[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2026-S2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has been a lot of conversation in 
the past several weeks about Judge Jackson's judicial philosophy--
rightfully so. This is a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. It is a serious position. I don't know a single Senator in this 
room that doesn't take their responsibility seriously. This is a big 
issue when you put anyone on the Supreme Court for a life appointment.
  Everyone has had the opportunity to be able to go through case law, 
cases that she has handled, things she responded to, things that she 
has written, ways that she has responded. Actually, I had time last 
week to sit down with her for about 45 minutes in the office just to be 
able to talk and to be able to get back-and-forth with her a little 
bit.
  I want to give a little bit of context to that because many Americans 
watched all the hearings that happened last week--a full week of just 
conversation with her, asking her all kinds of different questions. I 
don't serve on the Judiciary Committee so I am on the outside looking 
in. That is why I got time individually with her for about 45 minutes 
to be able to ask her questions and get to know her.
  By the way, I had folks in Oklahoma say: You had the opportunity to 
sit down with her; what is she like?
  To all of them, I answered the same way. She is actually the kind of 
person you would want to invite over for dinner, just to be able to sit 
and visit with--extremely pleasant, outgoing, personable, smart, sharp, 
wonderful smile and interaction. You would want to invite her over to 
dinner to be able to visit with.
  But my decision is not about whether to invite her over for dinner to 
be able to spend time with. My decision is, How will they handle a 
lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court and how will they handle the 
law?
  The difficult part of this conversation has been interesting. It 
really circled around judicial philosophy. How would you handle cases?
  We can't ask: How are you going to actually rule on this specific 
case? Because if she answers, then she has to recuse herself from that 
case in the days ahead, and everyone knows that.
  So we are always trying to determine: How will you treat cases in the 
days ahead and what lens will you look through? That is a reasonable 
conversation.
  Her response has been interesting. Her response was that she had a 
``methodology'' as a judge, and it has three aspects to it: Neutrality, 
which is a good thing; receiving all the appropriate inputs, which is 
making sure everyone is heard; and looking at the factual record and 
the text of the statute. That is actually a very good starting point 
with this.
  The question then goes to the next set of questions on it: How do you 
handle the U.S. Constitution and where does that document fit in? Is it 
living? Is it changing? Is it the original text and the meaning of it, 
or does it have a living version that changes?
  That is a reasonable conversation because there have been different 
Justices on the Supreme Court that have handled that differently.
  The late Justice William Brennan wrote:

       For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static 
     meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, 
     but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with 
     current problems and current needs.

  Well, that is not an original meaning in the original context and 
locked into that.
  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

       The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, 
     but [it is] dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It 
     means, today, not what current society, much less the court, 
     thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was 
     adopted.

  In other words, those words had meaning at that time. They couldn't

[[Page S2027]]

