[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2017-S2019]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I stand here to proudly support Judge 
Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The Nation has had the opportunity to watch Judge Jackson during her 
confirmation hearing 2 weeks ago and see firsthand the temperament, 
knowledge of the law, and qualifications she brings to the highest 
Court in the land. She will be a fair and impartial jurist, just as she 
has proven herself to be on the district court and on the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  President Biden made a commitment before he was elected to appoint 
the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Judge Jackson's historic 
nomination is long overdue.
  It was in my home State of New York where Constance Baker Motley 
became the first Black woman to be a Federal judge--in the Southern 
District.
  Having diverse representation on the Court does not mean someone will 
rule a certain way, and it doesn't mean that is why they deserve to be 
on the Bench. It is important because it strengthens our institutions. 
It is critical because it shows who we are as a nation, and it makes a 
difference to the girls and women across the country, who will now have 
a role model and know that they can aspire to do the same.
  That is why President Biden made that promise because he knew that it 
was beyond time to ensure the Supreme Court has that representation; 
and it is clear that Judge Jackson will be a highly qualified Justice 
to fulfill that promise.
  Who we confirm to the Supreme Court matters. While the work of the 
Court may feel distant from our daily decisions and day-to-day lives, 
the Supreme Court actually makes key decisions on whether individuals 
are protected when they go to school, work, or out in public; on who 
can and how we can cast our votes to determine our elected officials; 
on whether our future generations will have clean air to breathe, clean 
water to drink; on who we can choose to marry; and on what decisions 
women can make about their own bodies and their reproductive future.
  The nine Justices on the Supreme Court make important decisions that 
impact all Americans; and in the Senate, in our advice and consent 
role, we have a critical role to play in ensuring that we confirm 
Justices who follow the rule of law and provide equal justice to all.
  The perspectives Judge Jackson will bring to the highest Court of the 
land, both personally and professionally, will have a critical impact 
on all Americans. Judge Jackson will bring to the Bench significant 
criminal defense experience as a former public defender. She will also 
bring nearly a decade of judicial experience to her rulings.
  When I met Judge Jackson, I asked her which of her experiences have 
prepared her most for this moment to serve on the Supreme Court if she 
was confirmed. She answered by talking about her clerkships, which she 
completed at each level of the judiciary: the district court; First 
Circuit Court of Appeals; and for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, whose 
seat she is being nominated to fill. She talked about how she learned 
from others how to serve as a judge. She experienced firsthand what it 
means to fulfill the constitutional requirement of being a member of 
our Nation's Federal judiciary.
  I know that Judge Jackson will bring all of those perspectives and 
meaningful experiences with her to the Supreme Court, and those are 
critically needed on the highest Court of our land. It is those 
experiences and her record that have led to Judge Jackson's nomination 
receiving broad support--from the civil and human rights community to 
the law enforcement community and from colleagues in the judiciary 
nominated by Presidents of both parties, to name just a few. Given the 
fact that she was confirmed three times before this body with 
bipartisan support, the Senate should be able to once again confirm her 
with votes from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I look forward to enthusiastically casting my vote in support of 
Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
I urge my colleagues to join me and support her nomination as well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to go 
into a little bit more detail about why I will not be voting for and in 
favor of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme 
Court.
  Now, as we have all heard and as we appreciate, there is no doubt 
that Judge Jackson is highly educated; she has an impressive resume; 
she is cordial; she was very gracious with her time, but as I listened 
to her responses over a 2-day period of time, I was really dissatisfied 
with the specifics.
  As I got home to Tennessee and talked to Tennesseans, they had wanted 
to hear specifics from her and were disappointed that she did not come 
forward with those specifics.
  My colleague Senator Durbin, helpfully, pointed out this morning that 
Judge Jackson did, indeed, make the rounds up here prior to her 
hearing. Yes, indeed, she did do that. She came to my office, and we 
spent about an hour together talking about her record. I, of course, 
didn't give her a list of questions to study, but I did clue her in on 
some of the things that I thought were going to be important for us to 
discuss.
  Some are items we had discussed when she came before us for her 
appellate court hearing. Some of those things we never got a complete 
answer to, but we needed to get that complete answer. This is a 
lifetime appointment, and it was disappointing that we did not, even 
now, get that complete answer.
  What I have learned is, normally--as we at Judiciary Committee 
conduct these hearings for judges for the Federal bench, for Supreme 
Court nominees--they walk into the hearing room, and they are prepared. 
They kind of come loaded with their remarks and their answers. They 
have a general idea of what is going to come their way from different 
ones of us because we have spent the time meeting with them 
individually, making certain that they know what is going to be 
important.
  So there is no doubt she knew that I was going to press her on her 
lack of a clear articulation on a judicial philosophy, and she knew 
that there were concerns and criticisms of her record and some of the 
decisions that she had made. She knew that we would ask tough 
constitutional law questions about abortion, substantive due process, 
and interstate commerce.
  And I know that I--and I think most of my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee--would say that I expect nominees to be familiar with all of 
these things, to have an opinion and be willing to share that opinion. 
This is an appointment, as I said a moment ago, a lifetime appointment 
to the

