she showed why she will be a major factor on the supreme court. judge jackson's confirmation hearing reinforced to me how critical it will be to have her on the supreme court. members of the committee unsuccessfully tried to distort judge jackson's sentencing record. the record clearly rebuts these charges as judge jackson's sentences are well within the judicial mainstream and judge jackson often followed the recommendations made by the probation office. the a.b.a. standing committee debunks several of these myths when they analyze judge jackson's record as part of their review process before their confirmation hearing. the a.b.a. testified at the hearing that we did speak to various pros kiewctors and defense counsel -- prosecutors for judge jackson. none experienced any bias. one observer said that i didn't observe any bias and the judge was fair when concerned with sentencing in all aspects. we ask about bias whether it be the defendant or government and we found no bias. that was the a.b.a. in terms of the allegations that judge jackson was s

on the supreme and only the second woman of color and the first black woman. a justice jackson will bring sorely needed diversity to the supreme court, both demographically and professionally. as the leadership conference on civil and human rights noted, this professional diversity is another critical step in ensuring our courts look more like america. judge jackson will be the first justicent with any significant criminal defense defensd since retirement of justice thurgood marshall in 1991. and she would be the only supreme court justice to let serve as a public defender. public defenders play a critical role in our legal system, yet they are vastly underrepresented on the federal bench. at all levels of our judiciary there . nearly six times as many former prosecutors on the federal bench then former criminal defense lawyers, , just over 5% of the federal appellate judges have experience as a public defender. our highest court should reflect the diversity of the legal profession, and judge jackson's meaningful experience is greatly needed on our supreme cou

we want life tenure on the supreme court. we think the supreme court have a code of conduct. we think i'll just as his public appearances should be livest streamed as well. we think their financial disclosures that they have to fill out aey beer should be posd online and we think they should be more forthcoming about what stock sion and when they reduce some cases. >> host: i suppose some of those bullet points would fall into the news or least destroys that been coming up between justice thomas, emails by our text by his wife. >> guest: yes. it's been a busy few weeks. we hope that it spurs both the court and congress to action. >> host: with a specific story what's your organizations take on what transpired over the last couple of weeks since we found out about this? >> guest: it's a unique story in american history. january 6th and the coup attempt is unique to begin with butth the fact that a supreme court justice his wife was involved in planning the effort to subvertrt our democracy is vy concerning, given how close ginni and clarence we know our, very likely janey was

we're getting the nominee to be supreme court justice. as a law student i was fortunate to the have justice breyer as an advisor and i remain grateful for his guidance, encouragement and counsel ace began my leg

ifck you think about the docketf the supreme court so much of the docket of the supreme court is ruling on questions and controversies whose ultimate goal is to make the nations trials civil and criminal trials more fair with dismiss ability of evidence. the definition of police misconduct that could gain or shed sovereign immunity in a trial going on in the trial court and how to impanel jurist and how to strike a juror if there's evidence the jury may have a biased or. these are all cases that come before the supreme court all the time and these kinds of cases are particularly important to to have a court that is well representative by people who have been in the courtroom and they have to figure out how to construct a panel of jurors and deal with the jurors who have a bias question and they have to rule on evidentiary objectives and dispose of the discovery disputes, rule on dispositive motion and motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions. judgments usually involve credibility determinations in meeting witnesses. the judges in the federal system are those with the power of sent

we want life tenure on the supreme court, we think the supreme court should have a code of conduct, we think the justices public appearances should be livestreamed as well, we think their financial books, disclosures they have to fill out every year should be posted online, and we think they should be more forthcoming about what stocks they own and when they recuse. host: i suppose several of those bullet points would fall into the news or stories that have been coming up between justice thomas, emails and texts by his wife jenny. guest: yes. it has been a busy few weeks. we hope that it spurs the koran congress to action. guest: with that specific story, what is your organization's take on what transpired over the last couple weeks since we found out about this? guest: it is a unique story in american history. january 6 and the coup attempt is unique to begin with but the fact the supreme court justices wife was involved in planning the efforts to subvert our democracy is very concerning given how close clarence and janine are. it was likely that jenny was referring to clarence in her

