both justices o'connor and ginsburg did exactly that. they showed what it meant to blaze trails and to break the glass ceilings, as the first and second woman to serve on the supreme court, 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 buildin

in fact, justice ginsburg herself spoke out against cancel culture. she was once asked how could she be friends with the late justice scalia? they held vastly different views and in her response, she quoted justice scalia by saying i attacked ideas. i do not attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas". she is also famously quoted as saying fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will leave others to join you -- will lead others to join you. in short, mr. speaker, it is ok to fight for what you believe in . it is ok to disagree or even despise what someone else believes. but it does not mean they do not have a right to those beliefs. unfortunately, this contrasts with some of the actions of my friends on the others of the aisle these past few years. i hope this serves as an example that we can disagree without being disagreeable. that we choose to rise above being easily offended and instead respect alternative points of view. and the halls of congress replace where everyone feels their viewpoints and beliefs are

both justices o'connor and ginsburg did exactly that. they showed what it meant to blaze trails and to break the glass ceilings, as the first and second woman to serve on the supreme court, 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 buildin

judge, ginsburg. and you're watching american history tv, and we're looking back at the women who've been nominated to the supreme court. well justice sonia sotomayor was the third woman ever nominated to the court and the first hispanic. president barack obama nominated her to replace the retiring david souter. you delivered her opening statement before the senate judiciary committee, july 13th, 2009. judge now we will administer. you also let the two senators step back if they'd like and we can. his raise your right hand. you swear it's a testimony you are about to give before the committee be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. so how you got i do. thank please be seated. and i thank my two colleagues from new york for the introduction and i i appreciate it because i know both have known you for some time. judge, you've also introduced a number of members of your family. and now the floor is yours. thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank senator schumer and gillibrand. for th

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

and ginsburg died in 2020 from cancer. the statues will be displayed at the u.s.itol. >>> we're back with a local history lesson on kelly clarkson's show, featuring a familiar face. >>> all right, if you saw the kelly clarkson show today, you got a local history lesson from someone you know well. >> once the bay bridge and you see over here, the golden gate bridges were built, that became obsolete. it went through a complete redo, and now it is a world class food market. >> look who that is. from california live. with her is the travel mom, emily kaufman, who's helping kelly with her spring forward segment. she says she's packing her bags for san francisco. >> she's moving here. >> kelly and malou could co-anchor the news with us. >> that was really fun. >>> here's what we have at 5:30. the first real signs of progress. renewed peace talks between russia and ukraine, but president biden is tempering optimism. >> we'll see. i don't read anything into it until i see what their actions are. >>> the one thing ukraine's president is demanding that will make it difficul

here's senator biden and ruth bader ginsburg. judge ginsburg. welcome thank you, and believe me you are welcome here this morning. as i said to you. a few moments ago writing down the train this morning. i have my usual stack of newspapers. i will not name them all for fear of getting in trouble. but one that i had. beyond the wilmington news journal, which is the most important paper in america. with the new york times, and i looked at page one. there was no comment about this hearing. looked at page two. there was was no comment page three. and i literally thought i picked up yesterday's edition. and then as they say my heart sang when i realized it was page 8 or 10 or 12, which was the most wonderful thing that has happened to me. since i've been chairman of this committee that a major hearing warranted eighth or ninth or 10th page because thus far had as generated so little controversy, so you are welcome. on a more serious note today the senate judiciary committee welcomed judge ruth bader ginsburg. the president's nominated to be associate

justice rued baiter ginsburg -- ruth bader ginsburg once signed an opinion and donatedded it to a pro-abortione that group was having a case before the court. she herself opined on whether trump's taxes were an issue before she heard a case on that, and nobody call her for recausal. and these are much -- these are were actually dealing with the justice hearse. this is, yet again, a political attempt to take down justice thomas which has been going on for 30 years. howard: well, it is up to justice thomas and and he alone to decide whether to recuse. pundits are calling for that, and he has heard a couple of january 6th cases. but ginny thomas, she had a lot of access to the trump white house and the president, so how big is it as a news story that she's offering some q anontheories and saying this is -- c- -- q-anon theory? >> it's not a nothing story, i would definitely say that. it is important to note here ginny thomas is absolutely entitled to say whatever she wants, and just because she is the wife of a supreme court justice does not mean that she has to be quiet and not say those things.

