you talked about justice breyer 's optimism. so i would ask all of you, in your closing thoughts, is the supreme court in crisis? and what does this moment mean for that? >> you think we would have all come prepared for this, right? >> glad i asked a hard question that caused you to think. >> i think this will be unsatisfying. i mean, i try to avoid -- eve though i am a masterful democracy [inaudible] [inaudible] my bookshelf it's just filled with -- in the reading list workers -- a lot of questioning about our american institutions -- right -- t [inaudible] the supreme court and us in terms of our political discourse. and so we are asking some real fundamental questions. what i would say is that a lot of people that we are at a point in which we are very vulnerable as a democracy to not looking like the kind of democracy most of us would have imagined ourselves to be. we've bn confronting nature of this is a good fortune because we are actually trying to get a more inclusive, more responsive democracy? maybe that's a way of see

do you want to start by talking about justice breyer. >> justice breyer was open to changing his mind based on oral argument. he read all the briefs and marked them up and would call, receive a phone call from justice breyer always very amazing experience because he would start talking as if we were in the middle of a conversation. >> my mother does that, but at a much lower level. >> this thing on page 45 is really convincing me now. you would have to think, which case is he talking about? which page 45. okay, now i'm up to speed and then enter into the conversation where he is. so, he would come to oral argument continuing a conversation he's been having about the case with the lawyer and with his colleagues and really try to figure out and this led to some of these funny hypotheticals. and difficult questions he would ask on the bench that people now are reminiscing about on twitter because he would sometimes ask some of the most confusing questions because he's thinking them through as he asked them. he wanted really to know, well, how do you answer this problem about how this ser

if you want to talk about justice breyer. >> he marks them up with a call from justice breyer, an amazingxperience because they're talking as if we were in the middle of a conversation. >> my mother does that but at a much lower level. >> i just want to say on page 45, you have to think, which case is he talking about? okay, now i am up to speed and enter the conversation where he is. he would come to oral arguments in continuing the conversation about the case, with a lawyer as with his colleagues, really trying to figure out, some of these funny hypotheticals difficult questions asking that people are reminiscing about, he's thinking through as he asks them, he really wanted to know how to answer this about how this does the public good. how about this area? this whole area of work going forward it will rule in your favor, his really trying to figure out, how can we make this work as a system? how can we make this best judgment for the public and how does it serve the underlying purpose of the law there are driving questions he's working toward in every aspect thinking about the cases,

and then today biden appeared at the white house alongside breyer to officially announce breyer's retirementmade clear to reporters he would not take questions. >> i'm not going to take any questions, because i think it's inappropriate to take questions with the justice here. he is still sitting on the bench. but you'll have plenty of opportunities to get me later today and for the rest of the week next week, too so thank you very much thank you. [ reporters clamoring >> seth: and thank goodness this time president biden made sure to walk away from the microphone, because we all know what happens when he doesn't >> no, it's a great asset. more inflation what a stupid son of a bitch [ laughter ] >> seth: here -- here, though, here -- here's my question about that did he really think no one would hear him i mean, even if the mic wasn't there, you're still in a roomful of people, you're surrounded by reporters. you're on camera even if biden just mouthed the words, i'm pretty sure we could have read his lips like, watch my mouth [ laughter ] i think you can tell what i just said even without th

it is extremely humbling to be considered for justice breyer seats. i know i could never fill his shoes, but if confirmed, i would hope to carry on his spirit. on the day of his supreme court nomination, justice breyer said, "what is law supposed to do, seen as a whole? it is supposed to allow all people to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs to live together in a way that is more harmonious , that is better. so that they can work productively together i could not have said it better myself. members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work productively to support and defend the constitution in this grand experience of american democracy that has endured these past 246 years. i have been a judge for nearly a decade now and i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent, very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral posture -- a neutral posture. i interpret and apply the law with the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial owes. i kn