predict what those words might mean 100 years from now. They could only 
deal with what those words mean right now. And if it is going to have a 
different meaning at a different time, well, then, there has to be 
different law to be able to deal with that at a different time. We 
never got a really clear answer on that. We get things toward her 
methodology. That is a critical issue to be able to deal with.
  There were issues about sentencing that came up and how she chose to 
do sentencing when she was at the district court level and handled 
cases. They were all over the news about some cases that she handled 
that were very lenient in the sentencing.
  There were also a lot of questions about the Second Amendment or 
about due process.
  There was kind of the moment of the judicial hearings when Senator 
Blackburn asked--not a trick question but a real conversational 
question--about how you handle the law and culture. And that is, Can 
you define a woman?
  I honestly don't think that Senator Blackburn meant for that to be a 
trick question, but it really is a question in culture at this point. 
It will determine how you are going to handle the law and to be able to 
read the law.
  Her response was she couldn't answer the question of how to define a 
woman because she is not a biologist. Well, I am not a biologist 
either, but I think I can define that question. And it is just a 
conversational issue that we have as a nation to be able to determine: 
Let's deal with things that are self-evident.
  There were all those issues that were dealt with during the hearing 
time, but when I got with her, I didn't want to go back and revisit 
those issues. I wanted to spend time with her talking through the 
things that weren't actually discussed.
  Obviously, it was over days of her hearings. There were several 
issues discussed about how she handles the law. One of those is Tribal 
law. In some areas of the country, this is a very big deal and in some 
areas, not at all. So I understand why it didn't come up in the 
hearings.
  In her past history in her cases, she has had one case to deal with 
Tribal law. So there are a lot of questions to be able to talk about.
  Oklahoma is very proud of who we are as a State. We have great 
diversity as a State. We have a unique relationship in Indian Country 
in our State. I thought it was important for us to be able to talk 
about the relationship that our State has with 39 Tribes and, quite 
frankly, the history our State has, as we were the State where Tribes 
were relocated to from the Southeast. We spent a lot of time talking 
about that.
  We talked about issues of religious liberty, First Amendment issues, 
how you handle those cases. There are differences even in the Court, 
even on what is the more liberal side of the Court. Sotomayor and Kagan 
often disagreed on issues of religious liberties. They handle it with a 
different perspective, and it is not uncommon for a religious liberty 
case to come up and Sotomayor and Kagan to be on either side. So, quite 
frankly, I was trying to discern: Is this person more like Sotomayor or 
more like Kagan on how to handle the issues of religious liberty?
  It didn't come up a lot in the hearings, but I really think that is a 
foundational issue.
  Quite frankly, this is the fourth Supreme Court Justice I have had 
the opportunity to be able to sit down with personally, and with each 
of them, the issues that I just brought up were the issues that I 
talked with all four of them about because they don't often come up in 
the other issues, but to me it is foundational.
  We have three branches of government defined by our Constitution. 
Those branches are coequal, and they check each other. And it is 
exceptionally important that they really do check each other; that the 
legislative branch doesn't just give it away to the executive branch or 
to the courts or that the legislative branch doesn't run over the 
courts or the executive branch and neither can the executive branch or 
the judicial branch do for either. But if the judicial branch sits 
passive at a moment that they should engage, the other two branches are 
not checked or if the judicial branch engages in a moment when they 
should be silent, they have exceeded their authority as well.
  It is exceptionally important that the three branches both check each 
other and also know their lane and do their lane well.
  There are two cases that popped out that became very significant to 
me and were part of our conversation as well. There was a case that 
came up during the Trump administration when Judge Jackson was at the 
district court level and dealt with this issue of expedited removal. 
Now, it is my guess that she doesn't like the expedited removal process 
in immigration, but I didn't ask that; I didn't drill down on that, so 
it was only my guess. But what was interesting was she ruled on a case 
on expedited removal and forbid the Trump administration from actually 
putting in place what they did and did it nationwide.
  The problem was, when that was appealed up to the DC Circuit Court, 
the DC Circuit Court actually reversed Judge Jackson's preliminary 
injunction and reminded Judge Jackson, at that point, that the way the 
law was written made this statement: that the Secretary had ``sole and 
unreviewable discretion.''
  She literally reviewed a decision made by a Secretary, where 
specifically in the law it stated a judge cannot review this decision, 
though she overturned it, only to go to the circuit court and have them 
overturn her. That tells me a balance of power issue, of knowing what 
your lane is and determining how that lane is taken on.
  There is another case that came up, actually during the Trump 
administration as well, when Judge Jackson was also in the district 
court, and she dealt with the issue about what unions could do and what 
the executive branch could do in relationship to unions.
  It has been a contentious issue, quite frankly, for decades. It is 
entirely reasonable to be able to have that kind of dialogue about it. 
She ruled in the favor of the unions, and the DC Circuit, again, 
reversed her decision when it came there, but it is not just that they 
reversed her decision, it is that they reversed her decision, and this 
was the statement from the DC Circuit:

       We reversed because the district court lacked subject 
     matter jurisdiction.

