Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing: Day 3

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gets a hug from her husband Dr. Peter Jackson at the conclusion of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on March 23.

Judge?Ketanji Brown Jackson’s third day of confirmation hearings and second day of questioning featured a day of intense grilling by GOP senators and a continuation of her explaining her approach as a judge, discussions of abstract legal concepts that can be pivotal in controversial Supreme Court cases, and her defense of a sentencing record that Republicans have claimed wasn’t adequately harsh on certain crimes.

Here are key moments from day three of Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing:

On her “empathy” shown on the bench: Jackson explained the way she spoke to defendants as a trial judge during sentencing, as she faced Republicans who had raised concerns about the “empathy” she has shown on the bench.

On being the “the first generation” to benefit from the civil rights movement: The judge recounted the childhood of parents, who attended segregated middle and high schools in Florida, and how her upbringing was like “night and day” to theirs.

On recusing herself from a lawsuit against Harvard over its affirmative action policies: Jackson told Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, she plans to recuse from a lawsuit against Harvard over its affirmative action policies the justices are hearing next term.

Pushing back against GOP focusing on a “small subset” of her sentences: Jackson had a sharp response to a question from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley asking her if she regretted the three-month sentence she issued in a child porn case where prosecutors were seeking two years.

Booker defends Jackson in emotional exchange: Democratic Sen. Cory Booker defended Jackson and slammed his GOP Senate colleagues for their treatment of the judge during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

At one point during his remarks, Booker became emotional, speaking to the historic nature of Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court.?Jackson could be seen wiping away tears as Booker spoke about how powerful this moment was for the country in that she would be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court and then spoke of African Americans before her that have made history.?

Booker added, “You are my harbinger of hope. This country’s getting better and better and better. And when that final vote happens, and you ascend onto the highest court in the land, I’m going to rejoice. And I’m going to tell you right now, the greatest country in the world, the United States of America, will be better because of you.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination on Monday, April 4.

See photos from the hearing here.

Chairman Sen. Richard Durbin, left, and ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley, are seen before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies on Wednesday, March 23.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination on Monday, April 4.

The panel will first consider the nomination on Monday, March 28. But that meeting will not include a vote because the minority party can ask to hold the vote over until the next meeting.

Senate Democratic leaders have said they hope to have a vote confirming Jackson before their Easter recess.

One of the tools Republicans have to stall the nomination: Boycott the committee vote on April 4 to deny a quorum and stall the nomination in committee.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican, told CNN tonight that is not in the cards.

“I haven’t had one discussion with one Republican on that subject. And I get paid to do my job and that’s part of my job and I intend to earn my money,” Grassley said.

Also, Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, leaving the FBI background check meeting on Jackson, told CNN there were “no” red flags raised.

Leila Jackson, right, watches as her parents Dr. Patrick Jackson, left, and Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, foreground, become emotional during a back and forth with Sen. Alex Padilla on Wednesday, March 23.

Ketanji Brown Jackson reflected on her own journey to becoming a judge when Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla asked her, on behalf of young people in the country, “What do you say to some of them who may doubt that they can one day achieve the same great heights that you have.”

Jackson discussed how she tries to speak to young people often and then reflected on the adversity she faced to get to where she is.

“I appreciate the opportunity to speak to young people. I appreciate it very much. I do it a lot for the reasons that you have articulated,” she said. “I hope to inspire people to try to follow this path because I love this country, because I love the law, because I think it is important that we all invest in our future. And the young people are and so I want them to know that they can do and be anything.”

Jackson spoke about her experience of first visiting Harvard University with her high school debate coach and then eventually attending the school. She said she was not familiar with the school or its culture initially, since she came from a vastly different background than most of her peers at the time.

She then mentioned how during her first semester she began to feel homesick and questioned if she belonged at the school, when a stranger gave her advice when she was walking through Harvard Yard.

Jackson said that she would tell young Americans watching the hearing “to persevere.”

See the emotional moment:

- Source: cnn " data-fave-thumbnails="{"big": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/1373d1f0-f34c-4b08-80ab-097322737487.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" }, "small": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/1373d1f0-f34c-4b08-80ab-097322737487.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" } }" data-vr-video="false" data-show-html="" data-byline-html="" data-timestamp-html="" data-check-event-based-preview="" data-is-vertical-video-embed="false" data-network-id="" data-publish-date="2022-03-24T00:45:13.343Z" data-video-section="" data-canonical-url="" data-branding-key="" data-video-slug="ketanji brown jackson emotional moment" data-first-publish-slug="ketanji brown jackson emotional moment" data-video-tags="" data-details="">

Video Ad Feedback

18df0b03-e1eb-40a6-914b-858f58440d0e.mp4

03:29 - Source: cnn

Sen. Cory Booker, speaks during a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee?Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday, March 23.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker defended Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and slammed his GOP Senate colleagues for their treatment of Jackson during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

At one point during his remarks, Booker became emotional, speaking to the historic nature of Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court.?Jackson could be seen wiping away tears as Booker spoke about how powerful this moment was for the country in that she would be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court and then spoke of African Americans before her that have made history.?