we are not going to hurry justice breyer out the door. i agree with president biden last night with his tribute to the man. but there is ample precedent for senate approval and then a delay in the actual swearing in until the vacancy occurs, anything else? [inaudible] >> i would not say that. the priority to make sure every committee members before the hearing has that chance. as i said earlier, senator grassley made that point to his own colleagues do not lurk, do not wait. if you want to do this, tell us right now. >> yes. it will just be a matter of time. reporter: [inaudible] progress i'm very concerned this is very overdue but i am an appropriate or i you what little activity there was in the formal committee on the course of the fiscal year they napped october 1 of last year. it's time for us to roll up our sleeves and get this done. i cannot imagine this moment of history the ukrainians facing what they are facing in our ally anxious to make sure we are on board we are delaying this any longer. got to move on this. >> question on t

maybe another way, justice breyer for whom you clerked and justice scalia used to travel together and had lively debates, conversations, can you tell the american people about what breyer, scalia road show looks like? what were they arguing about? >> well, my understanding is they were argumenting or presenting two different viewpoints as to how the constitution should be interpreted. i would say just as an aside before talking about their positions that while i have been on the bench for nine plus years, the issue of constitutional interpretation in that sense doesn't come up very often. it comes up to the supreme court for sure. but it doesn't come up very often in the lower courts. what justice scalia and justice breyer i believe were debating was the justice scalia's notion of originalism meaning that the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders in the founding era. they should not be considered to essentially establish principles that modern justices could apply based on their own view of the needs of society. justice breyer's position

i had an opportunity to sit down with the nominee to fill the stephen breyer vacancy. it's not the first timee we met in fact it's not the first time she was in my office. she was there we were trying to guess in 2011 as a member of the sentencing commission. i passed a reform of sentencing on crack cocaine and she was at the sentencing commission that decided to make the decision retroactive and included republicans and others on a bipartisan basis. let me tell you why i believe she'sie ready to make history in america. she has an extraordinary background and if you are going to be the first you better bring credentials to the task and she does. she is been an outstanding law student and clerk for three different levels of the judiciary including the retiring justice stephen breyer. she's been before the judiciary committee this will be her fourth time she's been before three different times successfully with bipartisan support and the most recent was just this last year when she was approved for the dc circuit court. every single time she's had bipartisan support tha

to show themselves to the american public. >> it is such a good point, gloria, looking -- stephen breyer was confirmed 87-9. remember those days as we look at images, you see her right there, you see judge jackson walking in, getting ready for her confirmation hearing. manu, to you, i thought it was interesting as long as there are no other supreme court vacancies before january, this will be senator patrick leahy's last senate confirmation hearing for the supreme court. he's been at every once since john paul stevens confirmed in 1975. and he lamented yesterday where our country is in this process, and he said i'm under no illusion we can mend this process overnight, but he said perhaps judge jackson's confirmation hearing can, quote, bring us together again. what do you think? >> i think -- >> you told me what you think with that laugh. >> reporter: that's right. the way the supreme court processes have gone over the last several nominees just descended into more and more bitterness and partisanship and despite the qualifications of a nominee, even if the american bar association rates

the opposite of ginsburg and breyer's sentiment. the most radical pro-court packing fringe groups badly wanted this nominee for this vacancy. judge jackson was the court packer's pick, and she testified like it. second, for decades activist judges have hurt the country by trying to make policy from the bench. this has made judicial philosophy a key qualification that senators must consider. president biden stated he would only appoint a supreme court justice with a specific approach that is neither textualist or originalist. no strict constructionist need apply. and that president picked judge jackson. if the nominee had a paper trail on a constitutional issue, perhaps it could reassure us, but she doesn't. when justice gorsuch was nominated to the supreme court, he had written more than 200 circuit court opinions that senators could actually study. justice kavanaugh had written more than 300. justice barrett outpaced them both. she wrote almost 100 appellate opinions in just three years, plus years of scholarship as a star professo

