[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 62 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2059-S2060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Madam President, now, on one final matter. The last few weeks have 
confirmed a pattern that has played out repeatedly in recent decades. 
When Republican Presidents make Supreme Court nominations, the far-left 
and the media melt down. Absurd allegations, conspiracy theories, cheap 
gimmicks, and apocalyptic rhetoric are all guaranteed. But when 
Democratic Presidents make nominations, Senate Republicans inquire 
about past rulings and judicial philosophies, and the country gets the 
serious process it deserves.
  On Tuesday, I explained how 30 years of escalation by Democrats 
ushered in this assertive period for the Senate regarding judicial 
nominations. Now and for the foreseeable future, the Senate views 
itself as a co-partner in the process.
  On Wednesday, I walked through Judge Jackson's long and disturbing 
record of using judicial activism to go soft on crime. Today, I need to 
discuss how these disagreements affect the very bedrock of our 
Republic.
  For multiple years now, the Democratic Party has waged an aggressive 
campaign to bully our independent justice system and attack the 
legitimacy of their institution. When the plain text of our laws and 
Constitution disappoint liberals' policy preferences, they mount 
radical campaigns to wreck the Court itself. This civic cancer began on 
the fringe, but it has quickly metastasized throughout their party.
  Three years ago, sitting Senate Democrats sent the Court an absurd 
amicus brief, threatening retribution for a certain ruling. Two years 
ago, the Democratic leader rallied with radicals on the Court's steps 
and threatened multiple Justices by name if they didn't produce the 
policy result he preferred.
  Last year, when fringe activists wanted to dig up the discredited 
concept of partisan court packing, President Biden lent it legitimacy 
with a Presidential commission. Now, just recently, the Senate 
Democratic whip said that his side's court-packing proposals don't 
matter because they lack 60 votes to pass the Senate. Well, that was 
cold comfort considering the Senator just voted to destroy the 60-vote 
threshold a few months back.
  So this nomination has occurred against a strange, strange backdrop. 
The Senate Democrats, who spent weeks--weeks--fulsomely praising Judge 
Jackson, have spent years attacking her soon-to-be workplace.
  This is why I needed to hear Judge Jackson denounce court packing. 
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer had no trouble--none--condemning these 
schemes loudly as sitting Justices. Surely President Biden could find 
himself an institutionalist in their mold.
  But, alas, Judge Jackson was the court packers' favorite pick for the 
vacancy, and she refused to follow the Ginsburg-Breyer model. She 
signaled the opposite. She said she would be ``thrilled to be one of 
however many''--``one of however many.''
  The left's escalating war against the judiciary is a symptom of a 
profound misunderstanding. Judicial activism sees the Court as a third 
legislature. The left wants one policymaking body with 435 Members, one 
with 100, and one that consists of nine lawyers.
  Let me say that again.
  The left wants one policymaking body with 435 Members, one with 100, 
and one that consists of nine lawyers. That isn't what the Founders 
created, and it is not what the American people signed up for.

[[Page S2060]]

  We have seen over and over that when judicial activism triumphs over 
fidelity to the rule of law, our courts mutate--mutate--into clumsy 
proxy battlefields for arguments that belong in this Chamber and out in 
50 State legislatures. This is unfair to the American people, and it 
damages our institutions, not the least the courts themselves.
  So there is only one way to lower the temperature, depoliticize the 
courts, and protect the rule of law: confirming only judges who will 
honor the Constitution and not supplant it.
  The road to a healthy Court and a healthy country is not striking 
some balance where some Justices stick to the text and some Justices 
try to make policy. The solution is for all the Justices to stay in 
their lane.
  There is one right number of Justices who seek to follow the law. The 
number is nine. Ginsburg said it. Breyer said it. There is one right 
number of Justices who seek to make policy: zero.
  There are jurists and scholars with personal views across the 
political spectrum who understand that all judges should be textualists 
and constitutionalists in their day jobs. And that must be the Senate's 
standard.
  I see hallmarks of judicial activism in Judge Jackson's record; and, 
therefore, I will vote no. Nevertheless, our Democratic colleagues are 
on track to confirm our next Supreme Court Justice.
  And do you know what won't happen? Top Republicans will not imply she 
is illegitimate. We will not call for court packing. I won't be joining 
any mobs outside her new workplace and threatening her by name.
  Democrats must stop their political siege of the institution that 
Judge Jackson is about to join. They must stop their assault on 
judicial independence.
  We are about to have a new Justice whose fan club has openly attacked 
the rule of law. So Judge Jackson will quickly face a fork in the road. 
One approach to her new job would delight the far left. A different 
approach would honor the separation of powers and the Constitution. The 
soon-to-be Justice can either satisfy her radical fan club or help 
preserve the judiciary that Americans need--but not both.
  I am afraid the nominee's record tells us which is likely. But I hope 
Judge Jackson proves me wrong.

                          ____________________