to the court. it is clear that is what washington wanted. he wanted the first chief justice to be the best of the best amongst lawyers, amongst politicians, amongst legal thinkers -- a person who had done all of these things to bring with them that experience to the court. susan: i picked out justices from other arrows as examples of how biographies have changed -- other eras as examples of how biographies have changed. prof. barton: joseph bradley, mid to late 19th century, he is another one of the justices who came from just absolute poverty. subsistence farmer in rural new york, oldest of 12 children. he is a brilliant kid even though he is completely self educated. he walks in the snow every saturday night, sleeps in the library so he can wake up -- read all night, read all day sunday before he has to go back monday and start again helping on the farm with his dad. his dad will not let him go at first. he has to spend two more years at the farm before he can go to college because his dad physic

court. he went on to say this use of judicial review thus subverts the liberty of government by the people overturning laws enacted by legislators who are answerable to the electorate rather than a majority of the supreme court. finally he said for the purpose of my question he said the adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts, which i believe justice black -- and i am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and for the country. justice jackson, why is it substituted due process and analysis just another form of judicial policymaking, which you suggested policymaking is not in your lane -- and you strive to be apolitical, something i applaud, but why isn't substantive due process just another way for justices to hide their policymaking under the guise further constitution? >> welcome of the justices have interpreted the due process cla

supreme court. we are also joined by rj anaya, the former chief counsel to senator amy klobuchar and rj served in the department of the treasury, department of commerce and also in private practice . we are also joined by professor peterson at the university of chicago law school and former clerk for justice stephen breyer . barack is a legal historian who focuses on statutory interpretation and in addition to her supreme court ship she clerked for judge be joe calabrese on the second court of appeals. thank you to all of you for being here with us today. far off, we will start with you since you're the one who had the opportunity to work up close with justice breyer . tell us about his approach to judging and the marquees made on supreme court justice would . >> one thing that really stands out about justice breyer's approach and perhaps this is because he spent so many years as a junior justice on thecourt i think 10 or 11 years . as junior most justice, he had to do his convincing before the just

supreme court. guest: judge jackson has a different background a lot of judges in that she spent most of her career as a district judge and most of the judges don't have that experience. in the federal judicial system, district judges will be hearing trials and dealing with the first level of litigation. after that, say you lose, there is an opportunity to appeal the decision. of her decisions that were appealed to the d.c. circuit judge, the court she doubts sits on, an appeals court for that region which is small in the case of d.c.. of those cases that it been appealed the district court decision, 10% of them have been reversed and that is a very high number for a district court judge. in a vacuum that might not mean much but if you look at the opinion, one opinion in which she was dealing with an immigration regulation that had to do with when immigrants -- illegal immigrants could be expedited for removal, she spent a lot of time on that opinion talking about the merits of immigration, talking

on the part of the courts? >> well, senator, i wouldn't characterize it. i know that that's what the supreme court has permitted, the dormant commerce clause is -- is a principle that supports the interstate nature and regulation and authority of the federal government, and so states are not permitted, under that doctrine, to discriminate against other states, to preference their own commerce in a way that interferes with interstate commerce. >> i want to turn back for a moment to a line of inquiry you had with senator durbin earlier today when you were talking about your sentencing in these child pornography cases. i want to make sure that i understand your answer there. if i understand it, you were making the argument that your concern was that the laws in this area didn't adequately take into account the transfer of these materials by electronic means to be transmitted, received, and stored through computers, is that my -- am i understanding that correctly? >> well, senator, my -- the point that i was making

court. the hearing is chaired by senate majority whip dick durbin. [indiscernible speaking] [indiscernible speaking] >> this hearing of the senate judiciary committee will come to order. it will begin in the consideration of judge ketanji brown jackson. welcome, to you and your family. hon. ketanji brown: thank you. >> we all look forward to hearing those introductions. i want to note that clarence was hospitalized yesterday. all members of the committee are wishing him a speedy recovery. i want to briefly go over the events and ground rules for the hearing. the committee has 10 minutes to have an opening statement. we will switch between democratic and republican senators. we will hear from judge thomas griffin. professor lisa fairfax. each introducer will have five minutes to make an opening statement. we will open the floor to judge jackson, that will conclude today's events. for those sitting in the audience, welcome. i ask you be respectful and quiet during the hearing. do not stand up