you have been nominated to justice breyer's seat. you clerked for him and i know he has been, and is, a wonderful mentor to you. i would like to start with his words. he once wrote the supreme court must help maintain public acceptance of its own legitimacy. he said, "it can do this best by helping ensure that the constitution remains workable in a broad sense of the term. specifically it can and should interpret the constitution in a way that works for the people of today." those words, his words, are highly relevant to the court. and justice breyer did not just write about those values. in his 27 years on the court he lived them. he approached cases with a pragmatic view of the law and he understood the reference to the constitution requires not just a respect for the past, although it does that, but also an eye for the future. as we are here to confirm a new justice for his seat i urge my colleagues to remember his words about how the court must consider the effect of its action on people's lives. how it must see the people at the

it's humbling to be considered for justice breyer's seat and yi know i could never fill his shoes.nfirmed, i would hope to carry on his spirit. on the day of his supreme court nomination, justice breyer said what is law supposed to do seen as a whole? it is supposed to allow all people, aum people to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better so they can work productively together. end quote. i could not have said it better myself. members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work productively to support and defend the constitution and this grand experiment of american democracy that has endured over these past 246 years. i have been a judge for nearly a decade now and i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral posture. i evaluate the facts and i interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. i know that my ro

she went to harvard college, harvard law school, she clerked for justice breyer. one thing that often gets left out when we talk about her qualifications is that she was on the shortlist back in 2016 when president obama was looking for a nominee to fill the vacancy left by the death of justice antonin scalia. he ended up choosing judge merrick garland who did not get a hearing because of the posture that mitch mcconnell said at the time, there is the tradition of not confirming nominee in a presidential election year. but she was on the shortlist. clearly when president obama was looking at the entire field of potential candidates, thought enough of her at the time to include her on the shortlist. host: what about the other issue that the caller brings out on faith in the court? the caller expressing his own views on specific members. but this idea about the public space and the severe court to do its job? guest: it is something that is very important. it is something that at least some of the justices are very cognizant of. remember that the supreme court, they

you have been nominated to justice breyer's seat. you clerked for him and i know he has been, and is, a wonderful mentor to you. i would like to start with his words. he once wrote the supreme court must help maintain public acceptance of its own legitimacy. he said, "it can do this best by helping ensure that the constitution remains workable in a broad sense of the term. specifically it can and should interpret the constitution in a way that works for the people of today." those words, his words, are highly relevant to the court. and justice breyer did not just write about those values. in his 27 years on the court he lived them. he approached cases with a pragmatic view of the law and he understood the reference to the constitution requires not just a respect for the past, although it does that, but also an eye for the future. as we are here to confirm a new justice for his seat i urge my colleagues to remember his words about how the court must consider the effect of its action on people's lives. how it must see the people at the

ketanji brown jackson nominated to replace justice breyer. she also clerked for justice breyer. you can follow the hearing in its entirety on c-span and join us as well online at c-span.org. you can use our mobile video app to follow the hearing in its entirety. california senator dianne feinstein asked her questions earlier today. we'll take a look at some of them during the break. fine fine a few months later we -- ms. feinstein: a few months later we considered the nomination of justice ginsburg to the supreme court. justice ginsburg's kofrpl makes made her only the second woman to serve on supreme court. after justice sandra day o'connor. so we have come a very long way since then. though still not far enough. women now make up about 35% of active judges on the federal district bench and 37% of active judges on the federal appeals court. judge jackson if confirmed, you would become the sixth woman to ever serve on the supreme court. you would join justices sotomayor, kagen and barrett on bench. this would be the nearest we have ever come to gender equity on the supreme court

president biden's pick to replace retiring justice stephen breyer. this is a historic moment we are seeing play out on capitol hill. she is the first black woman to ever than nominated to the supreme court. if confirmed, she will be the first black female justice in the court's more than 200-year history. yesterday, introducing herself to the committee, to the nation and today they get down to business. >> we are taking a peek inside that hearing room as senators are filtering to take their seats. the first chance for the senators to question the judge publicly. a clear party line as kped. some republicans used their opening statements yesterday to pay judge jackson soft on crime and democrats say her background as a trial judge and former public defender is an asset that will be a critical addition to the court. the judge, herself, gave a very personal opening statement yesterday. her parents were there. her children and her husband were there. she vowed to defend the constitution and decide cases without fear or favor and saying neutrality would be

