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 given equal credence. mr. speaker, again, appreciate the balance of this b

the late justice scalia had nine children.ge family and not repeatedly grilled over who does the chores. on one hand, it reflects the reality that more often than not , women are the primary caregivers in a household situation. whether it is young children, elderly parents. it's important to acknowledge this. i don't think a confirmation hearing is the place to necessarily use that amongst how we are vetting who is qualified. it's questions like that that suggest somehow she or another nominee would be not as qualified if they did not achieve that balance in terms of their caregiving roles. instead, the focus should be, is she able to do the job as a justice? susan: what will you be watching for in the confirmation hearings of judge jackson? renee: well, i will be optimistically hoping they will focus on her incredible altercations -- qualifications. this is not the first time she has been through this process. she was confirmed by this very senate about a year ago. already, we are seeing commentary that is highly inappropriat

that is the dominant method as sheet name checks the late justice scalia. ot really learned that much. she did say she would not apply for a lot little bit of separation from her former boss the retiring justice breyer, but really there's not a substantive answer to how she's going to approach the institutions where the text is not specific. arthel: want to press the original is in point of course that's not only what anthony scalia acclaimed as one of his philosophical. that's what several of the current justices on the court are often described as conservative say it and they use that philosophy. i cannot remember any previous injustice, liberal essentially saying describing a regionalism in this way. what does that tell you about that philosophy? is this really a case of i just got to bow in that direction and i go off and judge anyway i want anyway. >> i think it's what she said. this is the dominant mode of interpretive theory. from robert bork 1987 until neil gorsuch an 2017 nobody called themselves an originalist. the last three nominees and courses,

the far left has issued near constant demands for the late justice scalia, justice alito, justice gorsuchstice kavanaugh and justice barrett to recuse themselves from various issues. all based on spurious accusations about fake ethical problems. this is a continuation of this well-worn pattern. it has no basis in justice thomas decades of impeccable service on the court which of the justices on the entire court should feel free to completely ignore all of this. his writing is clear. his reasoning is rigorous and transparent. i have total confidence in his impartiality in every aspect of the work of the court. each of the justices should feel free to make every decision they make with total independence and complete freedom. what cases they hear, how they hear them, how they rule. whether and when they recuse themselves and whether and when they retire. these are all judicial decisions . all nine justices deserved total independence as they approach every judicial decision they make. this clumsy bullying from the political branches is really beyond the pale. justice thomas is an exemplary

she was asked how could she be friends with the late justice antonin scalia. they held vastly different views and in her vie response she quoted justice scalia by say, i attack ideas, i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas, end quote. she's also famously quoted as saying, fight for the things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you. in short, mr. speaker, it's ok to fight for what you believe in. it's toke disagree or even dede-spice what someone else believes. but it doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs. unfortunately, this contrasts with some of the actions of mir friends on the other side of the aisle these past few years. i hope this serves as an example that we candice agree without being disagreeable. that we choose to rise above being easily offended and instead respect alternative points of view. and that the halls of congress are a place where everyone feels their viewpoints and beliefs are given equal credence. mr. speaker, again, i appreciate the balance of this bill. i rise

justice breyer won't reshape the court. but is there very real significance to someone having experience this court doesn't have? not just being a black woman, even the late conservative justice antonin scaliaof thurgood marshall, the first black justice, could change the way his colleagues looked at some of the cases in private conference. >> absolutely. nies are nine people who will sit together day in and day out discussing these cases, discussing the impact that it will have not just on supreme court precedent but on the american people. so having someone who, as you said, has a deep experience being a defense attorney both in public and private practice, someone who is from florida, there's geographic differences, who has a different life story and life experience on that court will certainly come to bear and is important. look, this court is making decisions that will affect all of us. and it is important that it has a broad range of experiences going in behind those opinions. also, it will be really important for her now to be shifting. she's usually in the majority now on the court she sits on the d.c. circuit. she'll be in the minority. she's going to be a dissent writer, and we're

justice scorches -- gorgeous application and wrote the following. "the court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague justice scalia. but no one should be fooled, the courts opinion is like a pirate ship. its sales under a textual is flagged, what would it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that justice scalia excoriated. the theory that courts should update those statutes so they better reflect the current values of society. and these are two justices who are usually in agreement. so much for labels. instead of trying to fix a label on you, i'd rather focus on the fact that you are fair and objective in your approach. that you are evenhanded in your application of law to the facts, and the you are independent. during your last confirmation hearing you spoke about judicial independence. about what you learned during the three clerkships in your then eight years on the bench. you said, and i quote, i know very well what my obligations are, what my duties are. not to rule with partisan advantage in mind. not to tailor craft my decisions in order to gain, influence, or anything of the sort,".

a tired old tactic and in recent years the far left has issued near constant demands to the late justice scalia, justice gorsuch, justice kavanaugh and justice barrett to recuse themselves from where the far left felt it might not like certain rulings based on accusations about the ethical problems or partiality. this new inappropriate pressure campaign is just a continuation of this well-worn pattern. it has no basis in justice thomas decades of impeccable service on the court. the justice and entire court should feel free to completely ignore all of this . justice clarence thomas is a great american, and outstanding justice. he is faithful to the text of our laws and constitution. is writing is clear, his reason is rigorous and transparent and i have total confidence justice thomas impartiality in every aspect of the work of the court. each of the nine justices should feel free to make every single judicial decision they make with total independence and complete freedom. what cases they hear, how they hear them, how they rule . whether and when they recuse themselves and whetherand when they

in recent years, the far left has issued near constant demands to the late-justice scalia, justice alito, justice gar such, justice kavanaugh and justice barrett to recuse themselves from areas that the far left feared they might not like a certain ruling all based on spurious allegations about fake ethical problems or partiality. this new, inappropriate pressure campaign is just a continuation of this well-worn pattern. it has no basis in justice thomas' decades of impeccable service on the court. the justice and the entire court should feel free to completely ignore all this. justice clarence thomas is a great american, an outstanding justice. he is faithful to the text of our laws and constitution. his writing is clear. his reasoning is rigorous and transparent. i have total confidence in justice thomas' impartiality in every aspect of the work of the court. each of the nine justices should feel free to make every single judicial decision they make with total independence and complete freedom. what cases they hear, how they hear them, how they rule, whether and when they recuse themse