it is something that at some level of courts, sometimes the district court, sometimes the circuit court and even once or twice at the supreme court they tend to -- these courts tend to do damage to a bill called the false claims act. this bill has brought $70 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the federal treasury since it has been passed. and courts have weakened it and senator leahy and i usually find ourselves having to pass legislation to say to the courts, you got it wrong. there is a very controversial bill right now before the united states senate on that very subject. it has fought fraud and the department of defense, healthcare industry, the pharmaceutical industry, $70 billion is pretty important. so when you get -- if you're approved to be on the supreme court, and the issue of false claims comes up, i hope you think of chuck grassley. it is one of the -- >> and leahy. the false claims act is one of the best tools that we have to fight against government fraud and to recover taxpayers money. i worked for decades to protect whistle-blowers when shine a light on frau

and sometimes the circuit court and even once or twice at the supreme court these courts the end to do damage to a bill called the false claims act. this bill has brought $70 billion of fraudulently taken money back to the federal treasury since it has been passed. and courts have -- senator leahy and i usually find ourselves having to pass legislation that say to the courts you got it wrong. in fact, there is a very controversial bill right now before the united states senate on that very subject. it's fought fraud in the department of defense, healthcare industry, pharmaceutical industry. $70 billion is pretty important. if you are approved to be on the supreme court and the issue of false claims comes up, i hope you think of chuck grassley. [laughter] it's one -- and leahy. the false claims act is one of the best tools that we have to fight against government fraud and to recover taxpayers' money. i worked for decades to protect whistleblowers who shine a light on fraud, waste and abuse in the government so i would like to ask you a couple of questions and i'll start with a forme

court's current term. the american constitution society hosted a discussion on justice breyer's impact on the nation through his judicial opinions. >>> welcome, everyone, for this very important conversation. let me start by introducing our panelists, and then we will kick it right off into the conversation and just for housekeeping purposes we will leave about the last 10 to 15 minutes for questions from the audience. please use the q&a function to enter your questions. you can do it now or you can do it as questions arise. we will try to get to as many of your questions as possible. so i'm delighted to be here today with this esteemed panel. today we have with us professor johnson, the jerome b. sherman professor of law at columbia law school, and she recently served as a commissioner for the presidential commission on the supreme court of the united states. the scholarship focuses on civil procedure, legislation and anti-discrimination law. she clerked on the d.c. circuit court of appeals and for justic

supreme court. he said roe has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. k.c. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to, quote, obey all the rules if faced with the question of whether to overrule. she said she had no agenda to try to overrule. here is the question. do you agree with justice kavanaugh that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent, and will you, like justice barrett, commit to obey all the rules in cases related to the issue of abortion? judge jackson: thank you, senator. i do agree with both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett on this issue. roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. they have established a framework, and the court has reaffirmed, and in order to revisit, as justice barrett said, the supr

highest court. well as you well know president biden just a year into his own administration has nominated his own supreme court justice. judge catanji brown jackson of the us court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit his nominee will deliver an opening statement before the senate judiciary committee when the confirmation hearings begin. senator biden of course was a long time member of that committee and eight years served as chair. well here on american history tv will look once again at the remarks delivered by women nominated to the supreme court as their hearing scott underway. first up ruth bader ginsburg when president kennedy appointed justice byron white retired, she was president bill clinton's choice to replace him. the senate confirmed her by a vote of 96 to 3. on july 20th 1993. she introduced her family to the senators on the judiciary committee and she gave her opening statement. and now judge i ask you to stand with me and be sworn. judge, do you swear the testimony? you'

, the highest court. their story is an american story and it's one that our country should be proud of. and it's not what you say, it's what you do. and today we're taking action. though they paveed the way for countless women and girls in the legal and judiciary system, their life-changing words and actions will live in the hearts of americans across this country. i'm grateful and i'm excited to be part of the democratic women's caucus that's helping to lead this effort in honoring the life and legacies of these two giants. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i'd be remiss if i didn't point out a bit of irony that exists as we discuss honoring anyone by adding a statue or bust to the halls of the capitol. over the past 745 days this building's been closed to the american people. despite what is being called a reopening, it continues to be closed to most americans. this is about the last place