do you agree with justice breyer and justice ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea?ore you respond, i would like to say that you say this question should be left to congress as a policy issue. i reiterate that sitting supreme court justices have spoken on that matter, so i don't think it would be inappropriate for you to do, the other people sitting there have said that it's bad idea. >> well, respectfully, senator, other nominees to the supreme court have responded as i will, which is, that it is a policy question for congress and i am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues, because i am so committed to staying in my lane of the system. because i'm just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. >> okay. >> then i would interrupt your answer -- and you don't have to respond to this, but i think you're saying that breyer and ginsburg should not have stated their views on that issue. during his opening statement yesterday, one member of this committee suggested that the supreme court has been bought by dark money grou

justice breyer? >> how is this any different than epa versus brown? they're the epa announced it planning to modify regulation that have been challenged. the government asked like you are asking, that we offer guidance to the epa with various points in your brief you talk about guidance for the ruling that's taking effect. we strongly said that the advisory opinion. the government has disavowed and we said regulations coming, how are you different from the epa, number one. and number two, i am not sure how the ace rule which is also that's being put on hold but waiting for the numeral oral hurt shoot the new rule or supersede both. >> verse we do not know epa will do. >> its absolute trooper. >> that's the standard the court uses former gym with voluntary cessation the next rules entirely in the control of respondent, this court say the kate is not moot unless it's certain pre- >> this is not it moved question this is an advisory opinion question that is how the epa discussed the requests of course your honor that case will look towards the prudential

and clerked for breyer in 1999. >> it is extremely humbling to be considered for justice breyer's seat. >> reporter: during opening statements senators pointed out the historic nature of jackson's nomination. >> the appointment of a black woman to the united states supreme court, let's be very blunt, should have happened years ago. >> reporter: republicans also acknowledged the importance of jackson's nomination while previewing how they plan to get specific on cases she oversaw as a federal judge. >> prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison. judge jackson gave the defendant three months in price on. >> reporter: others on the gop side promised to avoid personal attacks referencing justice brett kavanaugh's hearing. >> no one's going to ask you with mock severity, do you like beer. >> my republican colleagues have raised issues. she has hat to sit by without responding. tomorrow she'll have her day. >> reporter: jackson will face two days of questioning. because senators control the senate, jackson is likely to advance. >>> democratic leaders hope to confirm jackson to the supreme c

district judge patty saris, bruce celia and security justice stephen breyer. these extraordinary people were exceptional role models. justice breyer in particular, not only gave me the greatest job that any young lawyer could ever hope to have, but he also exemplifies what it means to be a supreme court justice of the highest level of skill and integrity, civility and grace. it is extremely humbling to be considered for justice breyer's seat and i know that i could never fill his shoes. if confirmed, i would hope to carry on his spirit. on the day of his supreme court nomination, justice breyer said "what is law supposed to do? seen as a whole. it is supposed to allow all people, all people, to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better so that they can work productively together." i could not have said it better myself. members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work productively to support and defend the constituti

but i'll just quote something that justice breyer once said. he told this committee if you're going to have a free enterprise economy then you must have a strong and effective antitrust law. do you agree with justice breyer's statement, and how would you characterize the goals of our antitrust laws? >> well, thank you, senator. the antitrust laws protect competition and, as you said, therefore, protect consumers and competitors and the economy as a whole. and the sherman act and the clayton act are broad in their statements, in their protections, and there's a lot of precedent in this area. if i were confirmed, i would use my methodology to look at the precedents in these areas to ensure any legislation that i was considering is interpreted according to the text consistent with congress' intent. and in the area of antitrust that is ensuring there is consumer protections. >> very good. and just -- >> you are watching msnbc's special coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. and we will return to the hea

