-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on my careful review of her record and experience, as well as my assessment of her character and judicial philosophy, I believe that she warrants confirmation to the High Court.

The Constitution delineates the roles of the President and the Senate in nominating and confirming members of the Federal judiciary. Article II grants the President the power to nominate judges, and it gives the Senate the power of advice and consent for such nominations.

Evaluating a nominee to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is one of the most consequential responsibilities of any Senator. Accordingly, I closely examine each nominee's qualifications, experience, writings, judicial philosophy, and personal integrity. One factor I do not consider is the political party of the nominating president.

I have spent the last several weeks reviewing Judge Jackson's record, both before and after she became a Federal judge. Prior to and after her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Jackson and I spent more than 2 and a half hours discussing her jurisprudence and approach to deciding cases. I explored her views on precedent and her understanding of the role that the judicial branch plays within our constitutional design.

I also watched Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing and, on numerous occasions, requested additional information from the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee.

There is no question that Judge Jackson is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has sterling academic and extensive professional credentials. She has been a Supreme Court clerk, an attorney in private practice, a Federal public defender, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and a Federal district court judge for more than 8 years. She now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Her qualifications have been confirmed by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which has unanimously rated Judge Jackson as ``Well Qualified''--its highest rating.

Having determined that Judge Jackson possesses the requisite qualifications and experience, my consideration of her nomination then turned to whether she has the judgment and approach to deciding cases that are necessary to serve on the Supreme Court.

Words that I spoke--years ago--when announcing my decision to vote to confirm Justice Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court remain my standard today: ``I believe it is . . . critical for nominees to have a judicial philosophy that is devoid of prejudgment, partisanship, and preference. Only then will the decisions handed down from the bench be impartial and consistent with legal precedents and the constitutional foundations of our democratic system.''

Federal judges at all levels who are entrusted with lifetime appointments must avoid the temptation to exceed their constitutional role. That is particularly important for Supreme Court Justices, who issue rulings from which there is no further opportunity for appeal.

Judge Jackson testified that, as a judge, she seeks to ``decide cases from a neutral posture'' and rules ``without fear or favor, consistent with [her] judicial oath.'' She also correctly acknowledged that the role of a judge ``is a limited one'' and that she is only empowered to ``decide cases and controversies that are properly presented.'' She added that her ``judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.''

During her hearing, Judge Jackson was asked whether she believes that the Constitution is a living document with a meaning that evolves over time. In response, she discussed the importance of ``adherence to the text'' and how her judicial powers are constrained by the meaning of the text at the ``time of the founding.'' She also explained that she does not believe in a ``living Constitution,'' rejecting the theory that it is a changing document ``infused with [her] own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day.''

In these responses, she demonstrated an understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Court must ``say what the law is.'' For any judge to do more would undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

I also valued the testimony of Judge Thomas Griffith, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President George W. Bush. He explained that, on several occasions, he reviewed Judge Jackson's decisions on appeal. Although they did not always agree on the outcome, he ``respected her diligent and careful approach, her deep understanding, and collegial manner.'' He added that, in his view, Judge Jackson ``is an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and law and not as a partisan.''

To be sure, I do not agree with some of the decisions that Judge Jackson has rendered as a Federal judge. For instance, in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, I believe that Judge Jackson was wrong to review a decision that Congress--through Federal law--left to the ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Court of Appeals rightly reversed her ruling in that case. When I asked Judge Jackson about her decision, however, I respected the fact that she was able to articulate the thoughtful--albeit ultimately mistaken-- analysis that she employed.

Similarly, I disagree with the sentences that she has imposed in some of the criminal cases that have come before her. As a general matter, I believe that judges should have some discretion in sentencing. This allows them to take into account the unique circumstances of each case--whether aggravating or mitigating--to determine an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.

Other Federal judges--appointed by Presidents of both parties--have deviated from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in some of the same types of cases handled by Judge Jackson. For instance, a 2021 report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission explained that ``[l]ess than one-third (30.0%) of non-production child pornography offenders received a sentence within the guideline range in fiscal year 2019.''

The recent surge in crime, exacerbated by the vilification of law enforcement, is causing tremendous harm in cities across America. Thus, in evaluating Judge Jackson's approach to criminal cases, I appreciate the input from the Fraternal Order of Police, which concluded that she ``has considered the facts and applied the law consistently and fairly on a range of issues.'' That organization explained that it is ``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.''

Just as I have disagreed with some of her decisions to date, I have no doubt that, if Judge Jackson is confirmed, I will not agree with every vote that she casts as a Justice. That alone, however, is not disqualifying. Indeed, that statement applies to all six Justices, nominated by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, whom I have voted to confirm.

I have concluded that Judge Jackson possesses the experience, judicial philosophy, and character to serve our country honorably as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak on the profoundly disturbing trend of politicizing the courts and the judicial nomination process. This trend dates back decades and, sadly, continues to damage the reputation of this body and the independence of our courts. Today, calls to ``pack'' the Supreme Court in an apparent effort to dictate the outcome of cases are dangerous and undermine the public's confidence in our judiciary.

Part of the reason for this politicization is that, in recent years, the process has increasingly moved away from what I believe to be appropriate for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. In my view, the role the Constitution assigns to the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications, philosophy, and integrity of the nominee. It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual Senator or would rule exactly as an individual Senator would want.

It used to be common for Senators to give the President, regardless of political party, considerable deference in the choice of a nominee as long as the President's choice possessed the requisite credentials, experience, integrity, and respect for the Constitution. One need look no further than the 98-0 vote that conservative Justice Scalia received in 1986 and the 96-3 vote that liberal Justice Ginsburg received in 1993.

This approach served the Senate, the Court, and the country well. It instilled confidence in the independence and the integrity of the judiciary and helped keep the Court above the political fray. And this is the approach that I plan to continue to use for Supreme Court nominations because it runs counter to the disturbing trend of politicizing the judicial nomination process.

I urge my colleagues to denounce partisan attacks on our courts and to join me in working to reverse this harmful trend.

Similarly, I urge the Court itself to strive to forge consensus. A defining characteristic of a democracy, one that differentiates it from an autocracy, is that we are all, from the humblest to the most powerful, governed by the rule of law. That protection is inevitably weakened when those charged with upholding the primacy of the rule of law cannot agree on what the law provides. The perception held by some, whether fair or not, that Supreme Court Justices are guided by their personal views undermines respect for the law, posing a threat to the principle that holds us together as Americans.

This danger will only grow if the Court continues to exhibit recurring and predictable differences on the most significant legal issues of our time. Thus, I think it is essential that the Justices endeavor to reach consensus, especially on matters with the greatest potential to cause conflict.

To state this point in simpler terms, at times when our country is deeply divided along political and ideological lines, the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to ensure that we adhere to the ties that bind us. Its ability to perform that function is diminished, however, when its members appear no less divided than the rest of the country.

I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source