, this would be the most diverse court in history. there is a radical similarity among the justices, considering their educational and career path. this group of justices and went jackson joins them has spent more time living in washington, d.c. than any previous group of justices. the reason why is this common career path of this meritocracy. they stayed in town, work at a big law firm, work with the senate, it is a great study in what this type of lawyer does over the course of their careers. but it does tend to cluster geographically around washington, d.c. especially geographically around the court. you start at harvard in boston and go down to d.c. you will capture years of experience with these folks. >> you can hear from benjamin barton and all of our q&a podcasts from c-span now. >> next, president biden attends an emergency meeting with nato leaders about the now month-long russian invasion of ukraine. they gathered for a group photo.

and some time the circuit court and once or twice at the supreme court, these courts tend to do damage to a bill called the false claims act. this bill has brought $70 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the federal treasury since it's been passed. and courts have -- it and senator leahy and i usually find ourselves having to pass legislation to say to the court, you've got it wrong. in fact, a very controversial bill right now before the united states senate on that very subject. it's fought fraud in the department of defense he, health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry. $70 billion is pretty important. so when you get -- if you're approved to be on the supreme court and the issue of false claims comes up, i hope you think of chuck grassley. it's -- well, and leahy! okay. the false claims act is one of the best tools that we have to fight against government fraud and to recover taxpayers' money. i've worked decades to fight this in the government so i'd like to ask you a couple of questions. and i'm going to start with a former attorney general, unnamed, once sugges

packing the court. packing the court. the notion behind that is the democrats are inspired to appoint some number of new justices to that court and thereby tip the balance the democratic side. and so the question obviously before us is, where does that idea come from. and i'll be honest with you, even as chairman of that committee, i don't know. i suppose there are some academics and theorists and researchers who believe that's well worthy of conversation, but let's be honest about this issue which seems to consume the republicans in the senate. there is only one united states senator who has had a direct impact on the composition of the united states supreme court in modern memory. who was that senator? senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. because he decided to keep the court at eight judges for a year. he refused to give president obama his legal obligation of filling the vacancy of justice slea and for a -- scalia and mitch mcconnell kept the justices at eight. when it comes to justices, he has retir

, sometime at the circuit court and even once or twice at the supreme court, these courts tend to doage to a bill called the false claims act. this bill has brought $70 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the federal treasury since it's been passed. and courts have weakened it and senator leighy and i find ourselves having to pass laws saying, you got it wrong. there's a very controversial bill before the united states senate on that very subject. it's fought fraud in the department of defense, healthcare industry, the pharmaceutical industry, $70 billion is pretty important, so when you get -- if you're approved to be on the supreme court, and the issue of false claims comes up, i hope you think of chuck grassley. >> you may want to rethink that, chuck. >> well, and lehy. the false claims act is one of the best tools that we have to fight against government fraud and to recover taxpayers' money. i've worked for decades to protect whistle-blowers who shine a light on fraud, waste, and abuse in the government, so i'd like to ask you a couple questions. and i'm going to start

handed down by the court of appeals and the supreme court. the district court is bound by the law as stated by those other tribunals and i was very focused on making sure that i found the right precedents and applied them faithfully. as i mentioned with respect to my methodology, part of the process is receiving information from the parties in a case, and the parties write briefs and in most cases they identify the precedents that they at least believe are applicable and then the court does its own legal research as well to determine whether all of the relevant cases have been identified. and then you look to see whether there is anything that directly controls, and if it does that's your answer. in many cases, the precedent might be a little bit different in certain ways and you are assessing the parties' arguments and determining within your proper role whether what the appellate courts have said provides the law of decision for the case. but what is important, as you've mentioned, is the clarity by which courts of appeals and the supreme c

highest court. now president biden will send his own nominee to the senate for confirmation. he's nominated judge catanji brown jackson of the us court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. president biden was senator biden for 36 years including eight is chair of the senate judiciary committee. senator biden questioned a parade of supreme court nominees including retiring justice stephen breyer ruth bader ginsburg clarence thomas, john roberts, samuel alito antonin, scalia and robert bork in his questioning of the nominees senator biden returned again and again to two ideas one the rights of the individual versus that of the majority and two his insistence that nominees should be candid about their judicial views. well to better understand what mr. biden would look for in a nominee here on american history tv. we're going to look back over the years at a series of his statements and exchanges during confirmation hearings first. we're going to look at the nomination hearing from july 1994

