judge brown jackson is nominated to fill a vacancy on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. she is currently a judge on the u.s. district court for dc. nominated for a seat on the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit. this is three hours and 15 minutes. >> good morning. the hearing will come to order. today the judiciary committee will hold its first judicial nominations hearing ofmi the 117 congress. including second court nominees with outstanding credentials. candace jackson to be taking seat on the seventh circuit and judge brown jackson for the dc

circuit. the second panel will feature three highly qualified district court nominees, julia neils, judge both nominated to the district court of new jersey and regina rodriguez nominated to the district of colorado. senator duckworth, menendez, booker and hagan luber will join us shortly to introduce the nominees but before i turn over to them and to ranking member grassley i would like to make a few points about this historical day for the biden administration. looking at the slate of nominees, i am struck that they not only bring qualificationss that are extraordinary to this next level of achievement, but also demographic and professional diversity. we need this on the federal bench. i'm reminded of what president lyndon johnson said when he nominated thurgood marshall to

the supreme court in 1967 mindful that he just set up the nomination for the first african-american supreme court justice, president lyndon johnson said there was a distinguished record in the courts of the land. i believe heof is already earned his place in history, and i think that it will be enhanced by his service in the court. johnson continued i believe he earned that appointment. he deserves that appointment. he is best qualified by training and valuable service to the country. i believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and right place. importantly, he closed with this admonition, and i quote, i trust that this nomination will be promptly considered by the senate. well, i would say to, if i could, to president johnson a lot of nominees wish the very same thing. surveying these five nominees, i believe that they are qualified by training and distinguished records and the right nominees

to fill the vacancies and they deserved these.all five ard they also come from a range of professional backgrounds. all five received well-qualified ratings by the american bar association. both of the circuit nominees are federal public defenders as well as the result bringing that perspective and experience that is far too often missing from the bench. and that is not a partisan point of view in fact scholars at the cato institute hardly a liberal bastion have highlighted the critical importance of adding more public defenders to the ranks of the judiciary. we are on our way to doing just that. today's district court nominees represent the depth and breadth of experience that will serve them on the bench and the people of new jerseyl and colorado. this district court panel includes julia neils an expert dedicated public service who

presided over more than 6,000 cases in the newark municipal court system. a decorated military veteran who confirmed will be the first american muslim to sit on the article three court. regina rodriguez a pathbreaking former chief of the civil division in the colorado u.s. attorney's office and whose f family was interned during world war ii in one of the nation's most shameful moments. rather than those that simply check the box in their political experience. for four years, president trump nominated the senate republicans far too many nominees, many of whom never should havef been

nominated. at ten of the nominees and the trump administration for lifetime appointments in federal court, and have been found unanimously unqualified by the american bar association, but that did not detour their nomination or in most cases theirr selection. thankfully with today's nominees the biden administration has taken a step towards evenhandedness, fair mindedness and competence. the administration has done so with a group of nominees whose qualifications are beyond question. now i have the honor and privilege of introducing to. two. i will startod with candace jackson-akiwumi the daughter of two judges, one a federal judge and her mother gwendolyn served as a state court judge. their daughter candace received her undergraduate degree from princeton, law degree from yale where she served on the journal.

she clerked for judge david core for the northern district of illinois who incidentally had a panel to approve nominees for the federal bench in illinois and judge robert gregory on the fourth circuit court of appeals. she then practiced the law firm that is highly unusual, she decided to leave the private practice. working in that office for ten years leaving just last fall when she came with her husband pursuing a job opportunity for the last several months you practiced at the office of the law firm however upon confirmation she will return to chicago, good for us, and i want to thank her husband for adjusting his own career for the sake of his wife's. it is a sad reality that for

years they did not expand diversity on the federal courts. this includes both demographics, diversity and life experience. over four years president trump appointed 54 judges to the circuit courts, 54. none of them, not one of them was black. currently the seventh circuit has no judges of color. in fact only one judge of color has overserved on the sixth circuit. my friend and the retired federal judge who was appointed by president clinton with my strong support. in 2016 president obama nominated a highly qualified black attorney to an indiana seat on the seventh circuit. republican senators blocked her nomination for nearly an entire year. the naacp has made it clear that this lack ofar diversity means something important to the federal bench. november 2020 letter the president johnson wrote, and i