that is something justice breyer talks about frequently in his writing and speaking. without the trust of american people, the court cannot do its job. the rule of law exist because the rule of law and only do so when they have faith in the court. >> let me ask -- i think the point is very well said. congresswoman beatty and mr. henderson, we are celebrating here a remarkable achievement. said it should have happened long ago. it is a leap into the present and the historic nomination by president biden the first black woman to the united states supreme court. but as much as we celebrate, as i pointed out yesterday, the decisions of the court that essentially have set us back, especially. john lewis was a great friend and hero to you coming to me on integration, backsliding as well. maybe i can ask you to reflect on, both of you because you have such a deep and broad experience in this area, about the ways that the supreme court has reversed some of the progress that was made in our own lifetime? judge beatty: let me say thank you for that question. i am sure that cong

biden has tapped judge ketanji brown jackson to replace retiring justice stephen breyer.ack woman to sit on the nation's highest court if confirmed. joan biskupic is a supreme court biographer and cnn analyst. so you have a new piece on cnn.com today, and you write, jackson's hearings will showcase her status as the first black woman nominated to the high court. yet the televised sessions will also bring into national focus the trajectory of america's highest court, now controlled by a conservative supermajority. tell us how you think that will impact the hearings. >> so good to see you, fredricka. this is such a dramatic moment. first of all, the history-making nomination we have here and then also this transformative moment for the supreme court. the justices have already cut back on voting rights and racial remedies and they are poised to obliterate abortion rights and gun control possibilities in the cities, so with this six-justice conservative majority, it's really a different court now. obviously, solidified by donald trump's three appointees. so as much as republi

and that justice breyer's position was more toward that latter view. that the idea of the constitution needing to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern sensibleties about the principles that the document reflects. and i would just say that it appears now that the supreme court has taken justice scalia's view that the prevailing ininterpreter frame for interpreting the constitution is now clearly looking back through history. so we see that even in the heller case where the justices, even the justices in dissent, were all analyzing the issues in the second amendment through a historical lens. what was meant at the time of the founding. so that is now the way in which constitutional interpretation is done. >> do you identify with that position? >> i identify with the position in so far as that's how the text is interpreted of the constitution. that i am a strong believer, as i said, in precedent, starre decisis and the way the law interprets the constitution is through this historical frame. >> i'm grateful for your last couple of minute

clerked for breyer. served on the u.s. district court for the district of columbia and nominated to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and senate confirmed her last year. as we await this hearing to continue andy mccarthy is still with us. sort of preview what you expect as the afternoon comes on here and there is a whole other day of questioning of ketanji brown jackson. >> well, i think they are going to dive deeper into things that she has actually said. she has a long paper trail having been as shannon said not just a district judge for eight years but we heard during senator graham's questioning she has filed a number of briefs, amicus briefs with various courts. she has a paper trail. i expect they will pick over it. a couple of times today when she was confronted with things that she had represented to courts in briefs and she didn't seem to be completely on top of what she had said. so they are clearly going through the paper trail and i think she is probably going to have to study it even -- i'm sure s

cornyn: justice breyer wrote a book called active liberty.lawrence tribe who was formerly a law professor at harvard wrote a review of that book in the new york times review of books and the title is politicians in robes. you familiar? hon. judge jackson: i am not. sen. cornyn: in the article, professor tribe accuses justice breyer of engaging in what he called the noble lie. he said he talks about the reality of resorting to falsehoods to conceal the truth whose revelation would wreak havoc or at least do more harm than good. professor tribe goes on and criticizing justice breyer's book. he says in his stubborn -- that the court even with its far right super majority remains -- remains in a political body. he perpetuates ally that is anything -- he perpetuates up light that is anything but noble. we talk about not being seen as political. do you agree with justice breyer that or with professor tribe? hon. judge jackson: i believe that judges are not policymakers. we have a constitutional duty to decide on the cases and controversies that are

republicans and democrats to make clear they want someone of deep experience in the mold of justice breyeroday's testimony and the endorsement of the biggest on first organizations in our country make clear she is indeed in justice breyer's mold and so with that i will turn it over to jake and then i will take some questions. thank you. >> good afternoon all make a few comments and i'll be happy to take your questions. the president is headed to euroe to reinforce the unity we built and although russia may take more territory it will never take the country away from ukrainian people. since present biden and nineties began to wind the world of pending russian aggression back in november, we have clearly and consistently pursued those lines of effort. first help ukraine defend itself to have severe and escalating on russia through. >> endo pacific the parts of the world making the allies more resilient against other forms of russian aggression we may decisive moves on all three fronts and president biden's trip will involve further actions on each of these. attending emergency nato summit al