court of appeals, which everyone regards as the second highest court in the land, she got three republican votes. senator susan collins of maine, senator lisa murkowski of alaska, and senator lindsey graham of south carolina. senator graham is the only one who is on the judiciary committee and it seemed pretty plain after the hearings that he is unlikely to vote for judge jackson this time around. but we do not know about the other two republican senators. as far as whether she is on track to be confirmed, it seems likely that she is. it is going to be a very narrow margin. it will be a very polarized vote along party lines but even some republican senators like senator ben sasse of nebraska who did not suggest that he was going to vote for her, but really talked about her confirmation as if it was inevitable. there was a line at one point where he was questioning her where he said, you are going to be a hero. host: in the history of confirmation hearings, how often does it happen that something comes up that derails a nominee after the nominee just before the committee -- sits before the

courts have all of the evidence, and courts have all of the recommendations of various parties, and courts have, under congress' authority, the responsibility of using our judgment to make determinations that are sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes or promote the purposes of punishment, taking into account things like unwarranted sentencing disparity. and it may seem, it may seem like an easy exercise. it may seem, in retrospect, when you look back at a few pieces of data, that courts have not done what it is that they are supposed to do, but what i can assure you is that i took every one of these cases seriously in my duty and responsibility as a judge, and i made my determinations in light of the seriousness of the offense, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentencing to promote various purposes of punishment, and all of the other factors that congress prescribes. sen. lee: you keep reciting that standard, yet you specifically excluded from consideration the fact that he had r

packing the court could cause the supreme court to lose the trust of the american people. and i think if we want to expand the court, let's do it for the only valid reasons. maybe the justices come to us and the chief justices come to us and say, the workload is too great. that times have changed. and then convince 60 members of this body to consider it. but when you've got a partisan organization here that's putting a pipeline of people in there that they think think like them and have a judicial philosophy like them, how can any reasonable person think that this is just kind of fixing the mechanics. it's a partisan decision that even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken the bait. so much so that they would reverse a commitment that they made with me when they signed that letter to say that they would never nuke filibuster and then nuke it. president biden is on that list, too. back in 1983, gave a rousing speech in a judiciary committee hearing, saying, don't pack the court. he gave a rousing speech on the senate floor, saying, don't nuke the f

other courts to rule on things before they come to the court. i am not privy at the moment to the justices' views, and why and how they are using the emergency docket in these cases. if i was fortunate enough to be confirmed, i would look at those issues, but it is an interesting and important set of issues. >> senator cornyn asked the judge on opinions that rely on the 14th amendment due process clause. sen. cornyn: whether it is conservative, liberal, libertarian -- whatever you would like to call it -- it is a mode of analysis by the court that allows the court to substitute its opinion for the elected representatives of the people. would you agree? judge jackson: the court has identified standards for the determination of rights under the 14th amendment due process. sen. cornyn: who gives them the right to do that? if it is not mentioned in the constitution, where does the right of the court to substitute its views for that of the elected representatives of the people? where does that come from? judge jackson: the court has interpreted the 1

we understand at the district court level, at the court of appeals level, and at the supreme court that judges are restrained, are constrained in the exercise of our power under our constitutional scheme. my methodology is designed to help me, to make decisions within those confines at every level. it's no different now that i'm on the court of appeals than when i was on the district court, with respect to my understanding of the constraints on my authority, and my responsibility to be impartial in my rulings. and i think it would be no different at the supreme court. senator coons: i know we've walked through just a few cases today now. some ways we've only scratched the surface of your decade of more than 570 opinions you've written. but it's clear to me from what i've reviewed and from just this sample that as we also heard from colleagues, from conservative lawyers, from judges who wrote to the committee, that you are judicious and even-handed. that you have a demonstrated record of excellence. that you adjudicate based on the facts and the law and not as an advocate, activist or pa

the court delegitimatize the court? judge jackson: senator, it would not be appropriate for me in my view to comment on-calls to pack the court, as you say, to increase the number, to do any structural changes. those are policy determinations for congress. the consequences of those are policy considerations for congress. i'm just looking forward to working with the brilliant people who are there and whatever size congress decides if i'm confirmed. >> well, the calls to pack the court don't legitimatize the court, do they? judge jackson: well, senator, i think that would be for you to decide. >> i'm asking your opinion. judge jackson: respectfully, senator, i'm not in a position to give my opinion on issues that are policy issues concerning the court and not something that a judge would have to consider or should consider, in my view. >> yeah, but you're a citizen. judge jackson: oh, i am. >> as best i can tell, a very good one. i don't understand why you won't weigh in on this issue. tell me why you won't weigh in on th