Booker added, “You are my harbinger of hope. This country’s getting better and better and better. And when that final vote happens, and you ascend onto the highest court in the land, I’m going to rejoice. And I’m going to tell you right now, the greatest country in the world, the United States of America, will be better because of you.”

The committee took a 10 minute break after Booker concluded his remarks and Judge Jackson’s parents could be seen going up to hug the New Jersey Democrat.

Earlier, Booker praised Jackson’s “extraordinary” demeanor in handling the questioning by certain senators with “grit and grace.”

Booker called out GOP Sen. Josh Hawley specifically for his focus on a handful of child pornography cases Jackson handled.

Booker then mentioned how this specific line of attacks was not brought up last year when Jackson was confirmed to serve on the US Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wipes tears from her eyes while listening to Sen. Cory Booker speak during her confirmation hearing on March 23.

“This is a new, new low and what’s especially surprising about this is it didn’t happen last year. You were put on a court that I’m told is considered like the second most powerful court in our land. And you were passed with bipartisan support. Nobody brought it up then. Did they not do their homework? Were they lax, did they make a mistake? I wonder as they ask you the question, do you regret??I wonder if they regret that? That they didn’t bring that out? No. Why? Because it was an allegation that is meritless to the point of demagoguery.”

“You are, I don’t mean this in any way because I thought if anybody called me average I would, I would be upset but you are a mainstream judge. Your sentencing, I’ve looked at the data, falls in the mainstream on everything from child sexual assault to all the other issues that people are trying to bring up,” Booker noted.

CNN’s Manu Raju and Ariane De Vogue contributed to this report.

Watch the moment:

- Source: cnn " data-fave-thumbnails="{"big": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/302ef328-c0e8-47ef-92b8-faa39da2ef45.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" }, "small": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/302ef328-c0e8-47ef-92b8-faa39da2ef45.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" } }" data-vr-video="false" data-show-html="" data-byline-html="" data-timestamp-html="" data-check-event-based-preview="" data-is-vertical-video-embed="false" data-network-id="" data-publish-date="2022-03-24T00:33:38.032Z" data-video-section="" data-canonical-url="" data-branding-key="" data-video-slug="Booker KBJ moment" data-first-publish-slug="Booker KBJ moment" data-video-tags="" data-details="">

Video Ad Feedback

710ea1ba-5672-42d4-bed5-14bc7ed31f54.mp4

04:57 - Source: cnn

Sen. Patrick Leahy, left, speaks with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin, center, during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.

A sizable portion of Wednesday’s discussion have been devoted the pre-sentencing reports from the probation office that were before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson when she issued the child porn sentences now being critiqued by Republicans.

Jackson said that she was considering the details of those reports — and the arguments that the defendants had made about their sentences — when she issued the sentences that Republicans are now bashing for being below what prosecutors or the US sentences guidelines recommended in the cases.

What are pre-sentencing reports? Pre-sentencing reports submitted by the US probation office are usually filed under seal and only made available to the parties and the court. They include the details of the probation office’s in-depth investigation that covers the offense, the defendant and others involved in the case. The probation office also uses the reports to put forward its own sentencing recommendations. Sometimes that detail will be made public, either in the sentencing memos filed publicly in the case or in remarks during the sentencing hearing.?But the reports themselves are not made accessible to the public due to the sensitive details they often contain.

The White House, according to Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, sought out and obtained from the court the probation recommendations from the reports the child porn cases that Republicans are now scrutinizing in Jackson’s record. In most of the cases in question, Jackson issued sentences equal to or greater than the probation office recommended, according to the numbers provided by the White House.

Ten Judiciary Committee Republicans are now demanding the pre-sentencing reports as they continue their criticism of Jackson.

Durbin said such pre-sentencing reports have “never” been asked for by the committee before because it could endanger innocent third parties. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, who authored a letter from Republican lawmakers, responded by saying they could redact names of innocent people.?

But Durbin said it’s a “bridge too far” and would amount to a “fishing expedition.”?

Sen. Ben Sasse was the lone GOP senator to not sign on to the request.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of broke ranks in the Obama era, voting for President Barack Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees. Under President Joe Biden, Graham has backed scores of lower court nominees — including Ketanji Brown Jackson to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals just last year.

But now that GOP opposition is stiffening with Jackson up for a vote to sit on the Supreme Court, Graham is all but certain to vote against her nomination.

In an interview with CNN, Graham pinned the blame on Biden — first for voting to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown, a Black woman picked by George W. Bush to serve on the DC Circuit nearly two decades ago, and more recently for picking Jackson over South Carolina district court Judge Michelle Childs, whom Graham was pushing for the high court.

It’s almost certain that Jackson — a 51-year-old Ivy League educated judge who would be the first Black woman in history to sit on the high court and whose credentials and demeanor have been praised by both parties — won’t be able to win more than a few Republican votes, meaning it could be one of the closest confirmation votes in US history.

Read more here:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) questions Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on March 23, 2022. Photo by Sarah Silbiger/CNN

Related article Jackson faces tight confirmation vote as Graham signals 'no' vote and GOP opposition stiffens

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Wednesday, March 23.

