow you to be heard but i want to be heard without interruption, and in the minority, we waited through chairman's time when we had republican chairs. there will not be a separate set of rules for democrats in control of this committee. that was used as a response time and again by both of those senators, and it was accepted. if what i said was somehow problematic or painful yesterday, i'm sorry, but the democrats are going to use the same mechanisms that the republicans have used in this committee. >> and i appreciate that, mr. chairman, but i think if you're going to personalize it as to senators by name, you ought to

give them a chance to respond. >> well, they will have a chance. each and every senator has 20 minutes today to respond if they wish. >> mr. chairman. >> could we hear from ranking member grassley, and then i would like the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of the state of georgia. i think the american public is tuning into the proceedings expecting a substantiative discussion of matters of grave importance to the country with a nominee for the supreme court before us. i don't think we've set an appropriate tone by bickering over time and process at the outset of our proceedings. every senator deserves to be heard. i would like to humbly request that ranking member grassley make his statement, that's i and senator tillis have our opportunity to question the nominee, and that then we can litigate balls and strikes from yesterday's hearing. would that be acceptable to the committee? >> i think in the name of your humility, we should do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman! senator grassley.

>> senator ossoff, my statement doesn't quite fit in with what you asked, but i feel like i have to say it anyway because of the conflict that happened late last night. but before i do, i want to somewhat tongue and cheek with some seriousness as well, when chairman quoted biden in saying that justice jackson or judge jackson handled herself with grace and dignity, i want to compliment the democrats on this committee for using grace and dignity, unlike it was during the kavanaugh hearings. thank you all very much for making this, i've heard a lot of compliments about how this is the way a hearing ought to be held, so i want to address that issue that was raised yesterday about records. senator cruz raised a very legitimate question about data related to u.s. probation officer recommendations. the white house and members of this committee used that information to attempt to

discredit information raised by senator hawley and others about the nominee's sentencing record as a district judge. no one on our side of the aisle had access to this information, in fact, before this past week, i'm not sure anyone but the probation office and the court had access to this information. my understanding is that the probation office recommendations aren't part of any record. the specific sentencing recommendations aren't always shared with prosecutors or defendants. somehow it appears that the white house obtained this information. it was leaked in pieces to media outlets in order to cast doubt on legitimate members' questions, and then it was provided to only democratic members of this committee without any of the underlying documentation. i'd like to add my name to the letters that are requesting at least -- well, this is senator

lee's letter, to request at least the probation office recommendations so that we can be sure of the data handed out by democratic staff last night. i'd also like to add my name and have added my name to senator cruz's follow up request for access to any other data that might be shared with our colleagues on the other side. one last thing to suggest that all that we have to do is asked for information doesn't pass muster. you can't ask for information you don't know if it exists. i've asked for nonpublic records related to the judge's tenure on the sentencing commission. those have not been produced just like 48,000 pages of records withheld by the white house. how is the united states senate supposed to review a record that we don't have? this process might be timely but it's neither thorough nor fair

to the american public, and i hope we can rectify that. i yield. >> thank you, senator grassley. senator ossoff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member grassley. and judge, good morning. >> good morning, senator. >> welcome back. >> thank you. >> we had a late night doing our job as senators and you as a nominee, and we're off to a morning start. i was considering asking you if you were a coffee or a tea drinker, but i thought that might be too personal and immaterial to the question of your nomination. i want to begin inspired by the presence of my brother, senator reverend warnock who has joined us this morning in a spirit of national unity offering thanks for these proceedings for our constitution, for this

opportunity to air in public before the american people a vital grappling with ideas core to our republic, questions of the role of the branches of government, and questions of the proper role of judges in our society, questions that keep the peace and ensure that this remains a nation of laws. as i noted in my opening statement a couple of days ago, democracy is the exception and not the norm in history and around the world, and this public exercise is a vital one, and so i'm thankful for it. i'm thankful that the american people have the opportunity to observe it and i'm thankful for your presence, judge, for your service to the country throughout your life as a district judge, as an app last time -- appellate judge, as a nominee for the court. thank you for being here. thank you for subjecting