court of appeals to the district of columbia circuit to succeeds retiring justice stephen breyer. if confirmed, she would be the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process and watch our live uninterrupted coverage of the confirmation hearings starting today at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, www.c-span.org or by downloading the free c-span now video app. >> as we look ahead this morning day of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court nominee hearings, we get the first of two perspectives on this confirmation hearing today. remind us what the judicial crisis network is and how it is funded. guest: our organization is a 501(c) 4 organization. there was a lot of hostility towards george bush's nominees in the first time historically the filibuster was being used to block nominees so we were making sure nominees would be faithful to the constitution and the rule of law were able to get through the process and re-advocate into commentary on major supreme court issues. >> host: what type of nominee is judge ketanji brown jackson. g

i think he was also thinking of your predecessor, justice breyer in that regard. and i think over the years how important that is even in a body like the u.s. senate. i see senator tillis here. we worked together on i.p. issues. senator cornyn and i on freedom of information issues. senator grassley and i on other issues and graham and i on various issues. and usually in the senate at least, if you work across the ideological spectrum, you get better results. some ask you how would you describe your approach to building consensus on cases related to issues like intellectual property, that a rest likely to break along traditional ideological lines? >> thank you, senator. one of the things that i was able to do when i worked on the sentencing commission was work with people who had very different perspectives than i did about the criminal justice system and come to consensus. it is very important, as you've said, to try to find common ground and justice breyer was such a wonderful model, role model for that kind of ability as a supreme court justice. it is something

consensus building was one of the things that justice breyer was particularly good at in terms of his. in the time that i worked for him, i witnessed the way in which he continually reaches out to colleagues. continually seeks common ground. and it is something that i would hope to be able to emulate if i were to be confirmed. when i worked on the sentencing commission, the commission is a seven-member body working on sentencing policy which is at times a pretty contentious effort. we're talking about criminal justice as commissioners. we are working on policy issues related to appropriate sentencing, and by statute, the commission is a bipartisan group. and during my four years as a commissioner, i was able to work well with other members of the commission to find common ground. to work on issues. to come together. and the vast majority, i heard a statistic that something like 95% or 97% of the votes the commission took were unanimous. and that happened because of a lot of effort and intention on the part of all involved to work together. and that would be the kind of thing that i wo

justice breyer, thank you for your service.tion. he will retire after nearly 28 years on the court. that wholesome moment went viral with many praising the 83-year-old justice to the relatedly bashful reaction. one person tweeting "me when a waiter comes to the table when they sing me happy birthday." another writing "justice breyer is just adorable." >> and poor sajak and van a only could sit by and watch the humiliation of three of our fellow americans as it unfolded over two minutes. we have trimmed it down for you in the interest of time and out of respect for the victims. >> another feather in your hat. >> g. >> no g. >> another feather in your lap. >> no. >> d. >> no. >> well, what letter would you like? >> a p? >> yes, there's a p. spin or solve? >> i will solve. >> okay. >> another feather in your map? >> my goodness. that was only 45 seconds of it as america collectively yelled at its televisions and angry mobs formed in the streets, thomas finally solved in your cap. sajak took cut them some slack. unless you're there

professor tribe goes on ain criticizing justice breyer's book.ourt even with its far right supermarmity remains an apolitical body, he perpetuates a lie that is anything but noble. you've talked about staying in your lane, not making policy decisions, not being seen as political. do you agree with justice breyer that -- or with professor tribe? >> senator, i believe that judges are not policymakers. that we have a constitutional duty to decide only cases and controversies that are presented before us and within that framework. judges exercise their authority to interpret the law and not make the law. >> so you would agree with me that judges should not be politicians? >> yes. >> let me talk to you a little bit about some of the decisions that have been made by the supreme court over many years, starting perhaps with dred scott that adopts the substantive due process argument to determine the constitutionality of various laws. perhaps the most recent decision by the supreme court that was a dramatic departure from previous laws in the states and i