As GOP Sen. Tom Cotton grilled Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson about the advocacy she did, as a lawyer, on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Jackson invoked the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch to explain her work on those cases.

Cotton was asking Jackson about “whether America would be safer or less safe if we released all the detainees from Guantanamo Bay.”

After addressing the hypothetical question, she made an additional point about what makes the country safe.

Jackson’s comment appears to reference a concurrence Gorsuch wrote in a case concerning California limits on indoor worship services during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Even in times of crisis—perhaps especially in times of crisis — we have a duty to hold governments to the Constitution,” Gorsuch wrote.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had a sharp response to a question from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley asking her if she regretted the three-month sentence she issued in a child porn case where prosecutors were seeking two years.

She added that she was talking about the seven specific cases that Republicans have singled out, and that she has other cases where she’s sentenced people to 25 or 30 years.

“No one case, Senator, can stand in for judging an entire record,” she said.

The aggressive questioning she got from Hawley on Wednesday came after Jackson faced interruptions and other pointed tactics from his fellow committee Republicans.

Sen. Lindsey Graham repeatedly interjected as tried to answer his questions, prompted criticism from Democrats on the committee. Sen. Ted Cruz also would not let Jackson finish her responses to his inquiries and on several occasions accused her of not answering her questions.

“I’ve said what I’m going to say about these cases, no one case can stand in for a judge’s entire record because… ” Jackson started to say before Cruz cut in at one point.

“Would you please let her respond?” Durbin said.

“No, not if she’s not gonna answer,” Cruz shot back, and the committee members squabbled for several more exchanges.

“Senator, I didn’t say I’m not going to answer that, my answer is…” Jackson started to say as Cruz continued to talk over her.

Sen. Josh Hawley questions US Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on March 23.

See the exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:

- Source: cnn " data-fave-thumbnails="{"big": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/e6fd2d22-27f4-46eb-9ffc-36511246b44d.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" }, "small": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/e6fd2d22-27f4-46eb-9ffc-36511246b44d.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" } }" data-vr-video="false" data-show-html="" data-byline-html="" data-timestamp-html="" data-check-event-based-preview="" data-is-vertical-video-embed="false" data-network-id="" data-publish-date="2022-03-23T21:42:04.878Z" data-video-section="" data-canonical-url="" data-branding-key="" data-video-slug="josh hawley ketanji brown jackson exchange" data-first-publish-slug="josh hawley ketanji brown jackson exchange" data-video-tags="" data-details="">

Video Ad Feedback

22237b7d-fd81-4b09-8f20-fc9e331bb3b1.mp4

04:08 - Source: cnn

Sen. Ted Cruz questions US Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on critical race theory during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation?in Washington, DC, on March 22.

Many Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are wasting no time embracing the kind of?bad-faith scrutiny often reserved for women and Black nominees?— beneficiaries of affirmative action, in one?GOP senator’s parlance.

Some Republicans, lacking a coherent strategy, are pressing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for her views on The 1619 Project and the children’s book “Antiracist Baby” (because “critical race theory”), though neither has anything to do with the job she’s being considered for.

Others are trying with great effort to cast the nominee as weak on crime by distorting her past work defending Guantanamo Bay detainees and her sentencing in child pornography cases.

This wafer-thin opposition is revealing.?

To use an observation from Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, the attacks on Tuesday were nothing more than “straw men, worn talking points and imagined grievances” that made clear that Republicans didn’t have any real criticisms of Jackson, whom the American Bar Association rated “well qualified” to serve on the court. All GOP senators had were tired complaints designed to animate their base.

The 1619 Project and critical race theory

Some Republicans on Tuesday seemed determined to deflect from Jackson’s record.?

Take Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance. He spent several minutes of his questioning time not talking about Jackson but instead impugning Nikole Hannah-Jones, a New York Times Magazine writer and the creator of The 1619 Project, which has become a lightning rod for the anger of the political right. Then, he leaped to CRT and rifled through children’s books that he said espouse the law school framework.

“Do you agree with this book (“Antiracist Baby”) that is being taught to kids that babies are racist?” Cruz asked, without any detectable irony.

Continuing after a sigh and a pause, Jackson refused to spar over racist babies and insisted on discussing legal issues.

Later, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn revisited CRT, saying that Jackson ought to give parents the right to prohibit the concept from being taught in public school classrooms.

“It is important to them to have a Supreme Court that is going to protect parental rights to teach these children as parents see fit to have their children taught,” Blackburn said.

In important ways, avoiding conversations about anything relevant to Jackson seemed to be the point on Tuesday.

“In lieu of taking Jackson’s sterling record seriously, opponents have opted for deflection,” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick recently wrote. “They don’t like court expansion. They don’t like the Sentencing Commission. They don’t like lawyers who defended detainees at Guantanamo Bay. But these aren’t actually complaints about Jackson or her qualifications. They’re rehashed boilerplate complaints about all Democrats.”

For weeks, Republicans have seemed uninterested in engaging with Jackson’s record. Presumably, that’s because they know that their attacks hold no merit and that there’s little they can do to thwart her from being confirmed. So, they’re using the hearings to prepare for something much less settled: the midterm election cycle.