yourself and your family to an intrusive, at times cruel and unfair, and on the whole, necessary process of scrutiny as you are considered for this appointment. the american people who are now tuning in for the second day of these proceedings are hearing about your approach to the law to your role as a judge and as a potential supreme court justice, and they're also getting to know you personally. and we've had the opportunity to hear a bit about your family, your background. i think it's also appropriate that the american public hear a bit more about your brother's story. as i understand it, served the baltimore police department, served in the u.s. army. before we turn to matters of law, will you please help introduce yourself and your family to the american public as you seek this lifetime

appointment. tell us a bit about him and his story. >> thank you, senator. my brother followed in a long tradition in my family of public service. it was a core family value. my parents were both public servants, and my mother's -- two of my mother's brothers were career law enforcement. and my brother and i are almost a decade apart in age, and he, i think, looked up to my uncles who were often around in their uniforms keeping their weapons away from the kids by putting them up on high shelves, and we looked up to them. and we understood through their service what it meant to give back to your community.

my brother went to college, historically black college, howard university here in washington, d.c., after growing up in miami. and decided to follow in my uncles' foot steps. he could have done many things, coming out of college with a college degree, but decided he wanted to be a police officer. and went to baltimore which as many of you know struggles like many cities with areas that are -- have a lot of crime, and it was a very stressful period for us as a family, because as proud as we are of his service, as much as we know it's important, law enforcement is a dangerous profession and as family members you worry when

you don't get the phone call, when you haven't heard for a couple of days, when you hear about things in the news in the community, you worry. and so i grew up with family members who put their lives on the line. i understand the need for law enforcement, the importance of having people who are willing to do that important work, the importance of holding people accountable for their criminal behavior. i also, as a lawyer and a citizen, believe very strongly in our constitution and the rights that make us free. and what that means to me is an understanding that although we need accountability, although there is crime, we also have a society that ensures that people

who have been accused of criminal behavior are treated fairly. that is what our constitution requires. that is what makes our system so exceptional. my brother understood that as part of his work and he also served in the military. he also decided, as many people did, to defend our country after 9/11, that he would go into the army. and i remember when he made that decision, he had a college degree, he could have been an officer right away. he could have been a type of military officer that didn't have to actually be on the battlefield, and i remember saying, are you going to do something with, you know, radio signals, are you going to be behind the scenes, and he said, no, no, i'm going to be infantry. boots on the ground. he said, i believe strongly in the protection of our country and if i'm going to be leading,

i'm going to be out front. that's the kind of person my brother is. it's the kind of service that our family provides and for me what that meant was an understanding that to defend our country and its values, we also needed to make sure that when we responded as a country to the terrible attacks on 9/11, we were upholding our constitutional values. that we weren't allowing the terrorists to win by changing who we are. and so i joined with many lawyers during that time who were helping the courts figure out the limits of executive authority, consistent with what the framers have told us is important, the limitations on government.

i worked to protect our country. my brother worked on the front lines and it was all because public service is important to us. >> thank you, judge jackson, and let's talk a bit about limitations on power. our constitution is a document that e renounces, monarchism and establishes a republic. you in an opinion that has been widely cited made the observation that presidents are not kings. what does that mean and what are some of the host important bull warks in our constitutional system against the abuse of executive power, against tyranny? >> thank you, senator. our constitutional scheme, the design of our government is

erected to prevent tyranny. the framers decided after experiencing monarchy, tyranny, and the like, that they were going to create a government that would split the powers of a monarch it several different ways. one was federalism. it was vertical. they would split the powers between the federal government and states. another was to prevent the federal government from itself becoming too powerful, from having all of the authorities, from having legislative, executive and judicial authority concentrated in one place. so the constitution in its design puts the legislative authority in article 1, and gives it to the congress, the power to make laws. it puts the executive authority