quote it undermines the integrity of the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. judges from different racial, ethnic and other backgrounds and rich judicial decision making and promote trusted confidence by the community is impacted by the rulings. anthankfully before us today highly qualified with a unique perspective and a tiny fraction has been spent on the federal bench with the majority of the career as public defenders and legal aid. there appear to be only two judges who spent a significant part of theirfi career. the eighthth circuit judge and third circuit judge of pennsylvania. in contrast there are many former prosecutors on the federal bench. many are extraordinary jurists but they do not share same life

experience as these nominees the indigent federal defendants of all states and criminal justice process the appeals before the circuit court ms. jackson-akiwumi knows the criminal justice system inside and out. nominated to the second dc circuit, judge jackson was born right here in washington, d.c. where her parents who were natives of miami were at the time working as public school teachers when she was 3-years-old judge jackson and her parents went backld to miami so her dad could go to law school at the university. he later served as a principal attorney for the dade county school board while judge jacksoe

served for 14 years as a principal to the leading school. judge jackson attended harvard judgand harvard law and then wen to a series of clerkships at the district court circuit finally supreme court clerkship for justice breyer. the breath of her legal career is impressive and the work in private practice at the law firm and forced her to service on the u.s. sentencing commission to her time as a federal public defender. judge jackson is well known to us on the committee in light of the prior nominations and sentencing at the district court of columbia. and i might note she won unanimous support for both of these fromsh this committee and from the senate as a whole. there are two aspects of the record i wouldts like to highlight. first is a ten year on the sentencing commission the issue of sentencing is deeply important to me and i'm sure to my colleague senator grassley.

as a commission member and federal judge, judge jackson has faced the often difficult questions inherent in that responsibility. she will bring that experience to bear in the dc circuit. the second is more broadly on the federal bench, judge jackson has shown time and again her decisions that she's guided not by ideology or the preferred outcome but by the steadfast belief in approaching every case with fairness and impartiality. we see that reflected not only in the evenhanded record but in the comments of those that served with her. she has won praise across the spectrum including from dc circuit judge thomas griffin, the george w. bush appointee that wrote to the committee in supportmi of the nomination and wrote although she and i sometimes have differed on the best outcomes of the case, i will always respect her careful approach and agreeable matter to indispensable traits for the success in the collegial body.

in these partisan times, the words rain even more important. i look forward to hearing today from all of the nominees and with that i turn over to my friend and fellow colleague the ranking member,le chuck grassle. >> for the first three paragraphs of my remarks, i would ask the democrats to pay attention. it might sound facetious, but i want to make a point. today we are hearing from five nominees to be considered for judgeships including two circuit nominees. because this is the committee's first hearing on judicial nominees of this congress, i will be very much listening to my democratic friends to see if i catch any apologies to them from justice amy coney barrett. last fall we heard from them time and time again for weeks

that she was being put on the supreme court for two reasons. one, to steal the election from donald trump and to get rid of obamacare. i just checked joe biden is president of the united states and obamacare is still on the books. if my friends don't want to apologize to justice barrett, she's right next door and i'm i bet she would be glad to accept apologies in prison. turning to today's nominees, judge jackson has been nominated to the dc circuit court often called the second highest court in the land. judge jackson was appointed by president obama to serve dc district court 2013 and has been involved in over 500 cases as a judge since then. as someone that has been interested in criminal justice reform as senator durbin has

been, i appreciate judge jackson's work on the sentencing committee, commission where she also served. we will also hear from ms. jackson-akiwumi today nominated for the seventh circuit, she's an nominee that served as a federal public defender for ten years before moving to dc and represented over 400 criminal defendants many of whom were charged with crimes involving illegal firearms. i will be interested in hearing her views on the so-called gun pandemic and how violent criminals lay into that. it has been a zealous advocate for the clients and criminal defendants and the deserving representation in the justice system but i will be asking her today about some of the specific

positions she's advocated for. i'm sure democrats will complain that we shouldn't hold a nominee annominee responsible for the clients and perhaps that once was true. the fact is previous nominees like kyle duncan, howard nielsen, mike park and countless others were opposed by democrats because of the clients that they represented. at thepr same time, there is a growing hostility to the fair representation on the left with student radicals saying quote on quote not everyone deserves representation. and liberal activists seeking to penalize law firms representing clients with wrong positions, so-called wrong positions on the social or political issues. as a wise man said recently, it

can't be one set of rules for republicans and another for democrats. so i plan to go off of the records including legal advocates on behalf of clients. they demand justice and it seems to be in charge of the judicial selections in this administration. since you can tell what kind of judge someone will be by their clients, they strongly support judge jackson because their time as a federal defender were apparently caused them to pursue social justice rather than follow the law. and of course i hope not, and that is not an accusatory statement, but it does take off on some very fair accusations that give the nominees of one party versus the nominees of another party. this hearing is a first look atk