“Soft on crime”

When they weren’t preoccupied with Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh – who four years ago was accused of sexual assault before he was confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the country’s highest court —Republicans on Tuesday and Wednesday were obsessed with trying to portray Jackson as “soft on crime.”

For instance, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Texas Sen. John Cornyn expressed concerns over the nominee’s advocacy for Guantanamo Bay detainees while she served as a federal public defender and worked at a private law firm. Graham went so far as to claim that Jackson’s advocacy jeopardized national security.

“I’m suggesting the system has failed miserably and advocates to change the system like she was advocating would destroy our ability to protect our country,” Graham said, before theatrically leaving the room.

Yet what such criticism downplayed was the fact that Jackson was merely following the Constitution that Republicans enjoy showering with pious praise.

Read more here.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, she plans to recuse from a lawsuit against Harvard over its affirmative action policies the justices are hearing next term.

“That is my plan, senator,” Jackson said.

Cruz brought up the case, noting he and the judge are both alums of the university. She is also on its board of overseers, as Cruz noted he asked if she intends to recuse from the case if confirmed.

The Harvard case is one of two affirmative cases the Supreme Court is hearing next term. The second case is a challenge to the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action program. Jackson did not comment on that case.

As things stand, the Supreme Court consolidated the?two cases concerning policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. But the court could now decouple the cases so that, if confirmed, Jackson could weigh in on the issue through the North Carolina dispute.?

High court conservatives have increasingly cast aside decades-old decisions, and their acceptance of the appeals immediately throws in doubt precedents from 1978 and 2003 that let colleges consider students’ race to enhance campus diversity and the educational experience, CNN’s Joan Biskupic wrote earlier this year. Lower federal courts had?sided with Harvard?and the University of North Carolina.

The ethics concerns about Jackson’s potential participation in the Harvard case centered specifically on her presence on its board – and not because she attended the university as both an undergraduate and law student. Three of the justices Jackson will join if confirmed – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch — attended Harvard Law, as did Justice Stephen Breyer, whom Jackson as been selected to replace.

Jackson’s presence on Harvard’s board may have given her a view into the discovery and litigation strategy in the case, as attorney and former Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur noted on Twitter.

Nevertheless, some experts on legal ethics did not believe that Jackson?had to recuse herself from the Harvard case depending on her involvement on the board.?

“Unless she took a position on?the Harvard policy as a member of the Board or in support of candidates?for admission, she would not be recused” Stephen Gillers of NYU School of Law told CNN last month. “ Merely having been a member of the Board is not enough to require recusal,” he said.?

For more on the cases, read here.

A general view of Harvard University campus is seen on April 22, 2020 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard has fallen under criticism after saying it would keep the $8.6 million in stimulus funding the university received from the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund in response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic.

Related article Supreme Court to consider landmark challenge to Harvard and UNC affirmative action policies

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to explain why he voted for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the DC Circuit Court — but is signaling he will vote against her this time. At Wednesday’s hearing, he railed on her sentencing of child pornography offenders and even criticized her as an “activist” for being overturned on an immigration ruling while serving as a district judge — all topics that he could have known about when she was up for a job at the DC Circuit.

CNN caught up with Graham, and asked him why he’s changed his approach.

He added that the potential nominee that he pushed, district court judge Michelle Childs, “could have gotten her a lot of votes. I think this is going to be really hard for Judge Brown.”

Graham also said that “this whole sentencing, how she views sentencing guidelines is problematic for me.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has resumed.

The following senators are expected to question Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson next in this order:

More on today’s timing: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick?Durbin?says he expects today’s questioning to end around 7 p.m. ET if the amount of senators who are still in line to question Jackson use their allotted 20 minutes to question the judge.?

This time frame could shift in either direction if senators yield back some of their time or if additional breaks are added.

The actions of the Supreme Court on Wednesday immediately reverberated at the Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing, when Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar lamented the use of the so-called shadow docket for another important decision.

The court rejected a GOP request that it upend a Wisconsin congressional map adopted by the state supreme court that was preferred by Democrats. It also issued an order in a separate Wisconsin redistricting case that blocked a state legislative map adopted by the state supreme court that was backed by Democrats.

Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, noted the dissent from two of the court’s liberals: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“She noted that in an emergency posture, the court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision resolving a conflict over the state’s redistricting, a decision that was rendered after a five-month process involving all interested stakeholders, based on an obligation that is, these are her words, hazy at best even though summary reversals are generally reserved for decisions in violation of settled law,” Klobuchar said of the Sotomayor-written dissent.

“(T)his underscores the point that I made yesterday that the courts’ increasing practice of using the shadow docket to decide cases that have grave consequences for our democracy, including the right to vote that you and many other nominees have said is fundamental is incredibly troubling,” Klobuchar said.

The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC on February 8, 2022.

Related article Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to block Wisconsin congressional map but sides with Republicans in state legislative map dispute

The temperature of the confirmation hearings was raised significantly with a series of questions by Sen. Lindsey Graham that culminated in him repeatedly interrupting Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson attempts to explain her legal approach.?

Jackson’s comments laying out why she viewed as outdated?certain aspects sentence guidelines for child porn cases prompted in a particularly heated interjection by Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.