it would seem that they had already prejudged the issue and that dates back to justice ruth bader ginsburg during her confirmation hearing in 1993 when she said she would give no forecast, no preview. there are a couple of journalists who have done stories on this. justice ginsburg during her confirmation hearing said quite a bit against -- about some substantive issues including the right to an abortion. in any event, you have to separate how they might vote on particular issues and what we learn about them more broadly, what comes out of the process. even if they are not giving forecast and previews about how they might vote on a particular issue, what senators and journalists and people who are going into the hearing have spent a lot of time reading, in the case of judge jackson, all of their opinions. in the case of justice kavanaugh, reading all of his emails and opinions as a court of appeals judge versus what the public -- it does not necessarily have time to read all of these things. what the public learns about a nominee, they do learn a lot more about the issues facing the court,

justice ginsburg also cited court packing as being, quote/unquote, a bad idea.rt packing is creating new seats for political purposes for a president to appoint more justices. do you agree with justice breyer and justice ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea? before 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 ginsbu

the nomination of ruth bader ginsburg.re were accolades from all quarters about some of her legacy. you write in 1992, both liberal and conservative groups had reservations. renee: i think we forget that she was actually considered quite conservative comparatively. she certainly was not the notorious rpg in any way. there was concern from women's rights groups that she would not be as vocal a champion as they would want. of course, that's not how it played out, which is not unusual for a supreme court justice -- it's a lifetime appointment. even though the lower federal courts are also lifetime, judges have to be mindful they can be reversed or maybe they want to be elevated in the future. in the supreme court that is not the case. justices do change in their philosophies and the way they handle cases. she is a great example, and when i think we forget now, because we know her so much as not just the incredible justice she was, but this cultural icon, incredible symbol of progressive, radical feminism. that was not at all

and in my case i thought this is not asking too much from her to agree with justice ginsburg and breyer back in the supreme court with this idea, her refusing to do that is strange. and then there is a whole issue that was much on display in committee with regard to her attitude about sentencing certain kinds of criminal cases in which it appears is at 100 percent of the time she was following the sentencing guidelines and i think i was struggling to a lot of remembers but i think that she is nominated the president would want and i don't think he'll be disappointed in her performance over the years. >> questing setback in terms of this report in the same as you pointed out the justice khalil was confirmed by a 90 - zero vote in 1986, and ginsburg become a client cenobite 96 - three and you voted for our bg it would change that bipartisan nature . happening when it comes to this. >> i think that democrats - robert borg, to give us pretty clear that we were moving into a time of la set point periodic assertiveness and consent and what is mean, whatever the senate at any given time think

and that was the argument that ruth bader ginsburg used when she was still an attorney to argue to to write the brief that that one supreme court's decision. to declare sexual discrimination to be unconstitutional that was a huge breakthrough and it was because of polymerie and and ginsburg acknowledged that by putting her name on the brief. no her role as a figure in american legal history is enormous, but we know ginsburg and we know marshall we don't know her exactly and this we begin to see or ibmc reasons. that reasons why but i began to see the you know the nature of this discrimination very vividly around the time of the march on washington in 1962 by this point. she's a well-known figure certainly within the civil rights legal community. and the march on washington which we all know about is about to take place and she's not very pleased with the way. it's proceeding. so she rights to a philip randolph who was one of the organizers the labor leader who was one of the organizers of the march. could you? read what she said to him. page 74 74 yes. and by the way, hey philip rando

do you interpret justice ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female. >> i again, becausenow the case, i don't know how i interpret, i need to read the whole thing. >> can you provide a definition for the word woman. >> can i provide a definition? i can't. >> you can't? >> not in this context, i'm not a biologist. >> the meaning of the word win it is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition? >> senator, in my work as a judge, but i do is i address disputes. if there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and i look at the law, and i decide. >> well, the fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as when a woman's, and underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about. just last week, an entire generation of young girls, watched as our taxpayer funded institutions permitted a biological man to compete and beat a biological woman in the ncaa sewing championship. what message do you think this sends to girls, who aspire to compete and win in sports at the highest le

justice ginsburg also cited court packing as being, quote unquote, a bad idea. court packing is creating new seats for political purposes for a president to appoint more judges. do you agree with justice breyer and justice ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea before you respond, i'd 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 if other people sitting there have said that it's a bad idea. >> 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 just am not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. >> then i would interpret your answer and you don't have to respond to this, but i think you're saying breyer and ginsburg should not have stated th