president biden's judicial nominees. i'm hopeful that these nominees will engage withop all senators and respond to the questions. congratulations to all of you for your nomination. thank you, senator grassley. and the number of senators would like to formally introduce one or more of the nominees. and i have a list of those available. first is physically present from the state of new jersey, colleague senator cory booker. this is indeed an honor. they've both been nominated by president biden to serve for the district of new jersey and we are in an emergency right now. both are highly qualified and experienced people who serve and share an understanding of the impact that the courts will have on people across the nation. anthe first individual i chooseo

introduce, we've done this again before. someone that was nominated by the obama administration and 2015 to serve in the federal district judge but unfortunately the senate failed to bring these up for a vote. despite the delay on the confirmation i would like to again just speak to who he is. judge niels and i have worked together for a very long timeor and have history. he's someone i've had the honor of working with and i look forward both here in the senate and my career. judge meals is unequivocally among the best people i've had the honor to work alongside. for two years, serving as chief judge in the municipal court which is the largest court in the state of new jersey. he personally presided over 6,000 cases but he ushered in a

spate of reforms helping to create theef states first veters court, the first youth court and other innovations that helped t new jersey become a national model for the court innovation. her then joined the administration and served again at the head of the corporation councils and then served as the business administrator for the cityed of new york and served aa time that we were in crisis. the city was going through the great recession along with the rest of the planet. i don't think that there is any person here there was a former governor, former county executive reform mayor that had to do what we had to do which was to govern down the city's eyes 25% to cut the city's budget. the days and months and years of painful work of getting the

budgets to fit with the massive shortfalls in revenue that we had. he ise a brilliant administrator that has a balance to keep his head about him when all else are losing theirs. he currently serves as the council where i was raised. if they talk about him and almost as if he is a wholly sanctified a figure. they say he has more cool than obama and he is one person that truly when they walk into a room, everyone listens. bergen county new jersey is a political place with a lot of fiefdoms and power bases. but julian seems to sail above it all with great dignity and a great sense of expertise that trumps all politics. i am so honored to know this human being and what i imagine

what a federal judge should be, i imagine someone with the qualities, the gifts, the kindness, the decency and the itlove for others possessed. it is an honor for me not only totr introduce him but to have recommended him to the president of the united states. it's great to see my friend here today. someone that has had an extraordinary life of commitment and dedicated public service who served the nation in many roles. he was in the military and at the department of homeland securityep and worked as an assistant attorney in the office of the u.s. attorney for new jersey. he currently is a federal

magistrate judge in new jersey. this is someone who believes in the nation and ideals and is dedicated to serving them. a well respected person he's one of the best that new jersey has. theil skills and experience will serve the people of new jersey in our judicial i crisis as a u. district court judge.t it's been said also that if he is confirmed, he will be a history maker. as the first muslim american article three judge in all of our country's past. and because of his example, because of his leadership, because of his character he will most certainly not be the last. both l of these nominees are dedicated to the rule of law to justice and fairness.

both of these nominees will help to restore integrity and independence and both of these nominees are exceptionally, o extraordinarily unequivocally qualified. i think president biden for nominating judge meals to serve as judges for the district of new jersey and i strongly urge my fellow committee members to support their nominations. >> thank you, senator booker. senator bennett i believe by remote. are you there, senator. >> i'm here. can you hear me. >> i hope we can get your volume up just a little bit. please proceed. >> thank you very much, chair man durbin and ranking member grassley for inviting me to share a few words about ms. rodriguez, president biden's

nominee for the district court in the district of colorado. she comes to the committee with broad support in my state. we've received a flood of letters on her behalf all have intensified it to the character, hard work and commitment to justice and the rule of law. she learned all of it from her family who join us today. her mom's family knew injustice firsthand and as mentioned in the seconde world war they were relocated from california to the site in wyoming. joining over 10,000 people the loyalty to america was questioned for no reason but their japanese ancestry. her father went from living in a railroad boxcar on the south side of chicago to the nfl halln of fame. her mother became a teacher in the denver public schools and my older district where i served as superintendent. education and hard work

transformed and regina always was taught to live up to the example.it then return home to earn a jd from the university of colorado law school. after starting, she joined the u.s. attorney's office and the department of justice recognized her talent and she went to work for the attorney general on a new approach at the time to avoid lengthy trials in arbitration and mediation. saving the government countless hours the leadership in washington earned her a promotion in denver where she rose to become the chief in the u.s. attorney's office and today she is one of the most respected trial lawyers that has received