“On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands. You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison,” Jackson said.?

“Good, good!” Graham jumped into exclaim, as she tried to continue to explain why many judges view that approach as problematic.?

“I hope you go to jail for 50 years. If you’re on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation. So — so you don’t think that’s a bad thing, I think that’s a horrible thing,” Graham said, before Chairman Dick Durbin stepped in.?

“That’s not what the witness said and she should be allowed to answer this question once and for all, senator,” Durbin said.?

Graham stormed out of the hearing room at the end of back-and-forth, and declined to comment to CNN about the testy back-and-forth.?

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and a fellow committee member, told reporters Graham’s questioning of her was “beyond the pale.”?

Even before Graham turned his questioning to the touch subject of child abuse imagery offense, Democrats were bristling at his refusal to let Jackson finish answers. ?

During a discussion of her trial court ruling – later overturned by DC’s appellate court — in a case dealing with a Trump administration immigration policy, Graham accused her of judicial activism.?

“This is an example to me, and you may not agree, where the plain language of the statute was completely wiped out by you,” Graham said. When Jackson tried to explain her rationale in that decision, Graham interrupted her repeatedly, telling her legal argument in the case “fell on deaf ears” and that “I’ve got other things I want to talk about.”?

Those other things included Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings, which Republicans have raised on several occasions during Jackson’s hearing to complain about how Democrats treated him?

Jackson wasn’t following a Graham hypothetical that referred to how accusations against Kavanaugh came out then. Even as Durbin pointed out his time had expired and that she had nothing to do with those proceedings, Graham charged through the question, asking Jackson how she would feel if what happened to Kavanaugh happened to her.?

“I’m asking her about she may feel about what y’all did!” Graham huffed at Durbin.?

Jackson said she had no comment on the Kavanaugh proceedings, but wanted to answer earlier Graham questions about her child porn sentencing record, leading to the exchange about her view of the guidelines.?

“I think the best way you deter crime when it comes to child pornography is you lower the boom on anybody who goes onto the internet and pulls out these images for their pleasure,” Graham told Jackson, who argued that, in addition to imprisonment, she ordered lengthy supervision and limits on computer use.?

“And all I can say is that your view of how to deter child pornography is not my view. I think you’re doing it wrong and every judge who does what you’re doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited,” Graham said.?

Late in the hearing on Tuesday, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee claimed that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson had disparaged?women who oppose abortion.?Blackburn, however, was twisting the contents of a legal brief Jackson co-authored in 2001.?

Blackburn?claimed?that, when Jackson was in private practice, “You made your views on pro-life, and the pro-life movement, very clear. And in fact, you attacked pro-life women. And this was in a brief that you wrote. You described them, and I’m quoting: ‘Hostile, noisy crowd of in-your-face protesters.’ And you advocated against these women’s First Amendment right to express their sincerely held views regarding the sanctity of each individual life.”

Shortly afterward, Blackburn, who described herself as “a pro-life woman,”?said?she finds it “incredibly concerning” that a nominee to be a lifetime Supreme Court justice has “such a hostile view” toward pro-life sentiment.?And Blackburn?asked?Jackson if she thinks of pro-life women at church, or even Blackburn herself, as noisy, hostile and in-your-face.?

Facts First:?Blackburn mischaracterized what this?2001 legal brief?said. It did not broadly describe pro-life women as hostile, noisy or in-your-face. Rather, Jackson and her co-authors used the phrase “hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters” specifically to describe pro-life activists who confront patients outside reproductive health clinics. The brief was written on behalf of clients who operated and supported these clinics.

The Massachusetts case was about “buffer zones” outside clinics, areas in which pro-life protesters would be prohibited from approaching patients. The brief Jackson co-authored as a young associate — along with partners at her firm – said this:

So “hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters” was clearly not a general description of Americans who oppose abortion.?

Jackson explained to Blackburn on Tuesday that the case was about buffer zones?and that?she had used this language on behalf of clients.

“Senator,” she said, “I drafted a brief along with the partners in my law firm, who reviewed it, and we filed it on behalf of our client, in — to advance our clients’ arguments that they wanted to make in the case.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is attending Supreme Court nominee Judge?Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He is not expected to speak, but has taken a seat in the room (two rows behind the nominee) to observe.?

Schumer on Monday said that he remains confident “the Senate is on track to confirm Judge Jackson as the 116th?Justice of the Supreme Court by the end of this work period,” which is early April.

Yesterday, Schumer called some of his Republican colleagues “respectful” in their questioning of Jackson but told reporters that others have attacked her unfairly.

CNN’s Ariane De Vogue tweeted a photo:

CNN’s Lauren Fox contributed reporting to this post.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch?McConnell?sharply criticized the testimony of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, saying she was evasive on issues like court packing and her judicial philosophy and that she struggled to explain what he claimed were lenient sentences she handed down to people convicted in child pornography and drug distribution cases.??

It is highly unlikely the Senate’s Republican leader would support President Biden’s nominee, though he has not said so publicly.

