-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, late last month, President Biden announced the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
As I said the day her nomination was announced, it is hard to think of a better jurist to replace highly regarded Justice Stephen Breyer. Over the past 10 days, we have all had a chance to learn about her record, and last week I met with her in my office. I would like to share what impressed me the most about her.
First is her breadth of experience. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she has worked in private legal practice. She served as a Federal public defender and served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She has clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary: for Judge Patti Saris on the District of Massachusetts, Judge Bruce Selya on the First Circuit, and Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court. That is an amazing resume.
She went on to serve as a Federal district court judge. Currently, she sits on the DC Circuit, often regarded as the second highest court in the land. And once confirmed, she will be only the second current Supreme Court Justice with experience as a trial court judge.
That means Judge Jackson will bring to the Court insights into the issues confronting Federal district courts every single day. And these same questions often make it to the Supreme Court for final review.
Second, I was impressed with her character and temperament. They are unimpeachable. During our conversation last week, we spoke about her family, her daughters, her upbringing, and the highlights of her career. I particularly enjoyed one story, which she has told before, about a letter that her daughter wrote to President Obama a few years ago. In it, she asked the President to appoint her mother to the Supreme Court. Well, it may have taken a bit longer than Judge Jackson's daughter anticipated, I can only imagine how proud she is today.
My conversation with Judge Jackson also made clear that she has the exact temperament we need on the Court. She is personable, humble, approachable. That last attribute is particularly important for a Supreme Court Justice.
The Supreme Court should not be shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Its process and its decisions should be clear and easily understood for the people in the Court as well as for the American public. With Judge Jackson on the Court, we can trust that will be true.
Third, Judge Jackson is clearly--clearly--within the judicial mainstream. She has a record of evenhandedness and impartiality, guided by the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. She is not a partisan or an ideologue. She is independent in her thinking, and she will maintain the Court's proper role.
Don't take my word for it. Judges and lawyers from across the political spectrum have said the same thing. Consider the support Judge Jackson enjoys from David Levi, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the Eastern District of California.
He wrote to the committee, and he said a Supreme Court nominee ``must be neutral, nonpartisan, exercise self-restraint, model civility, and approach each case with an open mind and with a determination to reach as just, wise, and correct a result as possible.''
And he concluded that ``[b]ased on what I know of Judge Jackson . . . I believe she has been that kind of a judge and will be that kind of a Justice.''
I could not agree more. Often, I have seen my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in their initial reaction to the judge--Judge Jackson--have said, well, I want to know more about her judicial philosophy. Certainly, they can draw their own conclusions, but I hope that they will read what David Levi had to say as well as other conservative jurists.
Sadly, Judge Jackson has already been subject to a number of baseless attacks so let's set the record straight. First, she has drawn criticism for refusing to comment when asked whether the Supreme Court should remain at its current size. Well, Judge Jackson's exactly right not to offer an opinion. As a nominee to the Supreme Court and a sitting judge on the DC Circuit, it would be totally inappropriate for her to opine on a public policy decision that only we can make in Congress.
Indeed, Judge Jackson's handling of this question mirrors the approach taken by Justice Amy Coney Barrett just a few months back when she was nominated to the Court.
At her hearing, when then-Judge Barrett was asked about the size of the Court, she then responded, it is ``a question left open to Congress'' and that if there were a ``specific constitutional question'' about the Court's size, she ``could not opine on it.''
Judge Jackson also has faced offensive questions from figures on the far right about her qualifications. This past Wednesday, FOX News talking head Tucker Carlson demanded that President Biden produce Judge Jackson's score on the LSAT exam.
Mr. Carlson said he wanted to see Judge Jackson's LSAT score to gauge if she was, in fact, ``a once in a generation legal mind.''
Isn't it interesting that Mr. Tucker Carlson never once asked for LSAT scores of President Trump's nominees to the Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett. He never once questioned their qualifications to sit on the Court or their academic credentials.
Let's be clear: Judge Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University and cum laude from Harvard Law School. Not bad. As an undergrad, she received the Harvard College Scholarship for Academic Achievement. Let me repeat that--academic achievement. And she served as supervising editor on the Harvard Law Review.