award after award for her work. her commitment to the community has been just as impressive. a founding board member, nonprofit that helps kids stay on the right track and served as one of colorado's higher education commissioners and still serves on the board ofio e highest performing charter schools. somehow she still finds time to mentor lawyers from underrepresented communities. i could go on and on but the evidence is overwhelming. regina is an exceptionally qualified nominee with a distinguished commitment to service whose blazed trails in the colorado law and sheer force of her intellect, hard work and character. she has my full enthusiastic support and i urge the committee to approve her nomination. >> thank you, senator bennett. i believe senator duckworth is available remote. senator, can you hear us?

>> i sure can. thank you, mr. chair man and ranking member grassley. it is my honor to appear before the committee to introduce and offer my strong support. ms. jackson-akiwumi exemplifies the fulfillment who reflect the diverse nation. as one would expect, she possesses a impressive academic background earning her jd from yale law school which she served as an editor on the journal and was in naacp defense fund legal scholar. after graduation she quickly gained experience serving in the federal judiciary for the northern districtt of illinois and then for the fourth circuit

judge roger gregory. i was especially struck by the commitment to public service. she dedicated the majority of her career to public service and spent a decade in chicago serving as a staff attorney and the federal program. she gave litigation for those that are the most vulnerable and underserved in the community and represented over 400 and tried sevennd trials that argued five appeals before the circuit. currently a partner in the law firm where she is a member of the litigation and investigation groups. however, even in the private sector, ms. jackson-akiwumi demonstrated a commitment to public service spending aa significant portion of her time working on pro bono matters with civil rights, criminal law and immigration. for example, the permanent residency and protection other than the violence against women

act and advocated for better conditions for incarcerated clients and discrimination in the eeoc. beyond these accomplishments it's important to recognize the groundbreaking nature. if seated on the bench, she would be only the second black woman in the history to serve and the only person of color serving on the court today. bringing diversity experience particularly serving as a public defender. thank you for allowing me to introduce ms. jackson-akiwumi and i would urge the committee to act. >> next up is our friend and colleague from new jersey senator menendez.

we will come back in a minute. senator hagan luber of colorado is waiting. senator, can you hear us? yes, thank you. >> please proceed. >> thank you, chair man durbin and ranking member for letting me share a few words about regina rodriguez, president biden's nominee i want to add a little bit of what was said so eloquently. she dedicated her career to the people of colorado and fighting for historically disadvantaged communities. it's not surprising she got the

enthusiastic support of the committee, colorado bar association, these consist of attorneys dedicated to providing legal a services to the poor usg knowledge of the law a to improe the society and legal system. former united states attorneys appointed by presidents from both political parties felt that the experience, knowledge and work ethic make her an ideal candidate with hundreds if not thousands of cases and the trials and multiple jurisdictions given the experience of the plaintiffs and defendants rodriguez understands the importance of applying the law evenhandedly based always on the facts. as a first foundation put it, there is no person better qualified to effectively serve on the u.s. district court than reginana rodriguez. i wholeheartedly agree.

she has my full support and i hope the committee will confirm her nominationon and the senate will act swiftly to confirm her. thank you ranking member grassley and all the members for your consideration of this outstanding nominee. >> thank you, senator and now the question is whether senator menendez is available. >> i ambl available. >> good. please proceed. >> thank you ranking member, distinguished members of the committee it is my privilege to join my colleague from new jersey in recommending to highly qualified nominees to the court for the district of new jersey, these nominees represent the best of new jersey both reflecting the states diversity and demonstrating the commitment to equal justice under the law.

for the city of new york the highest appointed administrator largest city he led the city's department of law and served as the chief judge of the newark municipal court. he commands enormous respect in the legal community from serving on the supreme court of new jersey's committee on character and fitness to serving as the chair man for volunteer lawyers for justice, he personifies the meaning of public service. the tremendous breadth of knowledge and experience, even and exacting judgment make him a superb candidate to serve on the federal bench. also honored to join and introduce the magistrate judge with the district court of new

jersey. he was a partner at the firm where he chaired white collar criminal defense investigations groups and served as the firm's first chief diversity officer. also served as an assistant united states attorney for more than five years in new york. previously, he served the country as a military prosecutor with the u.s. army judge advocate where he achieved the rank of captain. beyond his impeccable credentials, if confirmed, he would make history as the first federal judge in first asian america to serve on the federal bench in new jersey. he's demonstrated about the integrity and intellect through his distinguished career and i believe he will bring to this position the wisdom, experience and demeanor of the district court of new jersey to serve. finally mr. chairman and members, the district court currently faces six vacancies

all of which have been declared judicial emergencies by the conference of the united states, so i strongly urge the committee's unanimous support and hope that we can have a speedy confirmation process on the qualified nominees. thank you mr. chairman for bringing up the nominees and we look forward to workinges with u in the days ahead. >> thank you, senator menendez. will the first two witnesses please stand to be sworn in.