“Judge Jackson’s responses have been evasive and unclear.?She’s declined to address critically important questions and ameliorate real concerns. First and foremost is a simple question of court packing,”?McConnell?said, adding that progressive groups that support Jackson’s nomination also support expanding the court.

“The nominee made sure to quietly signal openness, openness to the radicals’ position. She told senators, she could see both sides of the court packing debate.”

On Tuesday, Jackson, just as Justice Amy Coney Barrett did during her confirmation hearing in 2020, declined to comment on the idea of court packing, or adding justices to the Supreme Court beyond the current nine, saying that’s a question for Congress to consider.

Read more about McConnell’s standing in the GOP here:

US President Donald Trump(R) speaks to the press alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as he arrives on Capitol Hill on March 26, 2019 before joining Senate Republicans for lunch in Washington,DC.

Related article Analysis: Why Trump's push to oust McConnell has fallen flat

As Judge?Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings continue Wednesday, news from across the street at the Supreme Court, where Justice Clarence Thomas missed a third day of oral arguments.

Thomas entered Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC, Friday after experiencing flu-like symptoms and has been treated for what a court spokesperson described as an infection.

The court announced Thomas’ hospitalization on Sunday and has declined repeated requests for updates on his health since then. When asked Wednesday about his status, Patricia McCabe, the court’s public information officer, said: “No update.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said in open court on Wednesday, as he has done since the beginning of the week, that Thomas would read briefs and transcripts of oral arguments.

All nine justices are fully vaccinated and boosted against Covid-19.

Sen. Lindsey Graham questions Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday.

Each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will now have 20 minutes each to ask additional questions to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is questioning the nominee now. You can see who is on the committee here.

Earlier in today’s hearing, two remaining senators from the panel — Democrat Jon Ossoff of Georgia and GOP?Thom?Tillis of North Carolina — had 30 minutes to ask questions as they did not question the nominee on Tuesday.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies?on Wednesday.

As the Senate weighs whether to make Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the first Black female justice, she told the Judiciary Committee that a diverse judicial branch “lends and bolsters public confidence in our system.”

“We have a diverse society in the United States,” Jackson said. “There are people from all over who come to this great nation and make their lives and when people see that the judicial branch is comprised of a variety of people who are, have taken the oath to protect the Constitution and who are doing their best to interpret the laws consistent with that oath, it lends confidence that the rulings that the judge, that, that the court is handing down are fair and just, that everything has been considered, that no one is being excluded because of a characteristic like race or gender or anything else.”

She also discussed the impact diversity on the bench has on role-modeling.

In a?new Monmouth University survey, 69% of Americans say it’s at least somewhat important for the Supreme Court to look like the racial, ethnic and gender composition of the country as a whole, with 46% saying it’s very important.?Read more here.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson recounted the childhood of parents, who attended segregated middle and high schools in Florida, and how her upbringing was like “night and day” to theirs.

Watch the moment here:

- Source: cnn " data-fave-thumbnails="{"big": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/d10d303d-766c-4553-aa5f-c2dc35590ea0.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" }, "small": { "uri": "https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/d10d303d-766c-4553-aa5f-c2dc35590ea0.png?c=16x9&q=h_540,w_960,c_fill" } }" data-vr-video="false" data-show-html="" data-byline-html="" data-timestamp-html="" data-check-event-based-preview="" data-is-vertical-video-embed="false" data-network-id="" data-publish-date="2022-03-23T15:42:52.248Z" data-video-section="" data-canonical-url="" data-branding-key="" data-video-slug="Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson says she is part of first generation to benefit from civil rights movement." data-first-publish-slug="Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson says she is part of first generation to benefit from civil rights movement." data-video-tags="" data-details="">

Video Ad Feedback

9f6b3a8c-3af4-4f89-9fb7-731fae9f4ebd.mp4

03:48 - Source: cnn

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is facing the final day of questioning today and the hearings will wrap up tomorrow when the American Bar Association and outside witnesses deliver testimony.

Once this week’s public hearings wrap, there’s a committee vote on whether to advance the nomination. And then there’s a final Senate floor vote. The date for these votes have not yet been set.

Democrats can confirm Jackson to the high court on the strength of their narrow Senate majority, with 50 votes and Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie. The party does not need any Republican support for successful confirmation, but if any Republicans do vote to confirm, it would give the White House a chance to tout a bipartisan confirmation.

It’s not yet clear, however, whether Jackson will receive any votes from Republicans.

When the Senate?voted to confirm?her last year to fill a vacancy on a powerful DC-based appellate court, three Republican senators voted with Democrats in favor: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

How long does it take to confirm a Supreme Court justice? The confirmation process timeline varies. For instance, with the 2020 election bearing down and the likelihood they would lose control of the Senate, Republicans pushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination in lightning speed — less than a month. Before that, the last nomination to proceed to confirmation in less than two months was Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s back in 1993. These things usually take months.

Democrats say they hope to confirm Jackson by early April.

Read more about the Supreme Court confirmation process here.

CNN’s Zachary B. Wolf, Clare Foran and Alex Rogers contributed reporting to this post.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson explained the way she spoke to defendants as a trial judge during sentencing, as she faces Republicans who have raised concerns about the “empathy” she has shown on the bench.