in article ii, and gives it to the president, the power to execute the laws. and it puts the judicial authority, the power to interpret the laws in article iii, and gives it to the court. the separation of powers is crucial to liberty. it is what our country is founded on, and it's important as consistent with my judicial methodology for each branch to operate within their own sphere. that means for me that judges can't make law. judges shouldn't be policy makers. that's a part of our constitutional design, and it prevents our government from being too powerful and encroaching on individual liberty. >> thank you, judge. i mention instead my opening remarks that the court has played a vital role constrained

within its proper constitutional boundaries in the national process of making america in real life what america is in text. and reflecting on your experience as a public defender a vital role in our justice system. let's talk a little bit about the 6th amendment. and the role that the court played in ensuring that the 6th amendment is real in practice, in the gideon v wanewright decision, all those that are tuned in right now to reflect on that decision, what it means, what it says about the role of the court. >> yes, senator, prior to gideon where's wainwright, people who could not afford lawyers were not entitled to lawyers under our system. so a person could be accused by

the government of criminal behavior, and would have to fend for themselves in court. they would have to make their own arguments. someone who's not a lawyer would still be responsible for defending him or herself in front of a judge. >> we will come back to this shortly and have more live coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. first we'll bring a live update from ukraine, as the russian invasion stretches into day 28, don't go anywhere. into day 28, don't go anywhere. he looks more like dad every time i see him. -dad is old. -right. so, your message said you wanted to talk about insurance? i said, "i want you to talk about insurance." well, most people know that bundling home and auto -saves you money. -keep saying your words. but did you know that new customers who bundle and save with progressive can save an average of $800? shh. sleeping baby.

i love you, too.

maybe it's another refill at your favorite diner... or waiting for the 7:12 bus... or sunday afternoon in the produce aisle. these moments may not seem remarkable. but at pfizer, protecting the regular routine, and everyday drives us to reach for exceptional. working to impact hundreds of millions of lives... young and old. it's what we call, the pursuit of normal. ♪ ♪ behold...unlimited wireless for only 30 bucks. that's pretty cool, but you know what's cooler? it's what we call, the pursuit of normal. saving up to 400 bucks! exactly. and if we really want to take it up a notch... get all that and nationwide 5g included. oh nice shot, send that to me. i got you. break free from the big three and get connected to the nations most reliable 5g network. get the new samsung galaxy s22 series on xfinity mobile. and right now, save big with up to $750 off a new samsung device.

switch today.

amid that desperation, this is joyful to see a child who is smiling and at least having a little fun. s smiling and at least having a little fun welcome back to msnbc special coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing for president biden's nominee, judge ketanji brown jackson, and we're going to go back to that in just a moment. jon ossoff continuing his questioning. first i want to bring in jose diaz-balart for the war on

ukraine. >> thank you so much. right now president biden is on his way to brussels for a high stakes nato summit on russia's invasion of ukraine. you see him boarding air force one. tomorrow, ukrainian president zelenskyy is set to address nato leaders virtually on the dire scenario ukrainians are facing. this hour, nato secretary general jens stoltenberg is delivering a preview of that summit, and on the ground, zelenskyy says russian forces captured relief workers near the war torn city of mariupol preventing them from delivering critical humanitarian aid. meanwhile in kyiv, officials say russia is stepping up attacks on civilians. this morning, nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel and his team took have video of what's left after a russian strike pommelled a neighborhood in the city. 264 civilians have been killed in his city including four children. jacob soboroff joins us from a

small town outside lviv in western ukraine. what's the latest where you are? >> reporter: as you mentioned, cities in the east continue to face bombardment from the russians and ongoing battle, here in the west, not hard to see the cooperation between the israeli government and the ukrainian people. let me show you a little bit of what's going on out here. this is a field hospital set up by israel, here about 12 miles from the border with poland. remember, just a couple of days ago, president volodymyr zelenskyy of ukraine addressed the israeli government, he said he wanted their iron dome missile defense system. he also said he wanted increased russian sanctions put in place by the israelis but instead this is what he got. it is a field hospital set up. there's a pediatric ward. this mother and daughter fled kyiv to come here. over here, a triage operation. this is a full-fledged hospital. this is not specifically what the ukrainians have asked for from the israelis but this is