>> do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the recordu reflect both witnesses have answered in the affirmative and we will start with judge jackson, you may make an opening statementso at this time. >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much. it is an honor to be here to appear before you all this morning and i would like to start by expressing my sincerest gratitude to you for scheduling this hearing and introducing me. i would also like to extend my thanks to the ranking member grassley and all the members of the committee for participating in this hearing today. i've had the great privilege of having been invited to come

before the committee twice before for confirmations,o so i know that i've already taken upo a great deal of your collective time and i am both humbled and very grateful to be here once again. i am also truly thankful to president biden for giving me the honor of this nomination to the circuit court. mr. chairman, i don't have opening remarks but i would like to introduce you to my family members, some of whom have traveled great distances to be here today. i'm going to refrain from giving individual tributes, but i want each of them to know that their love and encouragement has meant so much to me throughout the years and there's no question that i wouldn't be who i am or where i am today without their support. i would like to start with my parents, john and valerie who left their permanent home in

miami florida last week for the first time since the start of the pandemic and traveled here by way of west h virginia where they partially reside. my parents in law, gardner and pamela jackson are lifelong boston and cape cod residents and they also made the effort to travel here on i-95 to be here with me today. also here are my terrific brother-in-law and sister-in-law, william and dana jackson who live in maryland, and if william looks familiar it is because his identical twin brother is my husband, doctor patrick jackson who is also here. he did not have to travel very far. he'sra actually been with me all along during this incredible journey by my side for 25 years come this october. finally also here today is the younger of our two daughters,

layla who is a junior in high school. she's in the most demanding season of this extraordinarily challenging academic year though it is a special treat for me that she is with us today. as a side note, our older daughter would have made the effort, but she is a freshman in college and afterfr spending the quarters of this academic year taking classes from her bedroom, she finally got the chance to live on campus just three weeks ago and i didn't have the heart to make her come back again. mr. chairman, there are so many other members of my family who wouldn't be here with us at this time. they are in wisconsin, florida, utah and colorado and massachusetts. some are dearly departed. i am truly grateful to all of them and for all of the wonderful friends around the country that are watching these proceedings and cheering me on through this process. with that, mr. chair man, let me

once again reiterate my thanks to you for inviting me here this morning. i am enormously grateful and i look forward to answering theer members questions. >> thank you, judge jackson. ms. jackson-akiwumi please proceed with your opening remarks. >> good morning. i'm deeply grateful to the senators from my adopted home state of illinois, senators durbin and duckworth for their warm introductions of me. i'm grateful to chairman durbin and ranking member grassley for convening the hearing today and all of the members here for considering my nomination. i'm also grateful to the president for the honor of this nomination. my immediate family is here today supporting me. i struggled for words to succinctly capture how truly wonderful they are and what a

gift they are to me. my parents have traveled from m hometown of norfork virginia to be here. they are just over my right shoulder. my father, the honorable raymond jackson, united states district court judge for the eastern district of virginia. seated next to him, my mother, the honorable gwendolyn jones jackson, retired judge for the commonwealth of virginia. my siblings are here today as well. my sister is the reverend estelle jackson. she didn't travel far. she's a longtime resident of the district of columbia. my brother is here, raymond daniel jackson attorney at law. he traveled from florida to support me today. and last but not least, my

husband, eric. he remains the best friend that i have ever had. in addition to the many other amazing roles he plays in our partnership, my husband and i have not invited today our very active 15 -month-old daughter, noel. we will all be much more productive today without her here. also missing is noel's big i brother, my 14-year-old stepson, isaiah who lives in tampa florida. he will be watching the hearing later today as an excellent civics lesson in the advise and consent role of the united states senate. there are obviously many other familyus members and loved ones and friends who could not be here today because of the covid restrictions here in the building, but i'm deeply grateful to them all.