  In other words, that is not your responsibility in that lane. 
Specifically, that kind of issue has to be taken up by the Federal 
Labor Relations Board. In statute, it says it can't go to a district 
court; it has to go to a different place. Typically, other judges look 
at it and say, ``You can't be in this spot to be able to argue this,'' 
and send it to the correct place. Instead, she ruled on it in favor of 
the unions and declared it done, until the circuit came back and said: 
That is not your lane. That is actually the executive branch's lane.
  And one of the most interesting dialogues we had to be able to talk 
through things was the issue about deference.
  Now, why does this matter? Well, for about 80 years, Congress has 
been writing a law that gets broader and broader and broader. Quite 
frankly, it has been a problem with both parties. If we want to see 
something done, we write a broad law; we send it to the executive 
branch; and we say figure it out.
  And each executive branch is getting more and more creative on how 
they figure it out. And we deal with all kinds of regulations, and both 
parties argue with the executive branch and say: Why do you do that? 
And the executive branch responds back sometimes: Well, you gave me the 
ability to make that decision on my own and so I did.
  This issue of deference and of delegation is a very significant 
constitutional principle. It is an issue that we have got to resolve 
here as a body--quite frankly, on both sides of the aisle--to be 
jealous of the responsibility that we are given in the Constitution.
  But it is also an issue, I think, that is very important for the 
courts to be able to engage in because the courts are able to step in 
uniquely to the executive branch in a way the legislative branch 
cannot. The legislative branch can complain about it, but the courts 
actually can look at it and say, ``You are out of your lane,'' to the 
executive branch.

  And if the court is passive in this, then whoever the executive is 
gets to run. One of the clearest examples of those is something that is 
called Chevron deference or our deference. I won't go into all the 
details on it, but it basically says, if a piece of legislation, the

[[Page S2028]]

way that it is written, is ambiguous, then the executive branch can 
interpret it the way that they choose.
  I have a problem with that interpretation because I believe if the 
law was written poorly, we shouldn't just give it to the executive 
branch and say: Figure it out. What do you want it to mean? If it 
doesn't mean something clearly, it doesn't mean anything at all.
  Now it is about two issues: One is a constitutional issue. If you go 
back to 1803, Marbury v. Madison is a foundational piece for the 
Supreme Court. This is the piece that has come up over and over again 
over the last two centuries.
  The foundational statement that came out of Marbury v. Madison was 
this simple statement:

       It is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to 
     say what the law is.

  If the judicial hands to the executive and says, ``We can't tell what 
the law says, so we will give it to you,'' it is literally the judicial 
handing to the executive something that is uniquely the judicial's 
power.
  Now, this is no simple issue. This goes back to our balance of power. 
What we have is a situation now over the past several decades where 
Congress has given its power to the executive branch. If the judicial 
branch does the same, giving its power to the executive branch, we have 
a rising executive branch and the other two bodies will look at it and 
say: How did that happen? Because we gave it away is how it happened. 
And we have a more and more powerful President of either party and a 
less and less powerful Congress and judicial branch.
  In my conversation with Judge Jackson, she repeated over and over to 
me that the court is limited, the court is limited, the court is 
limited. And I said, yes, they are limited, but they have a 
responsibility, and the court's responsibility is to say what the law 
is.
  And at the moment--as I said to her, if I threw letters on the table, 
the executive branch doesn't have the ability to say: I will make them 
say whatever I want to.
  I can't--if a law was written and the law said, ``Orange, penny, 
Ford, desk, Reagan,'' now all those are English words, but, quite 
frankly, they don't really make a sentence. The authority shouldn't be 
given to the executive branch to be able to figure out what they could 
make of that. The responsibility should be in the judicial branch to be 
able to look at that and say: That means nothing. Congress, go do your 
homework. Clean it up.
  The executive branch can't just make it mean what they want it to say 
and say what the law is. Congress has to say make it clear and the 
judicial branch has to say what the law is and the executive branch has 
to apply it.
  Now, again, this is very philosophical, but it is also foundational 
in our constitutional construct. It is why I find myself in the 
position of voting no for someone I personally liked when I met her but 
do not align with on how you handle the Constitution, separation of 
powers, and the responsibility of the court to align with original 
intent of the Constitution.
  This is not a new dialogue for us in the Senate body. It is a 
conversation we have had for two centuries that is still unresolved for 
us. But we cannot select individuals that are not committed to the 
original meaning of the Constitution and can hand to the executive 
branch what the law says. This is one that we need to guard.
  And so for that reason, when the vote comes tomorrow on Judge 
Jackson, I will vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I rise today in strong support of Judge Ketanji Brown 
Jackson's confirmation as our Nation's next Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  Oftentimes, the debate in the Senate on judicial nominations loses 
sight of the personal stories of those who are put before us, so let me 
start there.
  Let me start by talking about where Ketanji Brown Jackson came from 
to reach this extraordinary point where we are poised to write an 
important chapter of progress in our Nation's history.
  Ketanji Brown Jackson was born in our Nation's Capital and grew up in 
Miami. She is the daughter of two former public school teachers, who 
themselves were raised in the Jim Crow South. Two of Judge Jackson's 
uncles were police officers in Miami, one who ultimately became the 
police chief. Her brother served in the U.S. Army and as a police 
officer in Baltimore.
  Judge Jackson attended public school in the Miami-Dade County school 
system. She credits her father for starting her on a path to the law, 
as he went back to school to earn a law degree and became a lawyer 
working for the school board.
  Family, education, hard work, public service, all guiding Judge 
Jackson on the path that brought her to this moment, to today.
  She was elected mayor of her junior high school class and president 
of her high school class. She grew to be a standout on the speech and 
debate team. And when her high school counselor told her not to set her 
sights too high, she never accepted the limits of others--she 
persevered.
  Judge Jackson went to Harvard where she graduated magna cum laude. 
She went to Harvard Law School where she was a top student and editor 
of the prestigious Law Review.
  Following graduation from law school, this nominee worked for three 
consecutive Federal judges, culminating with a clerkship from 1999 to 
2000 for Supreme Court Justice Breyer.
  As Judge Jackson has said, this is the lesson she took from her 
experience:

       Justice Breyer exemplified every day, in every way, that a 
     Supreme Court Justice can perform at the highest level of 
     skill and integrity while also being guided by civility, 
     grace, pragmatism and generosity of spirit.

  Guided by her belief in the power and promise of the Constitution and 
this Nation's founding principles--freedom, liberty, and equality--
Judge Jackson went on to serve as an assistant Federal public defender 
in the DC Circuit, representing defendants who did not have the means 
to pay for a lawyer.
  When confirmed, Judge Jackson will be the first former Federal public 
defender to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. And to me, this is an 
extremely important qualification that Judge Jackson holds and will 
bring with her to the Supreme Court.
  As a former public defender, she had firsthand experience delivering 
the Constitution's promise of due process. This promise, given to all 
Americans without regard to financial means or political connections, 
is an essential element of our system of justice.
  We all should want this experience and the perspective it brings on 
our highest Court because it is a fundamental protection in our justice 
system.
  Judge Jackson has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times 
previously. She was first confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Vice 
Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Following in the footsteps of 
Justice Breyer, she would become the only member of the current Court 
who previously served as a member of that bipartisan, independent 
commission dedicated to reducing sentencing disparities and promoting 
transparency and proportionality in sentencing.
  Next, after President Obama nominated Judge Jackson to be a district 
court judge for the District of Columbia, she was once again confirmed 
by the U.S. Senate in 2013. During Judge Jackson's 8 years on the bench 
as a district judge, she issued more than 500 written opinions. And 
last year, she was again confirmed by the U.S. Senate with bipartisan 
support to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.
  In confirming her to each of these positions, the Senate voiced its 
confidence in Judge Jackson's character, integrity, and intelligence. 
Experience matters, and the fact is, Judge Jackson is as qualified and 
experienced in the law as any nominee in our Nation's history, bringing 
more experience as a judge than four of the current Justices did 
combined at the time they joined the Court. This strong experience has 
provided her a clear understanding of the role of a judge and the role 
of the judiciary in our system of government.
  As she has said herself, ``A judge has a duty to decide cases based 
solely on the law, without fear or favor, prejudice or passion.''
  That is precisely why she has a proven record of being faithful to 
the Constitution and being an independent,