this is my eighth supreme court justice to participate in the confirmation. the good, the bad and the when it comes to judicial c confirmation hearings and i know some of express concerns about the tough -- that she fielded not that she did credible job answering those questions. she's obviously -- is obviously incredibly smart. i found her personally very charmingso as well. judge jackson has received two degrees from harvard completed her supreme court clerkship and served on the federal bench for nearly a decade. i hear no one questioning judge jackson's legal credentials for the lifetime to the sprinkler requires the right resume. our constitutional republic requires judges to rule they stunned the law not based on their personal policy preferences or believes and certainly not based on a result working your way back to a justification for that particular result. judges are required to go wherever the law may lead them. justice scalia during his lifetime said if you haven't dated decision as a judge that you personally disagree with or because the law com

think about the docket of the supreme court, so much of the docket of the supreme court is ruling onquestions and controversies whose ultimate goal is to make the nation's trials more fair, admissibility of evidence, sentencing standards, definitions of police misconduct that could gain or shed sovereign immunity in a trial going on in a trial court. how to impanel jurors, how to instruct jurors, when to strike adjure if there is evidence the jury may have a bias of prejudice. these are all cases that come before the supreme court all the time and these kinds of cases are particularly important, to have a court that is well represented by people who have been in a courtroom and done what trial judges have to do is they have to figure out how to instruct and impanel jurors and deal with a jury who may have a bias question, to rule an evidentiary objections in a split second, dispose of discovery disputes, rule on dispositive motions like motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions, bench trials render judgments which usually involve credibility determinations among competing witnes

supreme court. it's come up over and over again through the last two centuries. the foundational statement that came out of it was the simple statement. it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. if the judicial hands to the executive and says we can't tell what the law says so we'll give it to you, it is literally the judicial handing to the executive something that's uniquely the judicial's power. this is no simple issue. this goes back to our balance of power. what we have is a situation now over the past several decades where congress is given its power to the executive branch. if the judicial branch does the same, giving its power to the executive branch, we have a rising executive branch and the other two bodies will look at it and say how did that happen because we gave it away is how it happened. and we have a more and more powerful president of either party and a less and less powerful congress and judicial branch. my conversation with judge jackson, she

come court -- supreme court justice the united states. whether to provide my consent to the highest court in the land. the framers carefully designed our constitution using an intricate system of checks and balances. the framers designed the third branch of government the judiciary as an independent branch of the political branches of government and the legislative and executive branch projectors are given the unusual protection on my congress and theo president with lifetime tenure and judges therefore do not have to fear retribution or loss of office or diminution of their paycheck. the supreme court michelle healthy respect for the other legal branches of government. and americans on intent will determine the law of the constitution united states but a critical part of theis supreme court's role is to observe and protect the constitution and to make sure all americans are treated equally under the law. the supreme court is edged above that the promise of equal justice under the law for all persons. the supremed court while vigorously o

supreme court. and everyone has had the opportunity for caselaw that she has responded to things that she has written in ways that she has responded actually i sat down with her for 45 minutes in the office just to talking go back and forth with her little bit so to give a little bit of context watching all the hearings that happened last week a full week of just conversations asking different questions and observe on the judiciary committee on the outside looking in my 45 minutes to ask a question by the way had folks in oklahoma had the opportunity to sit down with her so to all them i've answered the same way exact same person you'd want to outgoing personable and smart and shy wonderful smile and interaction and invite over for and then travel lifetime appointment of the supreme court and the difficult part is conversation is circling around judicial philosophy and how will you handle cases? wedl cannot ask how you'll ruin a specific case because if she answers and just to recuse herself and how

morning, i am going to my decision on judge jackson's nomination to supreme court. i will oppose her and i i will vote no. my decision is based upon her record of judicial activism, flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases, and i believe judge jackson will not be deterred by the plain meaning of the law when it comes to liberal causes. i find a judge jackson to be a person of exceptionally good character, respected by her peers and some of who is work hard to achieve her current position. however, a record is overwhelming in its lack of a steady judicialy, philosophy ana tendency to achieve outcomes in spite of what the law requires or common sense would dictate. after a thorough review of judge jackson's record and information gained at the hearing from an evasive witness, i now know why judge jackson was