my family is the best part of me, and i wouldn't be here today without their love and support. thank you again. >> thank you very much. before i turn to questions i want to lay out a few of the standards we are going to follow. at the request of senator grassley he has asked for the two circuit court nominees that we have seven minutes to ask questions. i asked senator grassley before the hearing how he enforced the time when announcing these things and he came up with the grassley rule i'm sure that it will not stay the entirety but basically said if you are in the midst of a question as your time runs out finish the question but to try to keep it short and keep the answers short. is that about right? okay. my ruling has been blessed by senator grassley so we have a bipartisan start here. the second panel the district court nominees will go back to the five-minute standard.

so, letar me start my questionig and themy seven minute rule. you both have an extraordinary background and having served in the federal public defender's office representing indigent and people who often struggle in the system of justice. i think we know that we are engaged in a national conversation now about a justice, long-overdue and it's raised questions about law enforcement andti questions abot sentencing, questions about incarceration and it calls to question the agenda of the committee, the senateon judiciay committee on the criminal justice side. you have a special perspective that you bring that many a nominees don't in light of what you've done with your life. i don't want you to address any case or any specific situation, but i'd like for your

observations because you spent such a big part of your lives that goes back to what langston hughes once said you spend such a big part of your life for those who would say life for me ain't been no crystal stair. folks black, brown, poor defendants who are seeking representation in the system that seems to have been just overwhelming and fundamentally unfair in some cases. what would be your general thought about any specific case in mind about justice in america today and how you've seen it and how it's changed in your time? judge jackson. >> thank you, senator. i had the privilege of serving as a federal public defender assistant federal public defender in washington, d.c. i think it was some 16 years ago

and as part of that experience, i as you say represented people in the appellate division of my office, so all of my clients were convicted and i think that the insight one gains from that kind of professional experience can be very helpful in future endeavors especially if you go into the judicial service as i have. and i can give you a concrete example. when i worked with my clients as a defender, my job was to talk with them and try to get their help to identify errors, things that had gone wrong in the trial proceedings so i could raise them on appeal and one of the things i noticed that i was struck by is how little they could help me with that project.

most of my clients didn't really understand what had happened to them. they had just been through the most consequential proceeding in their lives and no one really explained to them what they were supposed to expect so they didn't know where things might have gone wrong and i remember that experience from all those years ago when i became a trial judge. one of the things i do now is i take extra care to communicate with the defendants that come before me in the courtroom. i speak to them directly and not just to their lawyers. i use their names and i explain every stage of the proceeding because i want them to know what's going on and when i have to sentence someone and i sentence more than 100 people to date, i always told them, i explained to them this is why

your behavior was so harmful to society that congress thought that it had to be madee t a crie and i say this is why i believe that you have to serve these consequences for your decision to engage in criminal behavior and i think that's important for our entire justice system because it is only if people understand what they've done, why it's wrong and what will happen to them if they do it again that they can start to rehabilitate so there is a direct line from my service to what i do on the bench and i think itit is beneficial. >> thank you. ms. jackson-akiwumi, i noted in my introduction that you made the extraordinary career move from private practice to the federal defenders program for ten years i believe so i would like you to consider the same question i just asked judge

jackson and in the process perhaps you could comment on demeanor and temperament of judges. >> certainly, senator. thank you for the question. i can think of two observations from my time serving as a federal public defender that i think will bode well for me in serving the public as a judge if confirmed. first is the importance of listening and being heard. it's something i learned well before i went to law school when my mother served as a judge and she often talked about the importance of letting people make sure they've been heard by the court because the disease year for people to accept even adverse rulings by the court when they at least know they've been heard. that's built into the system of due process which involves an opportunity to be heard. with that is listening.

i gave an extraordinary amount of experience and listening as a federal public defender, listening to the views of opposing counsel, prosecutors about their views in thehe caseo find out where we might negotiate and find common ground, listening to the stories of my clients to understand why and how they came to be standing before the court and what the fears and questions were and listening very carefully to the questions that trial judges and appellate judges were asking me about the case. so, being a federal public defender sharpened my listening skills and i know even though the job, and advocate and judge are completely different, one skill that should translate well for me is that of listening because the circuit judges above all must listen to the parties before they even attempt to reach a reasoned decision. the other observation from my time in the criminal justice system is the importance of

setting aside personal convictions, personal opinions. at the federal defender program, we represented whoever walked in the door, charged with whatever crime so long as they needed an attorney so long as they were poor, working class and could not afford. that is with the case law dictated. with each and every case i had to put aside any personal opinions i had about my client and any personal opinions i had about what they were accused of and represent them zealously in the court and again even though the role of advocate and judge are j completely different, that is one the similarity like federal public defender, a judge has to set aside their personal opinions and convictions in decision-making. thank you. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> during the most recent

seventh circuit hearing, we heard about the supposed link between indiana gun shows and street violence in chicago. for four years, you represented a man during one year that bottom-line firearms in indiana gun stores and proceeded to sell them without a license to people in chicago including at least one felon. he was investigated when the police in chicago recovered seven firearms that he had boughtms in indiana. you said in the pretrial motion that, quote, this case is not about gun violence or gangss in chicago. do you stand by the view that a case about illegal firearms from indiana to chicago is not about guns and violence or gangs in chicago?go