[[Page S2029]]

fair, and impartial judge. That is why Judge Jackson has earned the 
support of the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order 
of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, as 
well as victims of crime, including domestic violence and sexual 
assault survivors.
  I had the pleasure and, in fact, joy of meeting with Judge Jackson 
last week. No fairminded person can deny her impressive credentials and 
experience, and no one should deny the moment she has rightfully earned 
to be considered for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Our meeting wasn't long, but it was long enough for me to know that 
she has a quality that everyone we work for wants in a judge and 
certainly in a Justice on the Supreme Court. She knows how to listen, 
and I have every confidence that Judge Jackson understands how 
important that quality is for a judge to carry out their responsibility 
and commitment to the rule of law.
  Judge Jackson's lifetime of hard work and perseverance has prepared 
her well for this inspiring moment. I believe the people I work for in 
Wisconsin agree.
  A young high school student in Milwaukee recently said:

       Knowing she is the first person to do that, it like, gives 
     me the idea that I can do big stuff too.

  Jada Davis, the first Black woman to be crowned Miss Milwaukee and a 
law student at Marquette University, said this:

       The more you see yourself in other people the more 
     confidence you will have to do those same things or go after 
     what you want.

  I know Judge Jackson has the character, temperament, and experience 
we want in a Justice on our highest Court. I also know what this moment 
means to thousands of girls across Wisconsin who, after Judge Brown 
Jackson's confirmation, will have even more proof that they can achieve 
``big stuff'' too.
  I believe she has a deep appreciation for the fact that the Supreme 
Court makes decisions that have a profound effect on the lives of all 
Americans and that she will work to serve and protect the 
constitutional rights and freedoms of all Americans.
  I will proudly vote for this historic confirmation, the confirmation 
of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from 
Wisconsin, and I rise as well regarding the nomination of Judge Ketanji 
Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of 
the United States.
  As some of you will recall, one of our colleagues from New Jersey, 
Senator Booker, delivered unusually poignant and unscripted remarks 
recently in the Senate Judiciary Committee about Judge Jackson's 
nomination and credentials and character. He moved many of those who 
were present to tears and spelled out as only he can what this 
nomination means for our Nation and particularly for the millions of 
Black Americans who look at Judge Jackson and see their own mothers, 
their own daughters, their own sisters, and their own friends.
  Unfazed by the unfair attacks that day on Judge Jackson, our 
colleague said these words:

       Nobody is going to steal my joy.

  I second that emotion. This historic moment and this historic nominee 
bring me great joy as well.
  For the next several minutes, I am going to talk about Judge 
Jackson's impeccable qualifications. I am going to discuss her sterling 
record as a public servant, including nearly a decade as a Federal 
judge, that makes her supremely qualified to serve on our Supreme 
Court.
  I also want to talk for a bit about the historic nature of this 
nomination and attempt to put in context just what it means for our 
Nation and for me personally to cast a vote to confirm the first Black 
woman to serve on the Supreme Court, because today, indeed, it brings a 
lot of us real joy in this body to know that we have the opportunity 
and the privilege to play a small part in Judge Jackson's confirmation.
  Similar to President Reagan delivering on his promise years ago to 
nominate the first woman--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--to the Supreme 
Court, President Biden has delivered on his own promise. He has 
nominated the first Black woman to the highest Court in our land, and 
our Nation can be proud of the nominee we are here to debate and to 
confirm.

