[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1990-S1991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Republican leader 
speaking about the Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, 
who is coming before the Senate either today or tomorrow, we hope, for 
a confirmation vote. We have solid support for her nomination on the 
Democratic side and three Republican Senators who have announced that 
they will join us to make it a bipartisan majority in her favor.
  She is deserving of this. She has an extraordinary background. She 
has the kind of resume that every lawyer would dream of: to graduate 
from Harvard Law School and then to clerk at every level of the Federal 
judiciary, including clerk to the Justice she hopes to succeed, Stephen 
Breyer; and then to serve on the Sentencing Commission, which is 
considered one of the more prestigious assignments, trying to 
rationalize the sentencing under Federal law; and then, of course, to 
serve on the district court in the DC district and to issue some 570 or 
80 different opinions--written opinions--during that time; to be 
elevated to the DC Circuit Court, often called the second highest court 
in the land, where she served as well with distinction; and now to be 
the first African-American woman nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. It is an incredible record.
  And she has made the rounds, as they say, in the Senate, visiting 95 
or 96 different Senators, sitting down with them privately in their 
offices, answering any questions or concerns that they wish to express.
  So I think she is an exceptional person. If you look at her record in 
all of these cases that she has handed down written opinions in--as I 
said, it is close to 600, and 100 of them were criminal cases where she 
imposed sentences, and some 10 or 15 of those cases which have been 
highlighted by her Republican critics, relating to the issue of the 
exploitation of children and pornography, in every single case, she 
imposed a prison sentence.
  So to argue that she is soft on crime is to ignore that reality and 
to ignore the reality that she is endorsed--endorsed--by the largest 
law enforcement organization in America, the Fraternal Order of Police. 
She is endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
and other noteworthy organizations, the National Organization of Black 
Law Enforcement, former prosecutors in the District of Columbia.
  She has made it very clear that when it comes to applying the law to 
the facts, she does it with evenhandedness, so much so that she is 
respected by both sides of the table--the prosecutor's side of the 
table and the defense side of the table. That takes some doing, but she 
has achieved it. And

[[Page S1991]]

that is why her selection by President Biden is the right person for 
the right time for the right job. She is going to make history if we 
give her this confirming vote.
  Now, I will tell you, when you publish some 580 to 600 opinions, you 
are going to find something in one of those opinions to raise. I 
listened carefully as Senator McConnell went to one of those opinions 
and drew his own conclusions. I would ask him to take care in accepting 
that as the fair way to measure a person. People often say that in the 
U.S. Senate--they ask us: Are you conservative or are you liberal or 
are you a fiscal conservative? Where do you stand on civil liberties? 
And people announce a position that they would like to believe they fit 
in. Then folks go back and look at your voting record and then ask: 
Well, how do you explain this, Senator? So in any given day, any given 
vote can raise a question as to a generalization about who you are and 
what you believe.
  For instance, there was a time, as hard as it may be to believe, when 
people were suggesting amending the Constitution of the United States 
to make burning an American flag a violation--controversial. All of us 
revere the flag, but the notion of making this an amendment to the 
Constitution was a matter of great controversy and debate.
  I remember it well in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I came down 
against it, saying that I revered the flag, but the principles and 
values behind it were equally or more important to me, and so I opposed 
flag burning and so did the Senator from Kentucky. Yes, the minority 
leader, Senator McConnell, opposed flag burning. The organization that 
agreed with our position was the ACLU. Now, can I generalize from that 
position which Senator McConnell took years ago that he is an ACLU-type 
of Senator? It would be wrong to draw that conclusion. There may have 
been other instances where he agreed with them, but it was rare.
  What I am saying is, if you can take one vote and measure a Senator 
and realize that it falls short of being an accurate and honest 
measurement, the same thing is true for a judge, to take one opinion 
and say: Well, she ruled against President Trump on the issue of 
immigration, therefore, she is an activist liberal judge. She ruled as 
well for President Trump in other cases in his favor, and ruled against 
Democratic Presidents when they came up with their proposals before the 
court. So generalizations are not fair for her or for individual 
Members of the Senate based on one opinion, one vote, and that is what 
many are trying to do.
  I will also tell you that this notion--and it pains me to even bring 
it to the floor, but I know it is going to come up in the next day or 
two--that she is soft on crime. As I mentioned, the law enforcement 
groups would not be endorsing her if they believed she was soft on 
crime.
  And the notion that she is somehow, in the words of one Republican 
Senator--that her sentencing ``endangers children,'' that is painful 
because he said as much in front of her family. And I thought about 
that, how painful that must have been for her to hear those words. They 
are not true. And to take one or two situations, each of them unique in 
their factual circumstances, and to generalize in terms of her position 
on an issue of that gravity is fundamentally unfair. But we have done 
it, too, on the Democratic side, and I am going to be the first to 
admit, as I look back in history, there are things that should have 
been handled better when Republican nominees were before us.
  And the majority of Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, led by Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, I believe, were 
respectful and dealt with the judge in a fair manner. They asked tough 
questions, as they were expected to, but did not cross the line into 
personal attack.
  There were three or four who broke that rule, as far as I was 
concerned, but the vast majority of Republican Senators were factual, 
were fair, and were basing their questions on sound legal questions 
before any Supreme Court nominee's consideration. That I think will be 
talked about over the next couple days, as it should be.