president clinton nominated ginsberg to the supreme court. the senate confirmed her nomination by voting 96-3 and she became the second female and first jewish female to serve on the court. ginsberg was a strong voice for gender equality and voting rights. justice ginsburg served on the supreme court for 27 years until her death in september 2020. it is difficult to overstate their inspiration for generations of girls, women and women lawyers. justice o'connor was sworn in as the first female supreme court justice the same month i started law school. at the pro-religion of working with both on civic education and access to justice. both women were brilliant and funny. we are presented with another moment of significance with judge jackson. when were barry has fallen and young women of color will be able to see themselves as i saw myself in them. today i asked my colleagues to honor these incredible woman and help inspire our next generation of leaders by voting to create the statutes. >> pennsylvania reserves. a gentleman from illinois is rec

that's a question about changing the composition of the supreme court, the number of supreme court justices. there's only been one elected official and currentct memory, recent memory was changed the composition of the court, you remember what the committee vacancy he kept it vacant more than eight months, denied president obama the opportunity to fill it and what about the issue of the future composition and the court is that a requirement for someone to be supported by the senator from kentucky? obviously not. amy coney barrett wouldn't answer the question. she wouldn't give an opinion. she like judge jackson said that's a matter of policy. that's for congress to decide, and it is. judge jackson easily passes the threehe test of the senate republicans and established for supporting a supreme court nominee and passed the test with flying colors. s simply put, one of the nation's brightest legal minds. she has outstanding credentials, unimpeachable character and unwavering dedication to the rule of law. she's smart and it shows. judge jackson also has the temperament. i can't tell you how m

advocates for regular accountability and transparency in all the federal courts and primarily that supreme court in we are funded by average americans who have given us funds do think that you know doing a good job. >> you take a certain point of view when he comes to issues of the supreme court, partisan gate undertake. >> nono were nonpartisan and we have always been nonpartisan, going on seven half years that we have been around and we do not believe that ethics or transparency in the government a partisan mention certain parties and certain it to visuals from parties may think one way or another but wes work with republicans and democrats and conservatives and liberals every day to try to make or break the spring court and the other federal courts and streaming into the 21st century. >> and i was suspect with your title, was a part of the need to be fixed would you say. >> oh man, do you have more than 30 minutes, well i think that will look we have one median broadcast, we think also embarked earrings to be live streamed,, we want life tenure n supreme court we think it should have av

that is not what we need in a supreme court justice. that is why i will be voting against her nomination. >> madam president yield the. floor. >> madam president. i rise to speak in support of the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. when confirmed, judge jackson who currently serves on the u.s. court of appeals or the district of columbia circuit will take the seat on the supreme court that justice steven breyer has held for almost three decades. i like to first offerff a few words about justice breyer as he prepares to step down from the bench. justice breyer has served the court and the nation with grace, expertise, humility, brilliance, and unwavering dedication to justice. heea has worked tirelessly to build consensus among his colleagues. he has always kept in mind the real world impacts of the court's decisions on the american people. justice breyer new justice first psalm was a failure of the court. from his opinions on voting rights to reproductive rights

judge jackson's qualifications to serve on the supreme court are second to none. she holds broad experience across the legal profession as a supreme court clerk, as a federal public defender and as an attorney in private practice and as a member of the united states sentencing commission. as a federal district court judge and as a federal appellate judge. it was therefore surprising to no one that she earned a unanimous well-qualified rating from the american bar association. let me speak for a moment about one aspect of judge jackson's background that stands out, and that is her experience as a public defender. when confirmed, judge jackson will become the first ever justice with background as a public defender, and the first justice with significant criminal defense experience since the -- the service of justice thurgood marshall who retired in 1991. that work, as a federal public defender, has unjustly come under attack from my colleagues across the aisle, who suggest that being a public defender means that she is soft on crime. but my republican colleagues who