[[Page S2018]]

highest Court in the land. This is not supposed to be an easy process. 
This is to be tough questions that are appropriately placed. You know, 
tough questions are not attacks. Tough questions are placed in search 
of answers--answers for the people we represent. But instead of 
showcasing what we were told was her extraordinary prowess for the law, 
Judge Jackson's hearing turned into a showcase of things that she just 
did not want to talk about.
  My Democratic colleagues have spent a lot of time trying to provide 
cover for her, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of this 
week, the majority leader will ask us to green-light a Supreme Court 
nominee who has not articulated a judicial philosophy, who filibustered 
her way through basic constitutional questions, and who repeatedly pled 
ignorance of the most controversial items in her record.
  We have received Judge Jackson's responses to our written questions, 
and unfortunately she still is refusing to open a window into her 
thinking.
  I asked her again about her ruling in Make the Road New York v. 
McAleenan, which focused, in part, on how a judge should interpret a 
statute that grants an agency ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' 
under the rules available. When Congress wrote those words, I am sure 
we believed that ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' meant exactly, 
precisely that this law was sole and unreviewable.
  But rather than focusing on the plain meaning of the text, Judge 
Jackson took it upon herself to evaluate and reject the DHS rule in 
question and establish a nationwide injunction.
  Well, as we all know, fortunately, the DC Circuit overruled her. But 
the question remains: How in the world could any judge read those words 
and decide Congress wanted the opposite result of what Congress 
specifically said, ``sole and unreviewable''?
  But in a show of lack of respect for Congress and what Congress 
explicitly said because she disagreed with the policy, what did she do? 
She picked it up; she basically tore up that policy; and she did what 
she thought--what she thought--was best.
  In her written response, Judge Jackson offered no new information, 
but because she tends to editorialize in her opinions, we can still 
glean some insight from what she had to say about the DHS case. She 
suggested that the Department of Homeland Security's position was a 
``terrible proposal'' that ``reeks of bad faith'' and ``demonstrates 
contempt for the authority that the Constitution's Framers have vested 
in the judicial branch.''

  Those are her words.
  I think that language might give us a hint as to why she ignored the 
statutory text. In Tennessee, Tennesseans look at that and say: Well, 
that is the work of an activist judge. They are trying to legislate 
from the bench. They didn't like what Congress did, so they said: We 
are going to pick it up; we are going to toss it out; we are going to 
do what we think that policy ought to be. That was the effect of that 
ruling because she ignored the statuary text.
  I have lingering questions about other times Judge Jackson has used 
this type of rhetoric to signal her policy disagreements. Again, 
Tennesseans say that is judicial activism.
  During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, she used a written 
judicial opinion to advocate for the mass release of all 1,500 
criminals in the custody of the DC Department of Corrections. That is 
right, the release of all 1,561 detainees--all of them.
  During her hearing, she claimed she was merely repeating one of the 
attorney's arguments, but we went back and we read the opinion. And 
when we read the opinion, it is very clear: That was not accurate.
  If you take her words at face value, you will get the impression that 
she believes a mass release--a mass release of detainees, of 
criminals--a mass release is appropriate during the pandemic. So if you 
look at our past pandemics and if you say, ``Well, a pandemic is going 
to come around; we are going to have something every 5 or 10 years,'' I 
think it is reasonable to question her judgment on this. What happens 
when you have the next Spanish flu or the next SARS? What happens the 
next time there is a pandemic? I think American citizens, I think 
Tennesseans want an answer on that. Why would someone think, ``Open the 
doors and release them,'' and then lament that they are not able to 
release all of them?
  I have questions about her record of being lenient with criminals. 
Over the course of her career, Judge Jackson has developed a disturbing 
habit of granting leniency to dangerous criminals. She released a man 
who murdered a U.S. marshal and gave a reduced sentence to a criminal 
who was known for attacking police officers. She undersentenced child 
porn offenders at every available opportunity--not once or twice but 
every time. If the guidelines gave her discretion, she used it to go 
easy on pedophiles.
  She looked for ways to go easy on dangerous drug offenders and, at 
one point, she actually apologized to a self-described fentanyl 
``kingpin'' for his harsh sentence. That is of concern. It is of 
concern to many moms whose top issues right now are inflation, open 
borders, crime in the streets. They are worried about that. They are 
worried about what is happening.
  She had the opportunity to clear this up, but at no point did she 
offer a reassuring explanation of why she so consistently used her 
discretion to tip the scales not in favor of victims but tipping those 
scales in favor of criminals.
  On this point, we are not questioning her methodology; we are 
questioning her judgment.
  When I was back home in Tennessee this weekend, everyone wanted to 
talk about Judge Jackson's inability to define the word ``woman.''
  The media has spent a great deal of time mocking that question, and I 
will tell you, that is quite all right because out there in the real 
world, people care about how she chose to respond to that question. 
Their position is that if the media felt justified in mocking the very 
fact that I did ask that question, why did Judge Jackson have so much 
trouble answering that question? As my colleague Senator Cruz mentioned 
this morning, we have journalists today running around the Capitol, 
demanding that Republican Senators answer the question. Why aren't they 
asking the same of Judge Jackson?
  Every day, Tennesseans are subjected to this assault on common sense, 
and they are not interested in playing along with this. Why, they want 
to know, is the left so terrified to confront how the American people 
define the word ``woman'' and ``womanhood''? And why would my 
Democratic colleagues continue to prop up a nominee who squandered her 
hearing by dodging questions and claiming ignorance of her very own 
record?
  Tennesseans aren't interested in playing politics. They just want the 
Democrats to reveal what rule book they are using because Tennesseans 
want to see constitutionalist judges on the bench. They want people to 
call balls and strikes. They want people who believe in equal treatment 
under the law, equal justice for all.
  They see what is happening in our country. It is frightening to them. 
For a long time now, radical activists have wanted to handpick a 
Supreme Court Justice. Some of these dark money groups that are all 
there helping the left, they said: Give us your money. We will make 
certain there are Federal judges and a Supreme Court Justice who are 
progressive.
  In the meantime, we have seen them make inroads in the media, on 
school boards, and in some of the country's most respected 
universities.
  So Tennesseans are very familiar with what happens when activism 
begins to replace common sense. They are very familiar with the tactics 
of the left that continue to try to diminish freedoms of individuals 
and give that power to the government. That is why they want 
constitutionalists on the Court, not activist judges who are there to 
take up arms in the culture war. They don't want an agenda. They don't 
want to hear about a methodology. They want proof that Judge Jackson 
has a vision for America that is rooted in the Constitution. They want 
to have proof that this is somebody who believes in preserving our 
faith, our families, our freedoms, preserving hope and opportunity for 
all. They want somebody who is going to say: I believe in the American 
dream, and I am going to preserve the right for every girl and boy to 
live their version of the American dream.