but the lower courts and state courts as well. thank you to everyone who joined us, and we look forward to speaking with the same. next discussion with republican senator todd young of indiana on u.s. competitiveness and innovation. following his remarks a panel of business experts on scholars adjusts the need for

supreme court. a group of law enforcement officers from across the country said judge jackson bridges a depth -- brings a depth of character, public service, and judicial service that leads to but one conclusion -- she is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court of the united states. you are an accomplished jurist, having issued nearly 600 opinions that demonstrate a clear, evenhanded approach to the law. you have cited with workers, employers, for and against the government, for prosecutors, and for criminal defendants. judge thomas griffith, a george w. bush appointee, summed it up best when he said you, judge jackson, work based on the fact and the law and not as a partisan. having reviewed your record, i strongly agree with this statement, but you are not just extremely qualified to serve at the supreme court, your nomination is, of course, a historical and you're the supreme court has existed for over 233 years only five have been women, to have been black, and not single have been bla

circuit court. because it's well known on our side that we were very much considering her to be the first african-american woman on the supreme court. so rather than this wonderful exchange, which was wonderful, representative green, where were you and others when there was a wholesale assault on her nomination? nowhere to be found. the filibuster was used for two years to stop her nomination. and we eventually did a gang of 10, of which i was a part, so she could make it through. after a two-year delay. this is what the current president said when he was in the senate, joe biden. asking about her, janice rogers brown, being on the supreme court. i can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered. that's what he said about an african-american conservative nominee by president bush who had served five years on the california supreme court. we're not going to live in an america like that any longer. to my democratic colleagues. if you're a person o

first of all, there's no court above the supreme court.ertainly a body of united states judges who do set rules for the courts. they have set rules as the senator mentioned for every court besides the supreme court. and so -- there also, by the way is no roe placement for supreme court justice. if a justice recuses, they have eight other seven votes, and we've had controversial calls for recusal. i remember, for example, when there was calls for justice scalia to recuse himself regarding cases involving former vice president dick cheney, yet i have never seen a case like this one. understandable so much public concern. i have to think the justices are discussion among themselves, but there's no enforcement mechanism. there's no way for a justice's decision on whether to recuse to be reviewed. >> it basically means we refer to that law in the rules, and a lower court judge, if they don't take it upon themselves to recuse, you're saying under the system, that is reviewable, which judges are no different than toddlers and bedtime in this way.

to the court. and since her nomination, today we have learned about the long, distinguished record of judge jackson. graduate of harvard. harvard law school. a judicial clerk, federal district court judge, and member of the u.s. sentencing commission, an attorney of private practice, and a a federal public defender. what a resume. all of these experiences and perspectives have provided her mastery of our justice system. in particular, the criminal justice system. if she is confirmed, she would become the first ever justice to have served as a federal public defender. that is an important experience given how much the court shapes our criminal justice system. i say that from experience as a senator but also my experience for nearly a decade as a prosecutor. and perhaps most of all it is judge jackson's nearly 10 years as an appellate and trial judge to underscore the experience she would bring to the supreme court. she was confirmed unanimously by the senate in 2013 to the d.c. circuit court. she se

other courts to rule on things before they come to the court. and i am not privy at the moment to the justices' views and why and how they're using the emergency docket in these cases. if i was fortunate enough to be confirmed, i would look at those issues, but it's an interesting and important set of issues. >> okay. i think just another example of this, by the way, is the day before wisconsin's primary election, april 6, 2020, at the first beginnings of some of the health orders that came out with the beginning of the pandemic the court issued a 5-4 decision halting a district court's order allowing voters extra time to cast their absentee ballots so that they could avoid waiting in line to vote. and back then people literally got covid, election workers and the like, because of this. and, again, i'm not going to belabor this point, but i think some of this these decisions made that don't reflect some of the careful consideration that you have made in many of your decisions as a judge, but speaking of voting, i'll ask you one question on that

