-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source