Mr. Carlson, of course, is notorious for his outrageous comments. I don't expect he is going to offer any apology to Judge Jackson, but I would urge all my Republican colleagues to disavow his remarks and disassociate themselves from the innuendo.
We also continue to hear false allegations that Judge Jackson was handpicked by so-called liberal dark money groups. Once again, that claim is completely divorced from reality. The truth is this: President Biden undertook a rigorous process to select Justice Breyer's successor, seeking the advice of a bipartisan group of Senators. And after weeks of consideration, he, and he alone, chose Judge Jackson.
President Biden's selection process was deliberative, collaborative, and it took seriously the Senate's advice and consent role. It did not involve dark money groups. I can't help but note the irony of this line of attack coming from the other side of the aisle.
After all, it was President Donald Trump who bragged--bragged--that groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation actually drove his selection process for the Supreme Court.
As a candidate, Trump said:
We're going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society.
Trump, never at a loss for words, made it very clear where he went to find his nominee.
And Don McGahn, the Trump administration's first White House Counsel, said about the Federalist Society in judicial selection:
I've been a member of the Federalist Society since law school. Still am. So, frankly, it seems like it has been insourced.
``Insourced'' was his word.
And it is worth adding that Republicans, including Senator McConnell, have blocked every single effort to address the presence of hard money--dark money in our political system. We should have full disclosure. I support that. We are ready to vote on the floor. The leader on the Republican side resists.
Judge Jackson also has faced baseless claims that she is a partisan Democrat just nominated to rubberstamp the Biden agenda. These claims have no basis in fact. She is evenhanded and impartial, confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis three different times, including last year.
If Judge Jackson were such a partisan, why would so many prominent conservatives be supporting her? The short answer is they wouldn't.
But she has that support and plenty of it, including from former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan; retired DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush retiree; retired Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a George H. W. Bush appointee; Bill Burck, a prominent Republican attorney who worked in the George W. Bush administration; Charles Fried, who served as Solicitor General during the Reagan administration, and many more.
These conservative jurists and attorneys have endorsed her precisely because she is independent and fairminded. She will not rubberstamp any President's agenda. These conservative leaders know that on the Court, Judge Jackson will be faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law.
Finally, we hear the false allegation that Judge Jackson will be ``soft on crime.'' Look at her life, look at her record and at the support she now has from the law enforcement community.
As Judge Jackson noted in accepting the President's nomination, she has two uncles and a brother who serve as police officers. One of her uncles was chief of police in Miami.
On the bench, she has approached each criminal case in a manner that we would ask of every judge. Look at the law; look at the facts.
It is not surprising that she has garnered the support of multiple law enforcement groups. This nominee, who is attributed as being soft on crime, has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. They wrote the following about her:
We are reassured that, should she be confirmed, she would approach her future cases with an open mind and treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.
Wouldn't we all be proud to have that endorsement for our pursuits?
Superintendent David Brown of the Chicago Police Department wrote:
I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's appointment will make history by adding a powerful, moderate, and informed voice to the highest court in the land.
As Senators and the American people continue to learn more about Judge Jackson and her amazing record, I hope and expect they will reach the same conclusion that leaders have reached all across America's political spectrum. Judge Jackson will be a strong, fair, principled, evenhanded, and impartial Supreme Court Justice.
In closing, let me say that we have scheduled the hearings of the Judiciary Committee to begin on March 21. That is 24 days after President Biden announced his nominee.
The previous Justice nominated for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, under President Trump, was brought to the committee for a hearing in 16 days. So we are certainly within the window and beyond it in producing Judge Jackson on the 24th day.
We are also providing materials that have been requested, including documents from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, of which Judge Jackson was a member.
She will produce 12,000 pages of documents that are going to chronicle what happened in the Commission while she was serving. They include minutes and the Board's discussions of the important issues that are before us.
Lucky for all of us, it is a very transparent Agency, and they have lived up to that transparency with this disclosure.
In the meantime, the judge is going to do her best to meet with as many Senators as possible. She has prioritized those members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the right and on the left, Democrats and Republicans, as well as other leaders in the U.S. Senate.
She is available, and I am certain that if my colleagues are fair in their appraisal, they will come to the same conclusion that I have come to. She is an excellent choice to be Justice Breyer's successor on the Supreme Court.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source