what the israelis have sent, the people who we have spoken with on the ground are grateful, both to the local community and the people, the internally displaced people, able to stop here if they need to on their way to poland in the west of the country. >> jacob soboroff, thank you so much, and another big story we're following this morning, more severe weather expected in the southeast today after two days of tornados in the region. search and rescue teams are going door-to-door in new orleans this morning after two tornadoes hit the city last night. the storms killed one person, injured several others, cutting a wide path of destruction. the lower 9th ward and st. bernard parish took a direct hit, the same areas devastated by hurricanes ida and trina. let's head back to chris jansing as senators continue to question judge ketanji brown jackson. >> we want to go back in the hearing room where jon ossoff has asked about freedom of the press. let's listen in.

>> one of the first amendment freedoms that under gird our democracy. >> something i want to take a moment and observe, judge jackson is, you know, and this is my first such proceeding, so i'm grateful to the chairman for opening today's ceremonies at the end of the dais. something i've studied and been aware of is there's been a range over time of how willing nominees are to candidly and openly enforce rightly discuss these core matters of constitutional principle in proceedings like this one and a a tendency over time to allow less and discuss less, a more restrictive approach, and i want to thank you because while you have prudently and in a disciplined way refrained from commenting inappropriately on potentially pending case law,

you have been willing to engage in a forthright and expansive discussion, that's not a criticism of recent nominees, it's an observation about your performance, and i think having an open and honest and forthright dialogue about these matters of national significance is part of the vital role that these proceedings serve. i want to turn now to the 4th amendment. i want to discuss with you the protections against unreasonable search and seizure. we discussed how the constitution was a renunciation of monarchism and tyranny. it establishes core civil liberties. one of which is the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. how will you approach 4th amendment case law and can you help those tuned in across the country remind them of what, for example, the principle of a

reasonable expectation of privacy means in the context of supreme court and jurisprudence? >> thank you, senator. the 4th amendment is one of the amendments in the constitution that protects individual liberty by limiting what the government can do with respect to criminal processes. it restrains the government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures, and the supreme court has developed a series of tests and ways of evaluating whether any particular act by an officer in a case qualifies as an unreasonable search or seizure. let me just say that this is the kind of area of supreme court and judicial review that is very

fact specific. because courts, in order to stay in our appropriate role, can't make policy about police behavior writ large. can't just sort of look out into the universe and say, we have a constitution that says unreasonable searches and seizures so let us tell you all what that means. that's not the way that courts operate. under article iii, courts can only hear individual cases and controversies and decide them. so every court, including the supreme court, is looking at unreasonable search and seizures in the context of a particular dispute, where someone has had something searched by an officer in their house, they've been seized under a particular set of

facts, and they claim in the context of a lawsuit or in the context of defending themselves that there has been an unreasonable search or seizure. and so the court, case by case by case, looks at the facts and circumstances and decides, and i would say that this is the kind of analysis that takes into account a number of things. but one of the things in addition to understanding the facts and circumstances is understanding what is meant in the constitution by unreasonable search and seizure. there is case law that the supreme court has developed that looks at whether or not something is an unreasonable search and seizure in part by analyzing whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in that item.

in that area. is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house, for example, if a police officer were to come into your house, you would not be able to claim 4th amendment protection unless, says the supreme court, there was a reasonable expect expectation of privacy in your house, and the supreme court has determined there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house by looking at what areas were protected at the time of the founding when the words unreasonable searches and seizures were written into the constitution. lo and behold, something like your house, the court has determined, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy because that's what those terms meant back then, and so if a police officer were to come without a warrant, the court has said, in areas where there's a reasonable expectation