[[Page S2019]]

  Unfortunately, just like the President who nominated her, Judge 
Jackson has provided no evidence of that vision. I am a ``no'' vote on 
her confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I have already announced that I intend to 
support Judge Jackson's nomination. Her character and her 
qualifications are unassailable, but, unfortunately, that hasn't 
stopped a number of Senate Republicans from treating her disgracefully. 
Too often, behavior in the hearings was simply shameful.
  It doesn't have to be this way, and it wasn't always this way. For 
example, even though I disagreed with him on plenty of issues, I voted 
for Chief Justice John Roberts, and he was treated very fairly by 
Democrats. Serious questions were asked and answered, and there wasn't 
anything resembling the over-the-line, juvenile theatrics like those 
shown for Judge Jackson.
  Things changed when President Obama's final nomination was stolen by 
Republicans. They refused to even hold a hearing or consider the 
sitting President's nominee on just fabricated grounds.
  Democrats are trying to maintain a sharp focus on legal questions and 
personal qualifications. Faced with sideshows and personal attacks, we 
stuck to issues. What was particularly striking about those attacks was 
they were attacks against somebody whom Senate Republicans had voted 
for unanimously when she was nominated to a lower level court.
  My view is, the radicalization of the Court and the nominations 
process are just poisonous to our democracy, but that was what was on 
display when Republicans attacked Judge Jackson.
  I want to start setting the record straight on several of the key 
issues.
  First, Judge Jackson is squarely within the sentencing norm for cases 
involving child sexual abuse material. She was smeared anyway as going 
soft on predators. It was a gross and baseless accusation, more of a 
dog whistle to conspiracists than an attempt at honestly vetting a 
nominee. Even the National Review--nobody's idea of a liberal 
publication--published a column that called the comments of our 
colleague from Missouri, Senator Hawley--it called his attack 
``meritless to the point of demagoguery.'' Those were the words of the 
National Review.
  The fact is, on this hugely important issue, the whole question of 
kids' safety, as the Presiding Officer of the Senate knows, there is a 
big difference between talking about protecting child victims and 
actually doing the work. Far too many of our Republican colleagues just 
come down on the wrong side of the divide.
  It is absolutely right that government at every level has failed to 
protect kids from exploitation online. That failure has a lot of 
causes. One is that the Justice Department, for reasons I will never 
understand, has consistently declined to put enough manpower and 
funding behind protecting these vulnerable kids. Another reason is that 
Members of Congress talk a really big game, but when there is serious 
legislation to protect vulnerable kids, they disappear.
  Now, I have proposed an alternative. It is the Invest in Child Safety 
Act. It puts serious funds into tracking down the child predators and 
prosecuting these god-awful monsters and protecting the kids they 
target and abuse. It would create a new executive position, to be 
confirmed by the Senate, to raise this level of protecting kids and 
strengthen oversight.
  Now, instead of supporting that legislation, where we put real 
prosecutors and real investigators to the task of protecting our kids, 
putting more law enforcement on the beat, a number of Senate 
Republicans spend their days going after section 230 of the 
Communications Decency Act. So, yet again, vulnerable kids are being 
used as pawns by politicians to advance their agenda.
  I simply believe that child abuse and exploitation is too serious an 
issue for U.S. Senators to cheapen it with baseless accusations and 
ill-conceived legislation. This is the last subject--protecting our 
kids--that elected officials ought to be playing politics with.