  Let me begin, however, by taking just a moment to thank Justice 
Stephen Breyer for his exemplary service to our country.
  As many of our colleagues know, Justice Breyer was nominated to the 
Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1994, when I was serving as 
Governor of Delaware. Our Presiding Officer was an astronaut up in the 
ether above our planet. Justice Breyer was confirmed, some will recall, 
by an overwhelming bipartisan vote--87 to 9.
  Justice Breyer served our country with distinction for over six 
decades, including as a corporal in the Army Reserve, a Federal circuit 
court judge, and for nearly three decades on the Bench of the highest 
Court in our land.
  Justice Breyer is known as a consensus builder on the Bench--a trait 
I have long admired in judges dating back to my time as Governor of 
Delaware, when I had the opportunity to nominate literally dozens of 
highly qualified individuals to serve on Delaware's highly respected 
courts. Over the past three decades, Justice Breyer has helped forge 
principled compromises to protect the constitutional rights of all 
Americans and to uphold the rule of law.
  During a small ceremony at the White House in January when Justice 
Breyer first announced that he would be retiring, he brought with him a 
pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution. In his brief remarks, Justice 
Breyer reminded us of how Lincoln and Washington and so many other 
giants of American history have described that document, our 
Constitution. They described it as an experiment.
  As Justice Breyer reminded us, during the time of Washington and 
Lincoln, there were plenty of folks who doubted our system of 
government could ever work, plenty of folks who said: Well, that is a 
great idea in principle, but it will never work, at least not for long. 
But, as Justice Breyer said that day--he said: It is our job to show 
them that it does work and it will continue to work.
  Our Constitution has made possible the greatest experiment in 
democracy in the history of the world. Over the past several years, I 
have spoken any number of times on the Senate floor about the wisdom of 
the Framers of our Constitution. In the hot summer of 1787, they met in 
Philadelphia, as you will recall, and designed an intricate system of 
checks and balances. Article I dealt with the Congress; article II 
dealt with the executive branch of our government; and article III, the 
judiciary.
  America is the longest running experiment in democracy, and our 
Constitution is more replicated across the globe than any other 
Constitution in the world. But our Constitution has never been perfect. 
The Framers never pretended that it was perfect.
  This past weekend, I was privileged to give the keynote address 
during a commissioning ceremony at the Port of Wilmington for a new 
Virginia-class, fast-attack, nuclear submarine that bears the name of 
Delaware--the first Navy vessel named after the State of Delaware in 
over 100 years. At the end of my remarks, there was a crowd of about 
several thousand people gathered on the Delaware River, right beside 
the submarine and its crew. Among the folks in that crowd were the 
President of our country and the First Lady of the United States, Dr. 
Jill Biden, who was the sponsor of the boat.
  I asked everyone there to stand and hold hands and join me in 
reciting the preamble to the Constitution, which begins something like 
this:

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union--

  It doesn't say ``a perfect Union''; rather, it says ``a more perfect 
Union.'' Why is that? Because our Framers understood that this would be 
an experiment and that it would be up to each generation that follows 
to decide how this experiment will proceed and if it will succeed, up 
to each generation to face those who say that this great experiment in 
democracy will never work.
  It is through our actions on days like this that we show them that it 
does

[[Page S2030]]

still work. Judge Jackson's nomination is proof that, indeed, we have 
made this Nation more perfect over time and that despite our 
divisions--and we have them--generations of Americans have worked 
together, often across party lines, across State lines, across 
philosophical lines, to make a nomination like this possible.
  Like many Americans, I have seen remarkable progress in my own 
lifetime. While my sister and I were born in a coal-mining town in 
Beckley, WV, we were raised in Danville, VA, right on the North 
Carolina border, just north of Greensboro.
  Danville, VA, was known as the Last Capital of the Confederacy. 
Forced to flee Richmond after Union victories started piling up in 
early 1865, Confederate President Jefferson Davis actually held his 
Cabinet's last meeting--their last meeting--in Danville, where I grew 
up. He did that a few days before Lee surrendered to Grant at 
Appomattox.
  Although it was nearly a century after the Civil War ended when my 
family moved to Delaware--nearly a century--racial prejudice and 
discrimination still prevailed there.
  Growing up, my sister and I witnessed racism up close and personal. 
Every morning, for example, our schoolbus would take us to an all-White 
high school 10 miles away from our home, and about half an hour later, 
another schoolbus would come by and pick up Black students who had been 
waiting along with us and take them to their school, past my school and 
another 10 miles to their school, which was not a better school. It was 
a school that none of us would be especially proud of.
  If my sister and I went to lunch with our family, we would sit at the 
lunch counter, but Black families were denied service.
  If we went to the movie theater in Danville, VA, we sat on the ground 
floor; the Black patrons had to sit up in the balcony.
  That is the America many of us lived in not all that long ago--the 
same America that Judge Jackson's parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, 
were born into. It was an America where discrimination on the basis of 
race was sanctioned by State governments; an America where the judicial 
doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was still enshrined into our laws by 
the Supreme Court; where arbitrary literacy tests kept Black Americans 
away from poll booths; an America that treated back Americans like 
second-class citizens despite a civil war, an Emancipation 
Proclamation, and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments 
to our Constitution. It was an America that was far from perfect.
  But through decades of struggle, and thanks to the heroes of the 
civil rights movement, our Nation began to confront injustice in our 
communities and inequality in our laws. And thanks to brilliant Black 
lawyers like Thurgood Marshall and Wilmington, Delaware's Louis 
Redding, a number of legal challenges to America's separate but unequal 
classrooms went all the way to the Supreme Court.
  And perhaps the greatest decision in the Supreme Court's history, 
Brown v. Board of Education declared to the Nation that the principle 
of separate but equal could never truly be equal. Brown v. Board of 
Education did not make our Nation perfect. But it was proof that when 
the Supreme Court is at its best, America and our Constitution are at 
their best.
  The Supreme Court changed the America that my sister and I lived in--
that Judge Jackson's parents lived in--for the better. Combined with 
the landmark civil rights bills of the 1960s, including the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it made the 
America that Judge Jackson was born into more perfect than it was for 
the generations that came before her.
  And I hope and pray that each generation will continue to recognize 
the uniquely American opportunity that our Constitution affords us--the 
ability to change our communities and our laws for the better--and take 
on the task themselves.
  As Judge Jackson stated in her confirmation hearing, her parents 
taught her that--and I want to quote her. This is a quote from her:

       Unlike the many barriers that they had to face growing up, 
     my path was clearer, such that if I worked hard and believed 
     in myself, in America I could do anything or be anything I 
     wanted to be.

  And, my goodness, did she work hard. The daughter of two graduates of 
HBCU colleges, Judge Jackson was a star on her high school debate team 
and was elected ``mayor'' of Palmetto Junior High School and student 
body president of Miami Palmetto Senior High School. Judge Jackson then 
graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University and cum laude from 
Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. 
She clerked for not one, not two, but three Federal judges, including 
for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
  Judge Jackson could have done anything she wanted with a resume like 
that--anything--including pursuing any number of well-paying 
opportunities in the legal profession. Instead, Judge Jackson chose 
public service, in part because service was instilled in her by her 
parents, both of whom were public schoolteachers. And public service, 
no doubt, runs in her family.
  Her younger brother felt a similar call to serve. After graduating 
from another fine HBCU university, Howard University right here in 
Washington, Judge Jackson's brother enlisted--enlisted--in the U.S. 
Army right after the 9/11 attacks. He was deployed to Iraq. He also 
ended up going to Egypt. And then following in the footsteps of two of 
Judge Jackson's uncles, he became a Baltimore police officer.
  When I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Jackson in my office 
last month, we talked about a wide range of things. Among them, we 
talked about the diversity of her professional experience, including 
her time as a public defender right here in the Nation's Capital.
  As most of us know, public defenders work very long hours for very 
little pay. They represent clients who cannot afford an expensive 
lawyer, and in some cases, they cannot afford any lawyer at all. But 
our system of government affords every person charged with a crime the 
presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to a 
competent defense.
  It is a testament to the character of Judge Jackson that she is so 
committed to equal justice under the law that she was willing to commit 
the early stages of her career to this important work.
  If confirmed, Judge Jackson would be the first Supreme Court Justice 
to have served as a Federal public defender in this Court's long, 
storied history and the first with significant criminal defense 
experience since Justice Marshall.
  Now, in 2005, I voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts to the 
Supreme Court; not every Democrat did that. As you may recall, he was 
appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican. Some of my 
colleagues might remember, before Chief Justice Roberts was ever 
nominated to a Federal judgeship, he worked in private practice where 
his firm represented an individual appealing a death penalty conviction 
for the murder of eight people.
  During his 2005 confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, Chief 
Justice Roberts was asked about it and stated--and I want to quote him 
right now. Here is what he said:

       In representing clients, in serving as a lawyer, it's not 
     my job to decide whether that's a good idea or a bad 
     idea. The job of the lawyer is to articulate the legal 
     argument on behalf of the client.

  Chief Justice Roberts likened this work to John Adams defending 
British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, saying that Adams:

     . . . helped show that what our [Founding Fathers] were about 
     was defending the rule of law, not undermining it. And that 
     principle that you don't identify the lawyer with the 
     particular views of a client or the views that the lawyer 
     advances on behalf of the client is critical to the fair 
     administration of justice.