of privacy, that would be an unlawful search. >> this is an area where the emergence of new technologies makes it likely, i believe, that should you be confirmed you will have to consider 4th amendment claims in light of circumstances that couldn't have been anticipated at the time of the drafting of the constitution, and indeed, constitutional interpretation has already evolved over time to adapt to the reality of new technologies from phone booths, classic case in the late 1960s about whether a closed phone booth door demonstrates an expectation of privacy, to more recent case law involving geo location data from cell phones. i want to urge you, should you be confirmed, to remain vigilant about how the emergence of new technologies, the way that they become ubiquitous in our lives, the way that virtual spaces are

increasingly akin to physical spaces will require the court to consider very complex questions and to seek technical advice because these are technologically complex questions. what is your view on how the court should seek such technical expertise, which may be with all due respect beyond the training or experience of a justice or their clerk, and if, for example, one such method of seeking advice is through amiki, what's the importance of understanding the providence and origin, and funding source of such briefs admitted to the court. this is a two-part question, i want to restate it. the first is, i want to urge you, should you be confirmed, as i'm confident you will, to vigorously defend the constitutional rights of

american citizens against unreasonable search and seizure in the context of new technologies. i'd like to hear how you'll approach seeking technical expertise to inform that decision making, and then a question about the transparency of briefs filed before the court, something that justice scalia noted in some campaign finance case law that it's important for the public to know who's funding electioneering communications. i think it's important for the court to know who's briefing them, what the moding and funding source of such briefs might be. can you please with my remaining time, and i'll yield and we'll have more time later to discuss war powers, could you please comment on those matters, those will be my final questions for this round. >> thank you, senator. one of the ways in which the court receives information, other than directly from the parties in a case is through a practice, an established

practice of receiving amicus briefs. amicus is a term for friend of the court briefs. these are people who are not parties to the case, who don't have that kind of interest in the case but may have expertiset they wish the court to hear. and i think that that would be the primary mechanism by which if the court were to decide to hear a case concerning a matter that involved some technical expertise, i would think that there might be amicus briefs related to the technology, for example. i have not looked at the court's rules. i would certainly want to discuss with the courts, other justices, the ways in which determinations are made about

which amicus briefs are received and what disclosures are related to them. but the court does receive amicus briefs in cases in order to inform itself, so that it can make a decision, related to the issues in a case. >> thank you, judge jackson. thank you for your courage and your grace, your forthrightness in answering my questions. i look forward to ask a few more later. and i yield, mr. chairman. >> thank you, judge jackson. thank you for being here. i hope you got some rest last night -- >> very little, senator. but that's all right. >> me too. >> but thank you for being here and congratulations to your family and your husband, who has an impressive medical list of accomplishments that he should be proud of. i'm sure that you are, too. and thank you to your family, the public servants serving in the military, serving in law enforcement, educating our children. you're a role model family.

i do want to go back -- this morning, i ended up turning to a channel that i never watch, just to see what, what was being said about the proceedings. i thought it was interesting that they were ridiculing some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle for bringing up the behavior of past supreme court hearings. this is really the appropriate venue to do it. i guess we could talk about it when we're reviewing intellectual property or something else, but contextually, this is the time to do that. and i think we all have to agree that the behavior in the kavanaugh hearing was inappropriate. i hope we never get back to it. and i hope we can all agree that many of the behavior or the positions that some of my colleagues took on the other side of the aisle with justice barrett was abhorrent and we should never do it again. that's why i'm so glad that for the most part, we have behaved in an appropriate manner here. i'm going to get to some

questions, if time allows, that relates to some other questions that my colleagues have asked. but judge barrett, did i understand correctly that at a young age, you won a debate competition, or was it an oratory competition? >> i was in speech and debate. it was one team and i did origin oratory as my primary event. >> and did you continue your debate competition -- did you continue to do that, first question? did you continue to do debate competition -- >> continue into college? >> were you doing that in school and college -- >> i did not do it in college. i did it from middle school through high school and stopped when i graduated high school. >> i did, too. and i recall with that that we would get assigned a topic that wouldn't necessarily be one that we agreed with, but we had to argue it. were you ever in a situation or did you get to pick a topic and