in that, the supreme court discovered a freedom to contract right. again, nowhere written in the constitution, but another example of a result oriented outcome based on unwritten constitutional rights. now, one of the most famous examples was roe versus wade in which the supreme court found a constitutional right to abortion. i asked judge jackson is the word abortion or is the word marriage found anywhere in the constitution and she agreed with me that, no, they're not mentioned in the constitution. now, here is my point, it's not the outcome necessarily because substantive due process can be used for good or for ill. in other words, the good is when i agree with the outcome and the ill is when i disagree, but the main problem is that unelected judges are making policy binding the entire country under the guise of substantive due process which is law making. this doctrine of substantive due process can be used for things you agree with and things you disagree with. but the point is, this has, i think, helped us hone in on the limitless ability of fi

supreme court. by virtue of a motion to discharge judge jackson's was reported out of the judiciary committee, out of judiciary by -- really wasn't reported out of judiciary. by a motion to discharge judge jackson's nomination was put on the floor by a bipartisan vote of 53-47. she now comes to the floor for consideration by the whole chamber. every day we move closer to judge jackson's confirmation the case and likelihood of her confirmation grows stronger and stronger and stronger. and i thank my colleagues on both sides of the i will approach this process with good faith. at the end of the day it will be our courts and the american people who rely on our courts who will benefit most from having an amazing jurist like judge jackson elevated to the pinnacle of the federal judiciary. here is what happens next. later today i'm going to take the next step to moving forward with judge jackson's nomination by filing cloture on her. my call he should be advised we may have to take some procedural votes t

we need to pass the supreme court ethics act. and it is thanks to clarence thomas is out of control behavior that many americans are now discovering for the first time the supreme court has no ethics rules whatsoever, none. no rules at all. from what a supreme court justice must recused from a case. but there is a federal law, one federal law that specifies that the supreme court justices may not participate in cases that involve their spouses in any way. that's, it that's the only real rule and it's a law affecting supreme court justices. but that law does not have a criminal enforcement mechanism. you can't get charged with a crime for violating the law, because it was inconceivable to the people writing that law that any supreme court justice would ever violate. no member of the supreme court in history has ever been suspected of, or accused of anything as about as what we already know clarence thomas actually did. in january, clients not most was only member of the supreme court who voted to prevent the january six committee

she will be a fair, independent justice of the supreme court. and she is very deserving of that title. madam president, i had the great privilege of meeting with judge jackson just yesterday. during our conversation i was struck again by her brilliance, her intelligence, her kindness and resolve. that comes across on television during the hearings, but it was very evident in our one-on-one meeting. and i thought about another supreme court nominee who broke barriers nearly 55 years ago. a man from maryland, from baltimore, maryland, thurgood marshall, the first black man to serve on the supreme court of the united states. so, during my conversation with judge jackson i invited her to join me in west baltimore at p.s. 103. this is public school building 103. it's in west baltimore. it's the school where thurgood marshall learned to read and write. it's no longer an active school. the building is in bad condition. just this year as part of omnibus appropriations bill, senator cardin and i were able to secure some federal funds to help renovate tha

questioned her qualifications would be on the supreme court, none? not one. 2018 there republican leader called then judge kavanaugh an absolute all-star. specifically mentioned he was a yale undergrad, guilt law, impeccable credentials. judge jackson passes that same test. she clerked at every level of the federale judiciary. i can tell you as a large bit clerk for any judge is a great honor and distinction. to be aou clerk at all three levels of the federal court including the supreme court is extraordinary. it is just hardly ever occurs. she served out of a federal public defender, staff attorney and commissioner on the sentencing commission. a lawyer in private practice. her resume as absolutely star-studded in terms of legalhe experience. and for almost a decade she served on the federal bench handling 1100 matters. issuing 600 written opinions. you know what she thanks about an issue? how she thanks about an issue? just really written opinions. every type of legal issue imaginable that came before her. altogether, judge jackson's meats is not e

judge jackson as the first black woman to the supreme court. well, i'm grateful judge jackson believes science is the basis for determining a woman. i'm deeply concerned that a fellow woman who is set to define the contours of laws that are specific to women has to even think about an answer to that question. so mr. president, judge jackson's language or lack thereof, speaks volumes for me and i cannot support her nomination for a lifetime appointment on our nation's highest court. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence after quorum. >> thank you, madam president, later this week, the full senate will take up and vote on the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. over the last several weeks the congress and the country and indeed the world have gotten to know judge jackson. we have learned about her broad life experience, her exceptional career, her deep love of the law. judge jackson endured a verbal marathon of intense questioning from membe

