Motion to Discharge

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was just a short time ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee that we voted to advance the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

In the coming days, Judge Jackson's nomination will come before the full Senate. We are on track to confirm her this week.

Judge Jackson is an outstanding nominee. She has earned support across the political and ideological spectrums, and her qualifications are second to none. Most importantly, Judge Jackson's record on the bench is one of evenhandedness, impartiality, and independence.

Despite this, not a single Republican on the Judiciary Committee would vote in favor of her nomination. I am disappointed--not surprised, but disappointed. As a result, Judge Jackson will be the first Supreme Court nominee in the modern era to require a discharge from the Judiciary Committee. It is unfortunate, in one respect, given that she is more prepared to serve on the High Court than, perhaps, any nominee in living memory, even by the standards of our Republican colleagues.

During the Trump administration, Senate Republicans laid out what they viewed as being the standards for supporting a Supreme Court nominee. In their own words, a nominee to the High Court should be confirmed if they meet three criteria. Let's take a look at those criteria.

First, Republicans have argued that you must have mainstream, bipartisan support for a nominee. For instance, in speaking out about then-Judge Gorsuch, the senior Senator from Texas said that Gorsuch was ``a mainstream nominee unanimously supported by Democrats in the past.''

Well, lucky for them, Judge Jackson is well within that judicial mainstream, and she has the receipts to show it.

Judge Jackson is supported by multiple Federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including Judge Thomas Griffith, Judge Michael Luttig, and Judge Bruce Selya. She is supported by dozens of conservative lawyers, including former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, and former Solicitor General Charles Fried. She has broad support from law enforcement organizations and former prosecutors.

They keep saying: Oh, she is soft on crime. She has the endorsement of the largest police organization in America--the Fraternal Order of Police--and the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 87 former assistant U.S. attorneys who have prosecuted a range of criminal offenses here in the District of Columbia. Soft on crime? The prosecutors don't think so.

And, like Judge Gorsuch, Judge Jackson has been unanimously supported by Senate Republicans, especially since she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate not once but twice to be a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and a district court judge.

In short, Judge Jackson has had mainstream, bipartisan support right here in the Senate over and over again.

The second standard laid out by Republicans during the Trump administration was that a Supreme Court nominee must have exceptional legal credentials.

We went for 4 straight days. She faced 24 hours of questioning--24 hours of question after question after question, written questions, oral questions--over and over. How many questioned her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court? None. Not one.

In 2018, for instance, the Republican leader called then-Judge Kavanaugh an ``absolute all-star,'' specifically mentioning he was a Yale undergrad, Yale Law, and had impeccable credentials.

Judge Jackson passes that same test. She clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary. I can tell you, as a lawyer, that to be a clerk for any judge has great honor and distinction. To be a clerk on all three levels of the Federal court, including the Supreme Court, is extraordinary. It just hardly ever occurs. It did for Judge Jackson.

She served as a Federal public defender, a staff attorney, a commissioner on the Sentencing Commission, and as a lawyer in private practice. Her resume is absolutely star-studded in terms of legal experience. For almost a decade, she served on the Federal bench, handling some 1,100 matters, issuing 600 written opinions. Do you want to know what she thinks about an issue? how she thinks about an issue? Just read the written opinions on every type of legal issue imaginable that came before her.

Altogether, Judge Jackson meets, if not exceeds, the qualifications of previous nominees, and the Senate Republicans have enthusiastically supported them. They should support her.

The third and final standard Republicans have articulated for supporting a Supreme Court nominee is they must have a judicial record and a reputation of evenhandedness.

In 2020, for instance, the Republican leader highlighted then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett's ``openminded judicial temperament,'' Amy Coney Barrett.

Well, by the very same metric, Judge Jackson easily passes muster. Her record on the bench is clearly one of impartiality and independence. She has ruled for and against the Presidents of both political parties. She has ruled for prosecutors and ruled for criminal defendants. She has ruled for employers and employees. In her nearly 10 years on the bench, Judge Jackson has displayed no political or ideological favoritism.

Some people on the far left are upset that she isn't more of an advocate for their point of view. She takes a balanced approach to it. She has never allowed her personal views to influence any outcome, and she has been a model of judicial restraint. She has been guided by precedent, by fidelity to the rule of law, and by an unyielding belief that the Constitution must work for all Americans.

I was listening when Senator McConnell came to the floor and announced that he would not vote for her. The No. 1 reason: She wouldn't take a position on packing the Court--packing the Court. That is a question of changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the number of Supreme Court Justices. There has only been one elected official in recent memory who has changed the composition of the Court--Senator McConnell. You will remember, with the Scalia vacancy, he kept it vacant for more than 8 months and denied President Obama the opportunity to fill it.

What about the issue of the future composition of the Court? Is that a requirement for someone to be supported by the Senator from Kentucky? Obviously not. Amy Coney Barrett wouldn't answer the question. She wouldn't give an opinion. She, like Judge Jackson, said: That is a matter of policy. That is for Congress to decide--and it is.

Judge Jackson easily passed the three tests the Senate Republicans established for supporting a Supreme Court nominee, and she passed the tests with flying colors. She is, simply put, one of the Nation's brightest legal minds. She has outstanding credentials, an unimpeachable character, and an unwavering dedication to the rule of law. She is smart, and it shows.

Judge Jackson also has the temperament. I can't tell you how many times during the course of the 24 hours of questioning she faced last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I thought: That is it. I am going to look up at that table, and she is going to stand up and say, ``Enough. My family, we are going home. We have had it.'' She never did--cool under attack, calm under pressure, solid as a pillar.

She has the acumen, the skill--the kind of attributes we demand from a Supreme Court nominee--and she has devoted her life to serving her country, always working to uphold and honor the Constitution. She is dedicated to protecting judicial independence, advancing freedom and liberty, and to making the Court, its work, and its decisions accessible to all Americans.

She told that story of when she was up for the circuit court--that her opinions were long, she said, because she wanted everyone to understand her thinking from start to finish--no mystery here--and that she wanted the people appearing before her to understand what just happened in that courtroom. Why did they win? Why did they lose? What were the issues that were at stake? What did she think about? She takes the time to explain it because she believes in the law, and she wants all of us to understand and believe it as well.

I am going to proudly cast my vote to discharge Judge Jackson from the Judiciary Committee. Later this week, I am going to proudly cast my vote to confirm Judge Jackson as the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let's not hurry to leave for an Easter recess--and I am as anxious as everyone to be with our families--and overlook the obvious. This is a seminal moment in American history. We are breaking down a wall that has been standing for too long. There have been 115 Supreme Court Justices in our history, and 108 look like me: a White guy. The others are representing women, representing Latinas, and others. They are, of course, very important in history. This is too.

Judge Jackson is going to be an important part of America, and she is going to inspire a lot of people, particularly young women, to aspire to greatness.

She was discouraged, if you will remember her testimony. She went up to Harvard and toured it during a national debate team appearance. She liked it so much that she went back to her high school counselor in Florida and said: I think I want to apply to Harvard.

The counselor said: Listen, honey. Don't do that. You are going to be so disappointed. Let's think about some other choices for you.

She did it anyway. She was accepted and went up there, knees shaking, wondering if she could cut it. She not only cut it; she set records in terms of achievement, particularly for a person with her background. Her dad worked as a schoolteacher, went to law school, and convinced her that law was the future for her as well.

She has told so many wonderful stories about her family. This is an exceptional woman. She has lived an extraordinary life. She has a beautiful family. She has written a record we can all be proud of. Let's discharge this nomination from the Judiciary Committee and bring it to the floor this week. Let's make history--the right kind of history for America.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source