>> senator, i lived in chicago for many,or many years. my formative years as an attorney and as a private citizen so i am all too aware of the crisis regarding guns that chicago faces and so many other communities face. it affects me personally as a citizen. i stand by my commitment and the oath that i took as an attorney which is to represent zealously everyone who requires representation in our federal courts and that is without regard to the crime they are charged with. that's how our system works best. if you look at the sixth amendment and how the supreme court has interpreted this amendment in gideon and wainwright it talks about the right to counsel, and there's no limitation on that based on what someone is charged with. >> i think i will accept that

answer. going on in the same case, do you agree vigorously prosecuting unlicensed firearm traffickers is the best way to stop the pipeline of illegal guns in the city of chicago? that should be an easy one to answer. >> well, senator, thank you for the question. i think there are a number of tools in the tool book for combating an issue like guns and gun violence. prosecution is one tool. i also note that this body and other legislative bodies at every level state, federal and local have to consider these issues that have been working on these issues vigorouslyes so there's a number of tools out there. >> last question on that case although it isn't really on that case give me a very rough idea of how many firearm traffickers you defended in court, just a rough number. >> senator, i appreciate the question. it would be hard to say.

i've always described my career over a decade like this. aboutad a third involved a panoy of fraud and there is so many of the united states code book that it would blow your mind. a third of my cases involved drugs and firearms, whether it was possession of firearms, traffickingg of firearms and about a third of the cases involved a big mix of everything else from bank robberies to immigration offenses, sexual offenses, so it would be difficult to give an exact number. >> i accept that answer. the second point, in your sentencing memoranda, you reviewed the highlighted sentencing differences that exist between black defendants and white defendants charged with the same crime. in fact you've gone so far as to argue that your clients shouldn't receive a sentence higher than anynt applicable mandatory minimums, quote, to avoid further racial disparities,."

as a sitting senator, i agree with your policy points about racial disparities in the laws that we write, but i have concerns about the courts engaging in those policy arguments. when you made these arguments in court, did you expect the district judges to let the social policy concerns govern how they applied the law in the case? >> maybe i can give you a short answer you would say you should apply the law, not the policy, right? >> yes because that is actually the law that congress passed. congress passed the sentencing statute and one of those factors congress has said judges should consider is disparities, any disparities that might result from the sentence imposed so in those cases like the one that you provided an example of, i waspr asking the court to apply

that statutory sentencing factor. ..

>> only one question. you worked on sentencing reform is someone whoas has worked hard on another ashes of criminal justice reform. i appreciate your work on the sentencing reform now when it comes to more sentencing reform, people like you and judge pryor both agree sentencing needs to be

reformed. can you explain how your views differ from judge priors or why do you trust judges with more discretion than prior does quick. >> thank you for that question. spends a former member of the sentencing commission that you and others on this committee were very active to make changes to the sentencing system. partly because the commission did research and pointed out to some of the disparities in our laws that congress made changes that are very beneficial to the system. did have the privilege of with judge pryor. we are on the commission together and be both did talk

in our public statements and dinner meetings about the need for reform. after the supreme court's decision-making guidelines advisory not binding anymore on judges. my primary answer in my experience most judges don't like to be outliers when they are sentencing of what other simile situated sit constituents are getting with more mandatory minimums and those that bind judicial discretion to give judges more

information with that sentencing commission that captures every sentence that federal judges give then to give access to that information is a way that judges are handing out fair sentences that are similarly situated to other defendants. that they get the information that they need. >> . >> according to the center for american progress only 1 percent asserting circuit judges spent the majority of their career as public defenders or within a legal aid setting.