supreme court. this is the fourth time the committee has voted on judge jackson in some capacity, a reflection of her extraordinary legal career. it is the first time the committee has had the opportunity to advance the nomination of a black woman to sit on the supreme court. this is a historic moment for the committee and america. during her hearing, judge jackson told us about her upbringing as the daughter of parents who attended a racially segregated schools. she marveled at how her youth on the heels of the civil-rights union differed so much for her own experience. hers is a uniquely american family story. how much hope and promise can be achieved in one generation, i am proud we can bear witness to it. in recent weeks, members of this committee have gone through judge jackson's 600 -- nearly 600 judicial opinions. her detailed responses to many bipartisan questionnaires, 12,000 pages of disclosures related to her time on the u.s. sentencing commission, 70,000 pages of materials produced by th

supreme court. during the hearings we heard testimony from retired judge thomas griffith who was appointed to the d.c. circuit by president george w. bush. judge griffith told us that judge jackson, and i quote his words, will adjudicate based on the facts and the law and not as a partisan. he testified he had quote always respected her careful approach, extraordinary judicial understanding, and collegial manner, end quote. we heard similar comments from representatives of the american bar association, judges, attorneys who have worked with her over the course of her career. they testified that judge jackson is a universally and highly regarded for her intellect, her integrity, her judgment, and her writing and analytical skills. both prosecutors and defense attorneys have praised judge jackson, and i quote, as thoreau, hard-working, and extremely well prepared. judge jackson is widely respected, and it's clear to me that our colleagues on the bench and the lawyers who argued before her have no doub

supreme court. the holdup appears to be senator rand paul who is not present right now for that voice vote. so where things stand now, 53-46 in favor of confirmation. still rand paul to vote before we see an official tally there. let's go to chief white house correspondent peter alexander. peter, we've been talking about history. let's not forget presiding over this is vice president harris who knows a thing or two about history as well. >> reporter: not only is she the first black vice president of the united states, she serves as the president of the senate. so this is a historic moment for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the first black vice president of the united states presiding over the confirmation of the first black woman soon to be justice of the supreme court. the vice president often presides over close votes. this one, though, as evidenced by murkowski, collins and romney, making it clear that they would vote in support of her, was not going to be close enough that her v

by rewriting kavanaugh history during the supreme court s hearing.ile, she has a face and a name, doctor christine ford. the big rewrite -- the big rewrite is to ignore all the evidence that the supreme court is now a captured court captured in the same way that agencies and commissions are sometimes captured by big special interests. there is a whole literature in the administrative law and economics about agency capture or regulatory capture. even before the trump presidency, big powerful right-wing donor interest began spending massive sums of money to install justices on the supreme court whom they expected to rule reliably in their favor. very often as the presiding officer knows if you can pick the judges, you can pick the winner. the 5-for announced to the majority on the court has been steadily delivering for those big donors. over 85-for partisan wins for the big corporate have partisan donor interests under chief justice roberts. in those partisan decisions by the way where there was an identifiable republican donor interest involved, it wa

they're steamrolling their way to the supreme court.ne of them involves john eastman, the lawyer who advised trump to -- on how to -- and try to get pence to step in and not certify the electors. and that case, his papers, have now been ruled that they have to be turned over to the committee. and he surely will be appealing this to the supreme court. how can clarence thomas sit on that particular case there's gonna be a big issue. i think it will be a ruckus if he does. >> jane, there's a stunning line on the last page of your -- in the new yorker about clarence thomas and his wife and it's, as for lawyers involved in cases before the supreme court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that johnny thomas is an additional opponent what. you described several cases in which ginni thomas is definitely a player on one side of that case, cases that end up in the supreme court. >> in one instance, she has a business as a political consultant. in one instance, she was paid by a client who had an abacus brief in the supreme court. in the time th