to the court. and since her nomination, today we have learned about the long, distinguished record of judge jackson. graduate of harvard. judicial clerk, federal district court judge, and member of the sentencing commission, attorney of private practice, and a private-public defender. what a resume. all of these experiences and perspectives have provided her mastery of our justice system. in particular, the criminal justice system. if she is confirmed, she would become the first ever justice to have served as a federal public defender. that is an important experience given how much the court shapes the criminal justice system. i say that from experience as a senator but also my experience for nearly a decade as a prosecutor. and perhaps most of all it is judge jackson's nearly 10 years as an appellate and trial judge to underscore the experience she would bring to the supreme court. she was confirmed unanimously by the senate in 2013 to the d.c. circuit court. she served with distinction for eight

public defender on the court. you're 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 represented on the supreme court because decisions on the supreme court can have a lasting impact on criminal justice system. my question is this. i believe that your experience as a federal public defender has made you a better judge, helped you maintain impartial and balanced perspective in criminal cases and i assume you would agree with that. >> yes, senator. i think that experience in the criminal justice system, whether, as you say 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 counsel, you have interacted with defendants in a way that as a judge, at least as 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 directly with defenda

you were put on a court that i'm told is considered the second most powerful court in our land, and you were passed with bipartisan support. nobody brought it up then. did they not do their homework? were they lax? do they make a mistake? i wonder if when they ask you the question, "do you regret," do they regret that? it is an allegation that is meritless to the point of demagoguery. you are -- i don't mean this in any way -- if somebody called me average, i would be upset -- but you are a mainstream judge. your sentencing, i looked in the data, falls in the mainstream on everything from child sexual assault to all the other issues people are trying to bring up. some of these things are being cast at you that you called george w. bush a war criminal. come on, that is painful, especially since you said these are names you have to put in, and we are talking about a real issue that goes to the core of our values, torture. barack obama was named once bush left office. there is an absurdity to this that is almost comical, if it was not so dangerous. because the next time a judge comes befor

courtships as the federal district court, federal court of appeals in the united states supreme court. two years as a federal public defender. two years as a staff member of the united states sentencing commission. four years as its vice chair. you have been confirmed by the senate, not once, not twice, three times. each on a bipartisan basis, including two lifetime judicial appointments. you bring nearly a decade of judicial experience, which by the way is more than the combined total of the currently sitting justices at the time they were nominated. again, you are clearly more than qualified to serve as the justice of the supreme court of the united states. yes, you welcome other experiences and expectations to the court your including as a working mother and a black woman. i look forward to speak forward about your background, on and off the bench. and your approach to the law. based on our conversations already, and my review of your record, i believe that you have the expertise, heart to elevate the way these deliberations of the supreme court. every year the supreme court decide

court. he went on to say this use of judicial review this subverts the liberty of government by the people overturning laws enacted by legislatures who ae answerable to the electorate, rather than a majority of the supreme court. finally, for purpose of my question, said the adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which i believe justice black that is, and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for-country. judge -- justice jackson, why is it substantative due process just another form of policymaking and you strive to be apolitical, something i applaud. but why isn't subtantive due process under guys of interpreting the constitution? >> well, senator, the justices have interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to include a substantive provision, the rights to due process. they have interpreted that to mean not

supreme court. our newly released survey of more than 1000 likely voters assesses america's knowledge about the court and its cases, its place in the political and governing process, and whether the public wants cameras in the courtroom for oral arguments. view the results of the survey on our website, c-span.org. if you missed any of the confirmation hearing, you can watch it anytime on demand on our website, c-span.org. >> judge ketanji brown jackson, president biden's nominee to the supreme court, sat for her second day of confirmation hearings before the senate judiciary committee. all 22 senators on the panel were given 30 minutes's time to question the nominee. the days proceedings began with dick durbin giving judged action -- judge jackson the opportunity to preempt republicans for of her record. sen. durbin: let me address another issue that came up yesterday in the opening phase of this nomination hearing and it is the issue involving child pornography. i want to turn to that issue because

in the circuit court you're bound by the supreme court precedent. as a member of the united states supreme court, you will be bound by nothing. you will be unaccountable to the voters. and so you said -- >> well, respectfully, senator, yes -- >> so you're not going to be able to find the answer in some law book somewhere. you're going to be presented with a case and the argument is going to be made, this is an unenumerated fundamental right, and the voters -- whatever they've said is irrelevant because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be. and anybody who disagrees with us will be labeled a bigot or be accused of discrimination, even if those -- their beliefs happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction like the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. but you've already told me that you see why this is a concern. >> i see why it is a concern, and i would just say that, although the supreme court is not, you know, bound in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, the