[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2014-S2016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, in my 8 years as Governor, I had 
the opportunity to appoint more than 400 Floridians to the bench. I 
interviewed thousands of applicants for these seats, and my standards 
in each of those interviews were the same. I asked them if they 
understood that they intended to be part of the judiciary and not part 
of the legislature. And I asked them if they intended to interpret the 
law and enforce the law but not make new laws. If they couldn't 
convince me that they believed that was their duty as a member of the 
judicial branch, then I wouldn't appoint them.
  We need qualified jurists committed to fairly and accurately 
interpreting our Constitution and our laws as they are written, not 
activist judges who will rewrite the laws according to their own policy 
preferences.
  Now, I have had the chance to meet with Judge Jackson. We had a nice 
conversation, and she seems like a nice person. But I have very serious 
concerns about her record as a Federal judge, which includes numerous 
instances of the type of judicial activism that we cannot and should 
not tolerate from the Federal judiciary.
  The fact is that Judge Jackson has written only two appellate 
opinions in her current position. So we have no evidence of how she 
will approach serious constitutional issues as an appellate judge. And 
she has refused to disclose how she would interpret the Constitution as 
a Supreme Court Justice, despite being repeatedly and directly asked by 
Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
  And while serving as a district court judge, she had a high rate of 
being reversed on appeal for applying the wrong legal standards, 
exceeding her authority, or simply ignoring clear law in her decisions.
  And a peek into her history shows an alarming pattern of being weak 
on sex offenders, including easier sentences in child pornography 
cases. Judge Jackson imposed sentences that were 47 percent shorter 
than the national average in cases of child pornography distribution, 
and 57 percent shorter than the national average in cases of child 
pornography possession. She has even apologized from the bench when 
issuing such sentences--not to the victims of those heinous crimes. Of 
course, they never got an apology. She apologized to the offenders for 
the ``anguish'' the sentences for their horrific crimes would cause 
them.
  What about the anguish of their victims--innocent children?
  These are individuals who harm children. They don't deserve easy 
sentences or our sympathies.
  And this sympathy for child predators has consequences. We recently 
learned that a child rapist, someone to whom Judge Jackson gave a very 
lenient sentence, sexually abused another victim after his light 
sentence. Had Judge Jackson given him the sentence he deserved and the 
one that the prosecution recommended, he would have been in prison, not 
out in the streets.
  These are crimes that Judge Jackson has the power to prevent, but she 
has chosen every time to give these gross criminals easier sentences. 
That is why I have joined Senator Hawley to introduce the Protect Act, 
which protects children from sexual exploitation by enhancing the 
penalties for possessing child pornography and preventing judges from 
sentencing offenders below Federal guidelines. Our communities must be 
protected from sick individuals who exploit and victimize children, and 
also from liberal activist judges who abuse their sentencing guidelines 
to let offenders off the hook. Federal sentencing guidelines for these 
heinous crimes are critical, and we

[[Page S2015]]

must ensure guidelines are strictly enforced. I hope the Senate quickly 
passes this good bill.
  We can't have a soft-on-crime Justice on the Supreme Court, and we 
can't have activist judges in the highest Court in the land.
  I also don't think it is too much for the nominee to the highest 
Court in the land to be able to say what a woman is or to take a stand 
against partisan Court packing, which even liberal Justices like Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have done. We have the right to be 
concerned and demand answers on behalf of the American people. I think 
our country deserves better.
  That is why I can't support the nomination of Judge Jackson to the 
Supreme Court. I am committed to giving the American people qualified 
judges who understand their role in government and who apply the law as 
it is written, not as they want it to be. It is a simple standard, and 
it is one that Floridians expect. Unfortunately, based on my best 
assessment of her record on the bench, that is unfortunately not the 
case with Judge Jackson.
  The Democratic Party needs to understand that the Supreme Court is 
not just another institution to infiltrate with their leftist ideology. 
I have no hope that they will, but, until they do, I will continue 
fighting to uphold the Constitution and ensure that there remains a 
separation of powers between branches of Government, and that judges 
who are appointed to the bench understand that they are there to 
interpret the law, not to make the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, throughout 2 days of questioning in front 
of the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, Judge Jackson proved, 
without a shadow of a doubt, what we all knew to be true: She is 
eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of our country.
  Judge Jackson has the intellect, the integrity, and the temperament 
befitting an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and she 
doesn't have an ideological axe to grind. Judge Jackson is 
exceptionally qualified and well regarded across the political 
spectrum.
  And yet not a single Republican voted to advance Judge Jackson's 
nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and only three 
Republicans have publicly expressed support for her.
  So I ask my Republican colleagues: What is it going to take? What is 
it going to take to put politics aside to support a nominee like Judge 
Jackson? Because, clearly, intelligence, extraordinary breadth of 
experience, and support from prominent conservatives--conservatives--
did not suffice. Clearly, a candidate who has support from 
organizations from across the political spectrum--from the Black and 
Hispanic U.S. Chambers of Commerce to the National Education 
Association, with thousands of teachers; to the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the largest police union--they would not be supporting somebody 
who is soft on crime--to child advocacy groups that would not be 
supporting her, either, if she was not being appropriate in her 
sentencing of child pornography defendants. So even with this breadth 
of support, she didn't make the cut with the Republicans on the 
Judiciary Committee. So, clearly, a nominee who was uniformly called 
``brilliant,'' ``beyond reproach,'' ``first rate,'' and ``impeccable'' 
by her colleagues across the Nation was not enough.
  So, truly, what will it take?
  Sadly, some of my Republican colleagues resorted to unfounded and 
misleading attacks in an unsuccessful attempt to smear her character. 
To highlight how ridiculous the attacks around the sentencing of child 
pornography offenses were, I asked Judge Jackson about the history of 
the sentencing guidelines for these crimes and the concerns that these 
guidelines do not reflect what is happening with child pornography 
offenses.
  And these facts bear repeating. A decade ago, the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission first addressed the issue of sentencing in this area. Even 
way back then, only 40 percent of convicted offenders were receiving 
sentences within the guidelines. Now, 10 years later, even fewer 
offenders are receiving sentences within the guidelines. In 2019, just 
30 percent of non-production offenders were sentenced within the 
guidelines. In the DC Circuit, in which Jackson served, the average 
goes down to just 20 percent of offenders. This puts Judge Jackson well 
within the mainstream in her sentencing in this area. She is not an 
outsider.
  I named numerous other judges nominated by President Trump and 
supported by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who have also 
sentenced offenders to sentences well below the sentencing guidelines. 
So these judges also expressed concern about how the sentencing 
guidelines do not reflect the circumstances in the child pornography 
cases of today.
  I will repeat this. Judge Jackson is a mainstream judge. She has 
issued decisions and sentences similar to other judges across the 
Nation, including those nominated by both Republicans and Democratic 
Presidents. Despite some of my Republican colleagues' attempts to 
distort the truth to get more likes on Twitter, what Americans across 
the country saw was an incredibly impressive, highly qualified 
individual demonstrate that she has the intellect and the temperament 
to serve on our highest Court. Throughout the course of this week, 
Americans also learned about her character.
  I was particularly moved to hear the testimony of an individual who 
has known Judge Jackson for nearly 38 years--when they were in 
elementary school. He said, in part:

       Ketanji's incandescent brilliance was obvious to all of us 
     from day one. But even more importantly, she has always been 
     one of the kindest, warmest, most humble and down-to-earth 
     people I have ever met. All this, while still possessing 
     boundless charisma, drive, maturity, and grace.

  These qualities, apparently from a young age, have clearly guided her 
throughout her life and her career, particularly when it comes to 
treating every single person she encounters with dignity and respect.
  During the hearing, I asked Judge Jackson the same two questions on 
sexual assault and harassment that I ask of all nominees--male and 
female. In follow-up questioning, I named judges who had committed such 
misconduct and asked Judge Jackson what she does to ensure her court is 
a safe and inclusive place to work. After Judge Jackson's hearing 
concluded, a woman who had clerked for one of the judges I named who 
had engaged in this kind of harassing behavior reached out to me. And 
this is a person who had clerked for one of the judges that I had 
named. During her clerkship with this judge, she endured extreme and 
pervasive sexual harassment. She came forth publicly about this judge's 
conduct, an experience she described as ``a harrowing ordeal.''
  She went on to a second clerkship, this time for Judge Jackson. In 
Judge Jackson's court, she said, she was treated like a valued and 
talented employee who could make meaningful contributions to the law. 
She says clerking for Judge Jackson was the most meaningful 
professional experience she has ever had. She stated:

       Judge Jackson is the reason I am still a lawyer. I have no 
     doubt I would have left the profession were it not for the 
     way she treated me the year after my ordeal.

  Judge Jackson is exactly the kind of judge and individual we need on 
the U.S. Supreme Court: experienced, evenhanded, with dignity, 
integrity, and humanity. Moreover, Judge Jackson is not just extremely 
qualified to serve on the Supreme Court; her nomination is a historic 
one.
  The Supreme Court has existed for over 233 years, and of the 115 
Justices in the history of the Court, only 5 of them have been women, 
only 2 have been Black, and not a single one has been a Black woman. 
This is the Court that has decided cases that have had sweeping impacts 
on our lives, including decisions that have solidified rights for 
LGBTQ-plus people, empowered women, strengthened unions, and more. But 
this is also the same Court that has throughout the course of history 
upheld slavery, Jim Crow, and the unlawful internment--incarceration--
of Japanese Americans in World War II.
  So it is about time. It is about time we have a highly qualified, 
highly accomplished Black woman on the Supreme Court. It is about time 
our highest Court better reflects the country it

[[Page S2016]]

serves. It is about time that Black women and girls across the country 
can finally see someone who looks like them sitting on the highest 
Court, making decisions that will impact their lives--our lives. And 
they will know that the possibility is there for them.
  I close by noting that during the hearing, Judge Jackson told the 
committee that as a freshman at Harvard, she wondered whether she could 
fit in or whether she could make it, and a Black woman she didn't know 
leaned into her as they were walking by, probably in Harvard Yard, and 
said to Judge Jackson--she wasn't a judge then: ``Persevere.'' That is 
something that a lot of us can relate to: perseverance, including 
myself, who came to this country as a poor immigrant kid, persevering 
to learn the language, to learn the culture of a country I knew nothing 
about. Judge Jackson being on the Supreme Court would send such a 
powerful message of perseverance to everyone in this country.

  I will be honored to vote to confirm Judge Jackson. I look forward to 
calling her Justice Jackson.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________