court justice ever to serve on the supreme court. i believe she will be to the left of justice sotomayor and to the left of justice kagan and she will be way, way, way to the left of justice stephen stephen breyer the justice she was replacing. what does that mean as a practicalgh matter? why do the american people care about the supreme court? >> care because they care about their rights. as a practical matter what it means i believe the odds are nearly 100% that judge jackson would voteve to overturn the cae of the district columbia. some landmark case that upholds the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, fundamental protection for all of us. that case was decided 5-4. judge jackson i believe is a vote to overturn that case, to take away our 2nd amendment right and that means every senator who votes for her is devoting to take away the 2nd amendment rights of america. judge jackson i believe the odds are nearly 100% that she would vote to overturn citizens united case. citizens united is a landmark case that protects our righ

one level below the supreme court. when it got to be possible for her to be on the supreme court as a possibility, then senator biden said she would be filibustered. senator durbin, senator schumer all filibustered her and told this body that if you picked her, she is likely to be filibustered. that is why judge jackson is the first african-american nominee to come before this body to be on the supreme court because she made it that way. when you had a chance to support an african-american conservative, you used her ideology against her. blocked her from being considered by this committee. and we are supposed to be like trained seals over here clapping when you appoint a liberal. that is not going to work. we live in america today where your ideology is held against you if you are a conservative. and when you are a liberal, we are supposed to embrace everything about you and not ask hard questions. that is not the world we are going to live in. if we get back the senate and we are in charge of this body and there is ju

supreme court will bring america closer to the ideals are country aspires too. her service on the supreme court in the years to come will ensure the justices better reflect the diversity of our great nation. may help restore the people's faith in the fairness of the court and in our justice system. it is with great pleasure that i support her nomination to the highest court in the land and encourage my colleagues to do the same. too that madam president i would yield the floor. and i would notice the absence of a quorum. >> clerk called aerobic works i come here with real pleasure and pride, excitement, joy. real exuberance not often felt on the floor of the united states senate. we are going to be making history this week. as confident as i am of anything ever in the united states senate ever happening, this week we will confirm judge ketanji brown jackson associate justice of the united states supreme corporate limit first of all thank president biden for nominating her. his wisdom and courage are one of the reasons she is before us as a nominee in this histor

they're steamrolling their way to the supreme court.ne of them involves john eastman, the lawyer who advised trump to -- on how to -- and try to get pence to step in and not certify the electors. and that case, his papers, have now been ruled that they have to be turned over to the committee. and he surely will be appealing this to the supreme court. how can clarence thomas sit on that particular case there's gonna be a big issue. i think it will be a ruckus if he does. >> jane, there's a stunning line on the last page of your -- in the new yorker about clarence thomas and his wife and it's, as for lawyers involved in cases before the supreme court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that johnny thomas is an additional opponent what. you described several cases in which ginni thomas is definitely a player on one side of that case, cases that end up in the supreme court. >> in one instance, she has a business as a political consultant. in one instance, she was paid by a client who had an abacus brief in the supreme court. in the time th

the least because she's the first black woman and first federal public defender nominated to the supreme court. while her individual accomplishments are personal, judge jackson's elevation to the united states supreme court will bring america closer to the ideals our country aspires to. her service on the supreme court in the years to come will ensure that the justices better reflect the diversity of our great nation and may help restore the people's faith in the fairness of the court and in our justice system. it is with great pleasure that i support her nomination to the highest court in the land and urge my colleagues to do the same. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor, and i would notice august, 2022. mr. blumenthal: thank you very much, mr. president. i come here with real pleasure and pride, excitement, joy, real exuberance not often felt on the floor of the united states senate because we're going to be making history this week. as confident as i am of anything ever in the united states senate happening, this week we will confirm judge ketanji brown jackson as an a

it is about the supreme court cafeteria. your quote was, not a place you would choose for a date night. [laughter] have you had a chance to improve it? justice barrett: i don't remember saying that but it is certainly true, it would not be a date night destination or it would be a very brief relationship if it were. it is tradition of the court that the junior justice serve on the cavitary committee. justices who have been my predecessors have given such contributions to the cafeteria, justice kagan probably gave a froyo machine. justice kavanaugh brought pizza to the cafeteria. justice breyer did work for 11 years because he was junior justice for the longest stretch in recent time read -- recent time. i had the luck of coming in one the cafeteria was largely close because of covid. [laughter] i did not have much opportunity i never went to a single committee meeting. i also had the good fortune of coming in. i had a good ideas of what i would have wanted to do. i thought it would be great to have a starbucks bar and that w