“My attempts to communicate directly with defendants is about public safety, because most of the people who are incarcerated — via the federal system and even via the state system — will come out, will be a part of our communities again,” Jackson said in response to a question from Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina. “And so it is to our entire benefit, as Congress has recognized to ensure that people who come out stop committing crimes.”

She said that, as a public defender, she recognized that there were lots of defendants who didn’t take responsibility for their crimes, because “they were bitter, they were angry, they were feeling victimized because they didn’t get a chance to say what they wanted to say, because nobody explained to them that drug crimes are really serious crimes. Nobody said to them, ‘Do you understand that there are children who will never have normal lives because you sold crack to their parents, and now they’re in a vortex of addiction. Do you understand that Mr. Defendant?’” Jackson said.

“I was the one in my sentencing practices who explained to those things in an interest of furthering Congress’s direction, that we’re supposed to be sentencing people so that they can ultimately be rehabilitated to the benefit of society as a whole,” the judge said.

Jackson's parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, sit in the audience Tuesday with Jackson's brother, Ketajh Brown.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson connected her brother’s service in law enforcement and the military to her own views about the law.

“I understand the need for law enforcement, the importance of having people who are willing to do that important work, the importance of holding people accountable for their criminal behavior,” she said. “I also as a lawyer and a citizen, believe very strongly in our Constitution, and the rights that make us free.”

Responding to a question from Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, Jackson recounted how her brother Ketajh – who is about a decade younger than the judge — became a police officer in Baltimore after graduating from Howard University, and how that was a “very stressful period for us as a family.”

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, her brother joined the military. She recounted how he told her that he was choosing to be “boots on the ground” in the infantry, because, he said, in her account, “If I’m going to be leading, I’m going to be out front.”

She compared her brother’s public service to her own work as a lawyer at a time, when she was helping courts “figure out the limits of executive authority consistent with what the framers have told us is important.” She said that work was based in an “understanding that to defend our country and its values, we also needed to make sure that, when we responded as a country to the terrible attacks on 9/11, we were upholding our constitutional values, that we weren’t allowing the terrorists to win by changing who we are.”

“I worked to protect our country. My brother worked on the frontlines, and it was all because public service is important to us,” she added.

Read more about Jackson’s family:

US Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson takes her seat during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill March 21, 2022, in Washington, DC.

Related article These are the members of Ketanji Brown Jackson's family

President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is facing another round of questions from lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the third day of her historic confirmation hearings and final day of questioning.

Two senators from the panel —Democrat Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina — will have 30 minutes to ask questions. Following their time, each senator on the panel will be given 20 minutes for additional questions.

“The overwhelming majority of?senators on both sides, I?thought, were asking appropriate?questions and positive in their?approach and respectful of the?nominee before us.?But for many senators yesterday?was an opportunity to showcase?talking points for the November?election. For example, all Democrats are?soft on crime, therefore this?nominee must be soft on crime.?Well, you’ve made a mess of?their stereotype,” he continued.

What happened yesterday: Tuesday featured?a marathon first round of questioning?that stretched late into the evening as Republicans grilled Jackson on her judicial philosophy, her legal record and past defense work, and support for her nomination from left-wing groups.

Jackson defended her record amid sharp questioning from Republican senators. She refuted claims from Republicans that she is weak on crime by stressing her concern for public safety and the rule of law, both as a judge and an American.

She responded to concerns raised by Republicans over the potential for judicial activism by arguing that she approaches her work in an impartial way and emphasizing that it would be inappropriate to impose any kind of personal opinion or policy preference.

“When I get a case, I ensure that I am proceeding from a position of neutrality,” she said.

Jackson also discussed elements of her tenure in the legal profession that have attracted particular scrutiny —and criticism — from Republicans.

Describing her work as a public defender, Jackson said, “I was in the federal public defender’s office right after the Supreme Court decided that individuals who were detained at Guantanamo Bay by the President could seek review of their detention.”

She added, “Federal public defenders don’t get to pick their clients. They have to represent whoever comes in and it’s a service. That’s what you do as a federal public defender, you are standing up for the constitutional value of representation.”

Jackson also forcefully rebutted concerns voiced by some GOP senators over her record on sentencing in child pornography cases, referring to the issue as a “sickening and egregious crime.”

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies on Tuesday.

Facing GOP skepticism for not aligning herself with a specific judicial philosophy in Tuesday’s hearing, ?Ketanji Brown Jackson gave new details about the way she approaches her job and the “methodology” she uses for deciding a case.

“I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system I have limited power and I am trying in every case to stay in my lane,” she said.

The three-step process she described involved clearing her mind of any preconceived notions about the case, receiving the various inputs — the written briefs, the factual record, the hearings — she’ll need to decide a case, and embarking on an interpretation of the law that hews to “the constraints” on her role as a judge.

She said she was trying to “to figure out what the words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them.”

This description of her methodology was not enough to satisfy Republican questions about her judicial philosophy.

But what does this term mean? It refers to the type of framework a judge uses to analyze a case of constitutional interpretation. An originalist approach, which is favored by conservatives, seeks to interpret the Constitution by how the framers would have understood the words at the time they were drafted.