. >> no, her role as a figure in american legal history is enormous. >> yes. >> we know ginsburg. and we know marshall. we don't know her. >> exactly. >> this -- we begin to see -- i begin to see reasons -- not reasons why, but i begin to see, you know, the nature of this discrimination very vividly around the time of the march on washington in 1962. by this point, she's a well-known figure specifically within the civil rights community. and the march on washington, which we all know about, is about to take place. and she's not very pleased with the way it's proceeding. she writes to a. philip randolph, who is one of the organizers -- a labor leader who was one of the organizers of the march. can you read what she said to him? page 74. >> 74. yes. and by the way, a. philip randolph and his, and his march on washington movement from the 1940s hired her. he was her first real employer. and this is what she said to him when rosa parks, daisy bathes, clark, all the prominent women of the civil rights movement were given seconds on the podium at the march on washington. 74? i'm not the

justice ginsburg, quote, a bad idea. court packing is creating new seats for political purposes for a president to appoint more judges. do you agree with justice breyer and justice ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea? before you respond, i'd like to say 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 if other people sitting there have said that it's a 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 interpret your answer -- and you don't have to respond to this, but i think you're saying breyer and ginsburg should not hav

she would -- i don't want to say dodge the questions but i thought she would seek refuge in the ginsburg rule and try to be kurt when it came to things that might come before the court. a very interesting exchange with senator graham about whether the nation is still at war and what that portends for our authority under the laws of war to detain enemy combatants. it seems to me that a lot of us have been saying for many years now that the authorization for military force that we've been operating under since 2001 needs overhauling and needs to be looked at. at the same time that goes on we also have president biden saying that he has basically ended the war, at least in afghanistan. at a certain point in time it will have to be grappled with whether by congress or the court whether we are at war and whether we therefore have authority under the laws of war to continue to detain the enemy combatants. senator graham seems to suggest because he thinks if you release them it would be very dangerous for americans, that that's enough to keep them detained. but it is not. somebody has to decide

hearing, justice ginsburg spoke very candidly about her views on how different precedents were -- how different cases were reasoned on the merits of legal doctrines and these are things that we just haven't seen in recent years in hearings. so, you know, there will be hearings, lots of posturing and then the committee will vote on the nomination. and we have a tied senate, a tied judiciary committee, 11-11. and this is where if there's a party line vote it will get discharged to the floor and there will be a floor vote and several procedural votes and a final vote. and that's how we should expect this to proceed but how much friction is introduced at various stages of process is what remains to be seen and you can see kind of in real time and republicans on the right trying to come up with what their narrative is to oppose a nominee who hasn't been named yet. >> ajay, having worked in the senate for a few years, you're jaded and cynical, you know how this all works. if you're somebody who is watching this process, you're trying to get to know this nominee, what do you think people cou

susan: you described thurgood marshall and ruth bader ginsburg, both were activists. what their nominations be considered today given the way the process works? prof. barton: marshall would be a lot harder. he did not go tlr harvard. he went -- he did not go to yale or harvard. he is a self-described hellraiser before he turned the corner and became a more serious person. he would have had a hard time. he does not meet the educational background and he would have been more controversial. ruth bader ginsburg would be controversial. they took stands along the way before they got there. the current route to the court encourages keeping your head down and working hard. like a silent version of jumping through all of these ever narrowing hoops. i do not think that is helpful. susan: you referenced how presidents use to appoint politicians. we pulled these numbers from your book. before 1980, 14 u.s. senators, 17 house members, five continental congress members, one president, or two in your telling, 10 governors, five mayors, and 40 state legislators, sandra day o'connor w

justice ginsburg said no. she thought if he changed the number every time somebody new came into power, it would ruin the court in the eyes of the public and make it a joke overtime. i agree with that. i hope you can give us an answer to that question because i think the court would be better off if the judges stood up for the court. if the judges told politicians, don't play this game with the court because over time nobody wins. congratulations. it is going to be a couple of interesting days and we are off to a better start than we have been in the past. the one thing i can promise you, you will not be vilified, you will not be attacked for your religious views, you will not be accused of something you could not defend yourself against until it was too late. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. senator feinstein? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. i want to begin by congratulating you, judge jackson, on this appointment. i have reviewed the records of a number of judicial nominees during my service on th