court -- >> [laughs] it it's but the supreme -- >> it's about the supreme court cafeteria. and the court was, it's not a place he would choose for a date night [applause] have you had a chance to improve since [inaudible] i [laughs] don't remember saying that, but it certainly is true. it would not be a date night destination or it would be a very brief relationship if it were. [applause] it is tradition of the court that the junior justice serves on the cafeteria committee. [applause] and justices who have been my predecessors have given such contributions to the cafeteria as justice kagan proudly contributed a fro-yo machine [laughter] and justice kavanaugh, notably, brought pizza to the cafeteria. justice breyer good humans work for 11 years because he was junior justice for the longest stretch in recent times. but i had you, know, i guess is good luck, because i came in during covid when the cafeteria was largely closed -- [laughter] -- so i didn't really have much opportunity. i never went to a single committee meeting, and i also had the good fortune of coming in. i d

supreme court. there are few responsibilities the senate has that are more important than confirming judges, and in particular confirming justices on the supreme court of the united states. the supreme court is charged with the responsibility of defending and upholding the constitution and the bill of rights. it is charged with the responsibility of upholding the rule of law and protecting your rights and my rights. now, judge jackson is someone i've known personally for 30 years. she and i went to law school together. we were both on the law review together. judge jackson is someone that on a personal level, she's smart, she's talented, she's charming. i've always liked judge jackson, but the responsibility given to the senate is to not to make an assessment on a personal level but rather to assess a nominee's record and the kind of job they would do for the position to which they've been appointed. now, many democrats in this chamber and their cheerleaders in the corporate media insist we cannot e

supreme court. .. s exceptionally qualified and well-regarded across the political spectrum and yet not a single republican voted to advance judge jackson's nomination out of the senate judiciary committee. and only three republicans have publicly expressed support for her, so i ask my republican colleagues -- what is it going to take? what is it going take to put politics aside to support >> what is it going to take to put politics aside to support a nominee like judge jackson, because intelligence, extraordinary breadth of experience and support from prominent conservatives did not suffice. clearly a candidate who has support from across the political spectrum from the black and hispanic jewish chamber of commerce, this organization, to the national education association, thousands of teachers, to the fraternal order of police, the largest police union, they would not be supporting who is soft on crime, to child advocacy groups, who would not for someone who is not being appropriate in her sentencing

supreme court justices present and past. and those three republicans who voted to confirm her were invited but they will not be here. of course, susan collins is recovering from covid. lisa murkowski is in alaska and mitt romney said he won't attend. but there are hundreds of people to support her and mark this historic moment, along with the president. we'll hear from judge jackson. and the history and the journey that it took for her to get here. of course, she is someone who has a unique background on the bench. she has served as a public defender, which is a unique part of her resume. and something she talked about during those conformation hearings. and those hearings, at times, got contentious. those who support her say she handled those moments with grace. i've been talking to law students who say this moment is personal for them. because it's a sign to them that they can achieve their goals. and that if they fight hard enough, if they work hard enough anything and everything is possible. so, we are here on the south

the next supreme court justice, judge ketanji brown jackson.felt far beyond the capitol. here's abc's rachel scott. >> even in the darkest times, there are bright lights. today is one of the brightest lights. >> reporter: a historical and powerful moment in america. ketanji brown jackson becoming the first black woman to be confirmed as a supreme court justice. >> the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. and this nomination is confirmed. >> all right! >> reporter: she watched the final vote at the white house. >> okay! >> reporter: embracing president biden, who fulfill campaign promise to nominate a black woman to the supreme court. the vote presided over by america's first black, southeast asian, and female vice president. >> the statement about, that on our highest court in the land we want to make sure there's going to be full representation and the finest and brightest and the best. and that's what happened today. i'm very proud, very proud. >> reporter: even though the outcome was no surprise, the senate chamber was packed for the event. the fir