only do the side -- >> so i didn't do. it sounds like what you're referencing is extemporaneous speaking. i think i did that once in one competition. i did origin oratory, which is where i wrote my own speech. >> okay. you've had an opportunity to debate a lot as a defense counsel, i would assume. in the court of law, when you're debating a position. and the reason i ask that question is that yesterday when senator kennedy was asking you about the expanding the court or what we call court packing, you said i haven't really thought about it, but i hear the arguments on both sides. and -- i hear the argument on both sides. so could you briefly describe to me your perception of the arguments on both sides? >> my understanding of the argument is about whether or not

to expand the court beyond the nine justices that are on the court right now. the nine seats that are there. and -- >> if you were to view -- i mean, right now, it's nine is fine, four are more. i mean, that's really the two arguments. so do you understand or have you heard any of the arguments for or against either side? >> i'm not even sure about the four. i've just heard people talking about putting more justices on the court, expressing concerns that the court has become politicized, that the court has become unbalanced in terms of what people perceive to be views of the majority of the justices, and so i've heard arguments about replansing the court, on that side. and then there's the argumenting that many on the dais have

stated about the inappropriateness of doing so, the concern that it might lead to some kind of a war of every time there's a new president, adding justices to the court. >> actually, yesterday, when senator whitehouse -- i think it was senator booker who observed senator whitehouse's presentation made a comment about how rhode island -- new jersey being a bit bigger, would have a bigger graphic to display. i went back, i think that new jersey is six times the size of rhode island, by square miles. north carolina is 36 times the size of rhode island >> we appreciate -- >> and if my friends from texas chime in, i would let them know that if alaska were two states, they would be the third largest

state. so i've decided to use the whitehouse format for dark money, so that we have a balanced understanding of the fact that our proceedings here, the aspirations for the court, there is an ecosystem out there on both sides. as a matter of fact, we had a judicial nominee who actually participated in this ecosystem. i think you can reasonably assume if they participated in that ecosystem, that they probably would have been an activist judge. the point that i make here is that we've seen this ecosystem mobilized to support you, and i think judge jackson, you said, you haven't had any encounter with the main justice. i don't know if you've had any encounter with any of these, they're either acronyms or abbreviated, i wouldn't expect to you. it would be interesting if we could determine for the record

if you have had any interactions. >> i have not, senator. i've never seen most of those -- >> that's good enough. i wouldn't expect you to, to be honest, sitting on the bench. but they are out there and they have a specific plan. and their specific plan, as a matter of fact, i was inspired by senator whitehouse's seat, so i went out to demand justice. they have a specific plan. step one, four seat on the supreme court. we must add four seats on the supreme court to restore balance, which by their opinion is, a majority with their view and their judicial philosophy. they're thrilled that president obama has promised to appoint a commission. in fact, they're so thrilled, they want to make sure that neck influence the outside of the commission by endorsing their four-seat strategy. they want to recruit 25,000 volunteers. this is on their website, their

strategy. to influence the commission reemgs. and then they want to nuke the filibuster. 51 votes to make a decision that could ultimately be to pack the courts. this is their stated goal, they're proud of it. senator whitehouse was talking about how the prior president was influenced by an organization, i would say that senator jackson and almost everybody that the president vetted before -- i'm sorry, judge jackson -- are on this list. so i think it's intellectually dishonest to say that the administration, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are not influenced by this organization. we've tracked some of the fund-raising and support in re-elections. they're engaged. and they're influenced by it. but let me tell you what i'm really worried about with the court packing risk that we have today. we're talking about the ultimate

destruction of two institutions. back in january, senator schumer laid a vote down on the floor that ultimately would have reduced the majority of 60, the filibuster limit of 60 to 51. he was doing it as a way to pass a single bill, but we all know what happened when senator reid nuked the executive calendar for circuit court judges. it led to you only being subject to 51 votes, to be confirmed. that nuked the executive calendar. in january, senator schumer was laying the groundwork for the same thing. now, i worry -- that's the destruction of the senate institution, as far as i'm concerned. i think we have to be a consensus-based organization. we don't need to be a 100-member house of representatives. and that vote happened. what disappointed me most about that vote