i think along those lines, your wonderful mentor, justice breyer, i quoted him about how he said, we can help maintain public acceptance of the court, and these are his words, we can do it best by helping ensure that the constitution remains workable in a broad sense of the term, specifically the court can and should interpret the constitution in a way that works for the people of the day, like as you know, i think section -- article ii, section 2 doesn't refer to the air force because we didn't have an air force back then. so, are there things about the constitution that, of course, as we've gone along, have been interpreted to meet the moments of our time. what do you think justice breyer means when he says the constitution should be interpreted in a way that works for the people of today and do you think a justice can be both pragmatic and objective and respect history? >> i do. and i think that the justices have demonstrated that. some of their recent opinions have had to deal with modern technology, technologies that did not exist at the time of the founding, so for example, the

maybe to the left of breyer or maybe we just don't know enough to really say?k almost certainly to the left of breyer. i think also to the left of kagan. somewhere between kagan is the best bet on the issue. the interesting thing is that the vote that's going to come from the republicans is going to be known for almost all of them. i think 52 -- 48 is a good guess with the ultimate result is going to be there going to be voting no on judicial philosophy primarily that's appropriate that did not used to be the case that senators voted no on judicial philosophy. i think it's perfectly fine to take that into account whether you are a democrat or a republican but let's be clear that it's what we are fighting about because we have diversion interpretive theories mapping onto partisan preference at a time of the parties are more ideologically sorted than they been in quite some time. there is really no way to find it uncontroversial nominee or someone who's not going to be confirmed by a very narrow margin these days. >> alright thank you so much for coming in. still

professor tribe goes on in criticizing justice breyer's book. he says in his stubborn avoul, that the court, even with its current far-right super majority remains an apolitical body, he pech wait as lie that is anything but noble. you talked about staying in your lane, not being seen as political. do you agree with justice breyer that -- or with professor tribe? >> senator, i believe that judges are not policy makers. that we have a constitutional duty to decide only cases and controversies presented before us and within that framework. judges exercise their authority to interpret the law and not make the law. >> so, you would agree with me that judges should not be politicians? >> yes. >> let me talk to you a little bit about some of the decisions that have been made by the supreme court over many years, starting perhaps with dread scott. that adopts the substntative due process argument to determine the constitutionality of various laws. perhaps the most recent decision by the supreme court that was a dramatic departure from previous laws in

both ginsburg and breyer denounced court-packing. as sitting justices they commented freely on the subject. the justices knew that expressing a clear view and defending their institution was not, i repeat, not judicially inappropriate in any way. but judge jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of ginsburg and breyer. she refuses to rule out what the radical activists want. she told senator kennedy she does not have an opinion on court-packing, but it's not a strongly held opinion. in any event she wouldn't tell the senator what it was. but the nominee made sure to quietly signal openness, openness to the radicals' position. she told senators she could see both sides of the court-packing debate where justices ginsburg and breyer slammed the door, judge jackson leaves it open. she even told the committee, quote, i would be thrilled to be one of however many congress thought appropriate to put on the court. thrilled to be one of however many congress thought appropriate to put on the court. however many? i'm not sure judge jack

court of appeals judge bruce selia and supreme court justice stephen breyer.se extraordinary people were exceptional role models. justice breyer in particular not only gave me the greatest job that any young lawyer could ever hope to have, but he also exempliies what it means to be a supreme court justice at the highest level of skill and integrity, civility and grace. it is extremely humbling to be considered for justice breyer's seat and i know that i could never fill his shoes. but if confirmed, i would hope to carry on his spirit. on the day of his supreme court nomination, justice breyer said, quote, what is law supposed to do, seen as a whole? it is supposed to allow all people, all people to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs, to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better, so that they can work productively together, end quote. i could not have said it better myself. members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work productively to support and defen