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. 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

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

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

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

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

, 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

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

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

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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

district court, sometimes circuit court, even once or twice at the supreme court, these courts tendto 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 past. courts have weakened it, senator lahey and i usually find ourselves having to pass legislation to say to the courts, you got it wrong. in fact there is a controversial bill right now before the u.s. senate on that very subject. it has fought fraud in the department of defense, health care industry, pharmaceutical industries. $70 billion is pretty important. if you are approved to be on the supreme court in the issue of false claims comes up, i hope you think of chuck grassley. [laughter] well, and senator lahey. [laughter] the false claims act is one of the best tools we have to fight against government fraud and recover taxpayer money. i have 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 questions and i will start with a former attorney g

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

that kind of emotional intelligence is what our courts need. not just our supreme court.egin by asking you as a role model for others, to talk a little bit to the young women and girls of america. particularly black young women and girls, about those challenges and obstacles that you've had to overcome to be here and what has helped you do it. >> thank you, senator. i am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the united states supreme court. i stand on the shoulders of generations past who never had anything close to this opportunity. who were the first and the only in a lot of different fields. my parents, as i said, were the first in their families to have the chance to go to college. i've been the first and the only in certain aspects of my life so i would say that i agree with you, that this is a moment that all americans should be proud. >> now, you've never been a prosecutor. a lot of us on this panel have been prosecutors. i was the u.s. attorney to chief federal prosecutor in conne

court of appeals retiring justice steven breyer on the u.s. supreme court. if confirmed judge jackson become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process it. watch our live, uninterrupted coverage of confirmation hearing starting at 118m eastern on c-span, c-span.org or downloading the free c-span now radio app. >> are now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory for this compact spiral bound book for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. also state governors of the biden administration cabinet preorder your cspanshop.org or scan the code with your smart code. every c-span shoppers it helps support nonprofit information. >> a tonight a hearing on tax filing season including the backlog of tax returns, the irs is attempting to process for hiring more employees. watch the house ways and means subcommittee hearing at 8:00 o'clock eastern on c-span2. let watch full coverage on

as a nominee to the supreme court, the supreme court did not address that issue. the case became moot. sen. graham: did you organize an effort to get 20 judges to file a brief to the supreme court to the decision. judge jackson not on that issue. sen. graham: on other issues? judge jackson: yes. sen. graham: did you recruit 20 judges to help you file on another brief? judge jackson: not technically. i was at my law firm. in the supreme court, and appellate group. one of the partners at morrison and foerster was a former federal judge who wanted to make this argument and i have former federal judges who are friends of mine that would like to join with me to make this argument. so i worked with her, a partner at my firm that was a former federal judge. sen. graham:: it was her idea? and you just help with the ample mentation? -- implementation? judge jackson: that is the practice. sen. graham: it was not your idea? judge jackson: yes. sen. graham: so, now, there are people still held at gitmo. today. do you understand that? judge jackson: yes. sen. graham: what syst

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

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

>> we cover the supreme court. we have been around for about three years now and we take a look at the biggest cases, oral arguments, opinions that are coming down. we also take a look at the world of the supreme court. we take a look at the attorneys and the justices and we try to peel back the veil for those who are listening and may be not as immersed in the supreme court wrote as we are. host: jimmy, let me ask you about judge jackson's confirmation hearings. tell me about what surprised you the most. was there anything you are not expecting? jimmy: it was certainly a marathon. although we have come to expect that. it was four days of intense testimony and questioning by the senate judiciary committee. in terms of what surprised me, we got to learn more about judge jackson's judicial philosophy. she has been before the committee before in previous capacities but had never been nominated to the supreme court. we got to learn about how she approaches cases. she stresses that she sees the judicial role as a very l

that were handed down by the court 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 process is receiving information from the parties in the case. the parties write briefing, and in most cases they identify the precedents that they at least believe they 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's anything that directly controls, and if it does that's your answer. in many cases the precedents might be a little bit different in certain ways and you are assessing the party's arguments in determination within your proper role whether what the appellate courts have said provides the law of decision for the case, but what's important as you've mentioned is the clarity by which courts of appeals in the supreme cour

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

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

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

court. sen. kennedy: ok. judge jackson: so you would be ok if it was 28? sen. kennedy: if that was congress -- judge jackson: if that was congress determination, yes, the congress makes decisions like that. sen. kennedy: ok. sen. kennedy: a couple of my colleagues ask you about the supreme court overturning precedent. now, it doesn't happen every other thursday, but it's not -- what's the word i'm searching for, judge? it's not extraordinary that the supreme court overturns precedent, is it? i mean it happens, i wouldn't say a lot, but it's not once every 50 years, mi correct? judge jackson: you are correct that it's more frequent than once every 50 years, for sure. sen. kennedy: so what happens? judge jackson: yes. sen. kennedy: you talked earlier briefly about the different factors that the court considers . hit that and just give me a couple. judge jackson: weathered the decision is egregiously wrong, whether there has been reliance on the decision that is being revisited, whether the dec

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

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

there are cases that are handed down by higher courts, the appellate court, the supreme court. those bind the lower court. even if you disagree with them, you have to follow them, because they're binding precedent. but there's also horizontal precedent. it's about maintaining consistency and predictability in the rule of law. what that means is, when you are in a district, there are many judges and if someone else in your district has handled a case that comes out or that involves the same issues and comes out in a certain way, you as the second judge have to contend with that ruling. you can't ignore the fact that there is precedent in your district that handles a case in a particular way. and with respect to the mcgahn case, the precedent wasn't just close, it was nearly identical. the myers case involved the former white house counsel and the argument by the executive that the former white house counsel had absolute immunity with respect to a request by the legislature that she provide testimony. my case involved a former white house counsel who was claiming absolute immunit

supreme court. state courts do much better. it's very exciting, we will have four women sitting on the u.s. of import. still not a majority. it is one step closer. we have never had a female chief justice. state courts do much better. there have been numerous chief justices of state supreme courts . the supreme court has lag behind, and this will bring it one step closer to better reflecting the public concerns. susan: maybe you could build on that. public polling is often mixed, sometimes the majority say it should not matter, and the chief justice referred to the job of the justice as being calling balls and strikes. why does gender or racial diversity make a difference in the high court? renee: there are a few reasons. with this appointment, it's not going to change the 6-3 conservative majority, the ideological divide. diversity matters well beyond just that particular makeup at this moment in time. it matters for institutional legitimacy. the supreme court has its power and authority because th

that kind of emotional intelligence is what our courts need. not just our supreme court. so i want to really begin by asking you as a role model for others to talk a little bit to the young women and girls of america. particularly black young women and girls. about those challenges and obstacles that you've had to overcome to be here and what's helped you do it. >> thank you, senator. i am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the united states supreme court. i stand on the shoulders of generations past who never had anything close to this opportunity, who were the first and the only in a lot of different fields. my parents, as i said, were the first in their families to have the chance to go to college. i've been the first and the only in certain aspects of my life so i would say that i agree with you that this is a moment that all americans should be proud. >> now you've never been a prosecutor. a lot of us on this panel have been prosecutors. i was four and a half years and attorney ge