Some progressives have sought to chart what has been called a “Living Constitution” approach, which seeks to interpret the general principles in the Constitution in a way that is applicable to contemporary circumstances.

Even as she answered Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse’s questions about the dueling approaches, Jackson declined to explicitly align herself with one or the other, noting that constitutional interpretation did not come up every often in the cases she was deciding as a lower court judge.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is pictured on a copy of the New York Times in Union Station in Washington, DC, on March 22.

A majority of Americans support?Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson?being confirmed to the Supreme Court, with 58% saying the Senate should vote in favor of her historical nomination to the nation’s highest court, according to a?poll newly released by Gallup.

The poll, which was taken in the weeks ahead of Jackson’s confirmation hearings, shows that 30% of those polled said the Senate should not vote in favor of confirming her; an additional 12% had no opinion.

The poll was released Wednesday morning as the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to hold confirmation hearings for Jackson.

Democrats, Gallup found, overwhelmingly favored Jackson’s confirmation, while a smaller majority of Republicans were against it. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats supported Jackson and 55% of Republicans were opposed.

The only other Supreme Court nominee to garner a similar approval rating in Gallup’s polling — which the report says dates back to 1987, with Douglas Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Stephen Breyer the exceptions — was Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. He garnered the support of 59% of Americans, essentially tying with Jackson for the highest approval rating, according to Gallup.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to question Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson today.

The?22-member panel, which is divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, will vote on Jackson’s nomination before moving to the full 100-member Senate.

The third day of confirmation hearings will start at 9 a.m. ET today and the remaining two senators from the panel — Democrat Jon Ossoff of Georgia and GOP?Thom?Tillis of North Carolina — will have 30 minutes to ask questions.

Then, committee members will be given 20 minutes each for a second round of questioning.

A woman watches a television on Capitol Hill that was streaming Jackson's hearing on Tuesday.

The third day of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing is starting soon and Senate Judiciary Committee members will continue to question the Supreme Court nominee.

On Tuesday, Jackson’s first full day of questioning featured explanations of her approach as a judge, discussions of abstract legal concepts that can be pivotal in controversial Supreme Court cases, and her defense of a sentencing record that Republicans have claimed wasn’t adequately harsh on certain crimes.

Democrats gave Jackson plenty of opportunity to push back on the GOP attacks, while letting her discuss the background that will make her a unique addition to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, who on Monday vowed to take a high-minded tone in the proceedings, nonetheless grilled her on the issues that resonate with their culture war messaging ahead of this year’s midterms.

Here’s a look at some key takeaways from Tuesday’s session:

Jackson gives a view into how she approaches her job: Facing GOP skepticism for not aligning herself with a specific judicial philosophy, Jackson gave new details about the way she approaches her job and the “methodology” she uses for deciding a case.

The three-step process she described involved clearing her mind of any preconceived notions about the case, receiving the various inputs — the written briefs, the factual record, the hearings — she’ll need to decide a case, and embarking on an interpretation of the law that hews to “the constraints” on her role as a judge.

She said she was trying to “to figure out what the words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them.”

Jackson pushes back on claims about her record on child porn cases: The judge finally had the chance on Tuesday to address what have been the most contentious allegations levied against her, telling the committee of claims she’s soft on child porn offenders that “nothing could be further from the truth.”

Later on in the hearing, she said she still has nightmares about the witness in one of the cases Republicans are now scrutinized, adding, “These crimes are, are horrible. And so I take them very seriously, just as I did all of the crimes, but especially crimes against children.”

Republicans have zeroed in on what they say is Jackson’s tendency to issue sentences in these cases that came below the sentencing guidelines – a pattern that puts her in the mainstream of judges. Less than a third of the sentences issued in non-production child pornography cases fell within the guidelines in 2019.

When she was being grilled by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Jackson noted that the guidelines are just a starting point for judges.

GOP leans into culture war issues ahead of midterms: Broad culture war topics that Republicans are hitting Democrats on ahead of the midterms made their way into GOP questions for Jackson.

Cruz, for example, asked Jackson several questions about “critical race theory” — a concept that Jackson said “doesn’t come up in my work.”

“It’s never something that I have studied or relied on, and it wouldn’t be something that I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court,” she said.

Cruz tried to connect it to Jackson through a presentation she made as vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission, in which Jackson said she listed it among a “laundry list of different academic disciplines that I said relate to sentencing policy.” He also raised it in the context of children’s books taught at Georgetown Day School, where Jackson is on the board. Jackson said that board does not control the school’s curriculum.

Abstract questions try to hint how she would approach controversial cases: GOP senators probed Jackson’s approach to abstract legal ideas that sound academic but that could be pivotal in how she’d decide controversial cases.

Cornyn raised the concept of “unenumerated rights” — meaning the rights not explicitly written in the Constitution’s text but that the court has interpreted to be covered by the Constitution’s protections.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee likewise focused some of his questioning on the 9th Amendment. Its language contemplates unenumerated rights, and he asked Jackson how judges should go about weighing what rights could flow from it.

Read more takeaways here and see photos from the confirmation hearings here.