  Like Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Jackson has lived up to the values 
set out over 230 years ago, and in doing so, she has protected and 
defended our Constitution.
  After her time as a public defender, Judge Jackson served as a vice 
chair for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She was confirmed unanimously 
by the U.S. Senate.
  Judge Jackson was then nominated to the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. She was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate 
for that post.

[[Page S2031]]

  And last year, President Biden nominated Judge Jackson to serve on 
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, oftentimes referred to as our Nation's 
second highest court. Yet again, she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate 
with bipartisan support.
  During the decade that she served as a Federal judge, Judge Jackson 
established a track record as a consensus builder, just like Justice 
Breyer. During the decade that she served as a Federal judge, Judge 
Jackson has been evenhanded and she has been impartial. During the 
decade that she has served as a Federal judge, Judge Jackson has ruled 
for and against the government, in favor of prosecutors and for 
criminal defendants, and for both civil plaintiffs and defendants.
  As Judge Jackson told our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
recently, she has, she said:

     a duty to decide cases based solely on the law, without fear 
     or favor, prejudice or passion.

  Judge Jackson is always guided by our Constitution. And it is why she 
received the support of judges nominated by Democrat and Republicans 
alike, by law enforcement and the civil rights community, and by 
Republicans and Democrats in this body on multiple occasions.
  Now, these past few weeks, I heard some of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle use this confirmation process to mention the 
unfairness toward past nominees. Well, every one of these nominees--
every nominee that they referred to received a hearing and a vote. The 
same cannot be said of Merrick Garland, former chief justice of the DC 
Court of Appeals who was nominated by former President Obama to serve 
on the Supreme Court. Judge Garland did not receive a hearing. Judge 
Garland did not receive a vote because our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle decided to invent a new rule, and most of them even 
refused to meet with Merrick Garland, one of the finest servants I have 
ever known. And this shameful blockade led to what many Americans, 
myself included, view as a stolen Supreme Court seat, a permanent stain 
on this body's reputation and a reduction in the Supreme Court's 
credibility.
  Then 4 years later, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
broke their own precedent and invented yet another new rule to confirm 
a Supreme Court Justice 8 days--8 days before election day, when tens 
of millions of ballots had already been cast.
  And while I will never forget this truly shameful behavior, this week 
we have a chance to move away from politics. We have a chance to place 
an extremely well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court and to do so 
with the support of Senators from both sides of the aisle.
  In the end, the American people need to trust the Supreme Court to 
make decisions on questions that impact every single American: whether 
we have access to clean air is one of those issues, whether we have 
access to clean water, whether we have access to good healthcare, 
whether women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. We 
need a Supreme Court that stays above the political fray. We need a 
Supreme Court that calls ``balls and strikes,'' as Chief Justice 
Roberts once said--a Supreme Court that maintains the trust of the 
American people as the arbiter of a Constitution that protects the 
civil rights of all Americans.

  Judge Jackson will bring a breadth and a diversity of experience to 
the Supreme Court not often seen. Judge Jackson's resume--Harvard; 
Harvard Law; clerk to three Federal judges, including Justice Breyer; a 
public defender; U.S. Sentencing Commission vice chairman; Federal 
district court judge; and Federal Circuit Court judge--is evidence that 
she is among the most-qualified individuals in our country for this 
esteemed role.
  Her character and her intellect are beyond reproach. She weathered a 
grueling confirmation process with grace and dignity.
  Let me close by noting that Judge Jackson's nomination is proof that 
today in America one's qualifications and unrelenting work ethic earn 
you your spot, that public service is valued and commitment to the 
principles that protect our country do mean something, that the 
sacrifices of one generation slowly but surely make for a better 
America for the next generation.
  So count me among the millions of Americans who are inspired by Judge 
Jackson's life story, a uniquely American story that provides proof 
that our Nation can be made more perfect over time.
  And it brings this Senator from Delaware, who grew up in Danville, 
the last capital of the Confederacy, into a much different America. It 
brings me great joy to be able to cast a vote for Judge Ketanji Brown 
Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  And with that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.