judge ginsburg, justice ginsburg had tons of conflicts of interest.but there is also this dangerous rhetoric that you're not allowed to have anyons problems with the 2020 election that is un-american to say that itit in fact is completely legitimate to have issues with the 2020 election problems-a, whether it's about the media corruption or big tech censorship or all of the changes to laws, the hundreds of changes of lawss and processes 40% had somes problems with the private takeoverto of government electin offices through mark zuckerberg funding. and there's this attempt to just make it>> where you can't talk about those things at all and that's very un-american. that's a typical now and here's how joe biden responded when asked if justice thomas should recuse himself from cases involving january 6th or trump only that the two entities one the january six committee and through the justice department, that's their judgment tree, t, not min. those things get into legal issues and in fact, i told youha i would not tell the justice department what posit

look at justice ginsburg. he knew she was a pro-abortion activist for years, and no one ever reads sort of suggestion that she should recuse yourself on abortion cases. >> she even criticized president trump, as i recall. nancy pelosi knows how recusal is kind of work, even if she wants to use them. she told how democrats today -- it is up to an individual justice to decide to do dominic recuse himself if a wife is participating in a coup, mollie. this isn't so petty. >> mollie: it's unbelievable and ridiculous. it's worth noting that the aclu, that judge reinhardt and the ninth circuit in california, his wife was serving as executive director of the aclu while he was deciding cases that involve the aclu. justice ginsburg had tons of conflicts of interest. there's also a dangerous rhetoric that you are not allowed to have any problems in 2020 elections. that is un-american to say that. it's legitimate to have issues with 2020 election, whether it's about media correction, big tech censorship, or the changes to

justice ginsburg quoted it as being a "bad idea."court packing is creating new seats for political purposes for a president to appoint more judges. do you agree with justice breyer and justice ginsburg that court packing is a bad idea. before you respond, i would like to say, you say this question should be left congress as a policy issue. i reiterate sitting supreme court justices have spoken on that matter so i don't think it would be inappropriate to you to do if other people sitting there have said it is a bad idea. judge jackson: respectfully, senator, other nominees to the supreme court have responded as i will, which is that it is a policy question for congress. i am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because i am so committed to staying in my lane of the system. i am just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body. senator: then i would interpret your answer, and you do not have to respond to this but i think you are saying breyer and ginsburg should not have stated their

ruth bader ginsburg and justice brown has said packing the supreme court is a bad idea that is abouthe integrity of the court. not how you rule. i don't understand why this nominee is unwilling to take a position that defends the integrity of the court leading at the same dark many groups that are so enthusiastically supporting her or in favor packing the court just would not answer the question. >> [inaudible]

antonin scalia was confirmed 98-0, ruth bader ginsburg by 96 -3. the rule of a is a fragile possibility in the best of times. today, it is literally under attack in ukraine and threatened around the world and in our own country by autocrats and their sympathizers who give lip service to the rule of law but working to undermine it. as justice scalia taught us, the indispensable feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judges who have taken an oath not to a president or a party but to the be impartial. judge ketanji brack -- ketanji jackson brown has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to that oath. i applaud this nomination which encourage the senate to confirm. >> thank. lisa fairfax. >> my name is lisa fairfax. i am a professor of law at the university of pennsylvania school of law. prior to my academic career, i worked at a large law firm. but before that, i was roommates and a very different at harvard of coalition builder. we knew early on she could be anything she chose to be, but also that she seemed

house which will consider legislation to bring statues of supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg and sandra day o'connor to the u.s. capitol. you're watching live coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 28, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable sylvia r. garcia to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. holy god, unite us in yourself. and in that union may we find mutual comfort in your loving embrace. and the desire to share together in your spirit. may our manner reflect your tenderness and our motive your compassion. in so doing may we make your joy, your satisfaction in us reveal to us how like-minded we are despite the wide variety of opinions and passions. we mind us that we reach belong to you. even more than to our allegiances and associations.

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

look at ruth bader ginsburg, she is one who went to every pro-abortion dinner in town. she never accused herself on pro-life cases. by the way, and reminder. in 2016, ruth bader ginsburg said that she couldn't think of a world where donald trump would be president. in fact, she said that she would move to new zealand if donald trump was elected president. do you think she recused herself from lawsuits that involve donald trump or any executive order of donald trump's pending before this supreme court? no. this is a hypocrisy of the left. >> sean: i look at the double standard. ginni thomas sent out a text. hunter biden made millions and millions and millions of dollars. joe lied about knowledge of these business deals. there is no comparison. by the same standards are now being applied as it relates to joe and hunter. if hunter's last name happened to be trump like yours is, that would be an even bigger problem, wouldn't it? >> i couldn't even begin to imagine, sean, if my last name was trump. it would be a very different situation but i think we need to take a step bac