[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1848-S1849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I gave some 
examples of how the media is covering for Judge Jackson's lackluster 
performance in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I am not sure 
who they think they will persuade with these unhinged attacks, but what 
I do know is that the subtext has come through loud and clear for 
Tennesseans. It is: Sit down, shut up, stop questioning authority; and 
if you don't, we are going to come and get you.
  That is what these headlines are basically saying.
  Last night, I hosted a telephone townhall with more than 30,000 
people across middle and east Tennessee, and they have rejected the 
message that they are seeing in these headlines. It is really pretty 
simple for them. The harder the media pushes and tries to shut them up, 
the more they are pushing for accountability, especially when it comes 
to protecting the future for their children and their grandchildren.
  As I am sure many people will recall, during a line of questioning in 
Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing, I asked her a very simple 
question. All I wanted her to do was define the word ``woman.'' She 
told me she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't a 
biologist. If we had not been in the middle of a committee hearing, I 
would have thought that this was a joke. But we were in the middle of 
this committee hearing, and it wasn't. It was a very deliberate signal 
to a very specific group of individuals.
  Of course, our friends in the media sensed this was going to 
backfire, as it did, so they flew into damage control mode. But I think 
it is safe to say they overplayed their hand on this one. According to 
this particular outlet, science says there is no simple answer to what 
a woman is. Don't question the science. That sounds familiar, doesn't 
it? We have heard that a lot lately. They went to great lengths to 
refute a simple fact that every single American learned in their grade 
school science class. Judge Jackson's answer and the media's panicked 
defense of it were both completely divorced from reality.
  I have spoken at length about how Judge Jackson's total lack of a 
judicial philosophy causes these kinds of problems. But my Democratic 
colleagues and their activist friends still seem to be under the 
impression it is unreasonable to ask a Supreme Court nominee about her 
approach to interpreting the law. This makes no sense. Without that 
philosophy--without that basic standard--you cannot achieve stability 
or predictability, which are two things Judge Jackson repeatedly told 
us are important for a functioning judicial system.
  I have serious questions about the nominee's refusal to engage us on 
this question. But what worries me more is her refusal to acknowledge 
that when it comes to law, not everything can or should be up for 
debate because political activists demand it. Our legal system is built 
on a foundation of definitions and rules, which are two equally 
important components.
  In this case, if we concede that the definition of ``woman'' is too 
controversial to nail down, how can we demand equal justice under the 
law for victims of sex discrimination? Furthermore, how could the 
Supreme Court determine standing for any case regarding a gender-based 
rule? To take it even further, if words no longer matter, are the 
definitions of other protected classes up for debate? If so, which 
ones? And if not, then why not? Whose standard are we using here? Think 
about that.

[[Page S1849]]

  I hear from Tennesseans every single day who feel like they are 
fighting a losing battle against the erosion of our basic values. Their 
government is drowning in debt. The crime rate has gone from bad to 
absolutely terrifying. And classrooms have become battlegrounds in the 
culture war between woke bureaucrats and parents who just want to rear 
their children as they see fit.
  Slowly but surely, activists are forcing themselves between parents 
and their children, stripping words and institutions of their meaning 
and using their power to eliminate dissent. It is no way to run a 
classroom, and it is no way to run a country either. But right now, 
these parents I am talking to are looking at Washington and seeing the 
left use these same tactics to convince whoever gives credence to these 
unhinged headlines that reality is somehow up for debate.
  They are not going to tolerate it anymore, not from Congress, not 
from the White House, and certainly not from the Supreme Court.
  I think it bears repeating that the purpose of the Supreme Court is 
to interpret the law, not to take up arms in a culture war. I cannot in 
good conscience give my endorsement to a Supreme Court nominee whose 
first instinct was to chip away at the very foundation of the law 
rather than challenge the expectations of radical political activists.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.