in light of this fact i am very pleased we are considering to nominees with extensive service as public defenders. there are some critics thatis claim wrongly that a public defender can't function as an impartial judge. how do you respond to this question? >> i have been a judge eight years. and as i mentioned at the outset, i think actually having defender experience can help. not only to judge him or herself in considering the facts and circumstances in the case but also helps the system overall in terms of their interactions with defendants

in the way the proceed in the courtroom. and then to do what the law requires. and then to decide the cases. so i word just say that i wouldn't see any distinction of prosecutorial backgrounds or defense backgrounds to stay true to their oath. >> judge jackson i was

impressed to learn according to the alliance for justice you have a reversal rate of less than 2 percent of your more than 550 decisions since assuming the role of us district judge for the district of columbia.it to what do you credit that 98 percent affirmative rate on appeal? >> thank you senator. it might be my methodology the way i approach cases. what i will say about that is if you look at my 550 cases that there is a consistency in the way that i analyze the issues. i apply a particular method as the supreme court has directed, which is i am only looking at the m arguments the parties have made and the

facts in the record of the case and a lot as i understand it. i played one - - apply the same analytical rigor to my analysis of that. and then we do that because we see every case to the same analytical lens. it doesn't make a difference whether or not if the argument is coming from an inmate with the president. it's not my personal views but i look at those three things. by being very methodical i can produce opinions the circuit can see my reasoning that i am evenhandedly applying the law in the case.

>> since the supreme court held in the booker case that those are not binding on judges at sentencing we have seen a gradual return to discrepancies in the way different judges at different courts sentence those before them. had we look for fairness and consistency while maintaining judicial discretion with the supreme court's ruling in booker? >> thank you for what is an incredibly difficult question you have rightly recognized. that is in fact why the guidelines were invented and created and that is why they were moved from mandatory to

advisory to remove disparities and to give judges more discretion. sitting here today, what i know is it would not be my role as a circuit judges confirmed to opine on those issues are sort through those issues and the way the sentencing commission within this body would. but my role would be to review cases very carefully and review records scrupulously to see if sentencing judges at least adhere to the sentencing law and took into account fairly all of the factors they were supposed to. if i may address your earlier question about public defenders to be fair and

neutral judges, and the northern district of illinois this body has confirmed a few district court judges with public defender experience. and to deal with those fairly and impartially. to work within the framework of the rule of law. every argument was grounded in a constitution or statute. you don't get anywhere if you make upp arguments that don't have a basis in law. to have an argument that i hope they may be able to make in a new immediately there was no law to support that argument. because i can be a neutral and fair and impartial judge for my entire career.

>> thank you mr. chairman. as trial court experience as judge in the case of ms. jackson that is very important. for if they sit on the appellate court that actually know how thehe trial courts operate and understand the appropriate standards of review on appeal. and it's important to have confidence in the judiciary and part of that is knowing

and i have noticed a difference when my democratic colleagues j block the african-american on the dc circuit thankfully we've had goodod judges and the westerners western western jet district in texas like in san antonio in the asian americans circuit court judge who was confirmed for the fifth circuit. and i just want to ask this question. none of us can choose our parents and even if we could i guess we would choose the

appearance that we have. but what role does race play in that kind of judge that you have been or will be quick. >> race doesn't play a role in the judge i have been or will be in the way you asked that question. as i mentioned to senator feinstein, i am doing a certain thing. i am a thought equity and setting aside personal views and appropriate considerations in my valuation of a case.

and including may district court background would be different if iue was confirmed than many of my colleagues word bringing value like the oliver wendell holmes quote it is that logic it is experience. i have experienced life and perhaps a different way than my colleagues because of uim and that might be valuable. i hope it would be valuable if i was confirmed to the circuit court. >> i agree with judge jackson i don't believe race would play a role in the type of judge i would be of confirmed. i do believe that demographic diversity ofl all types plays

an important role in increasing public confidence in our court and to accept the legitimacy of court decisions it is akin to the way were 12 people walking from all different kinds of backgrounds might decide your case. also demographic diversity of all types help us to achieve and young lawyers anyone aspiring to public service ton: know that path is open to all. >> thank you for that answer. for what it is worth. i agree with you. well said. judge jackson, i have a few questions for you.

in this town there is a lot of people expressing themselves on a varietyow of topics. i know you are not responsible for what these third parties are saying. are you familiar with the organization of demand justice? >> do you know spending money to promote your nomination to the circuit court quick. >> and with those class emplacements in various publications i'm aware of that. talk about adding additional seats to the supreme court do you think congress should add additional seats to the supreme court quick. >> senator, as a sitting judge i am bound by the supreme

court. i think it's appropriate me for to comment on the structure or size of the court any more than the rulings. i would follow the president of the supreme court. >> demand justice claims the supreme court is broken. do you think the supreme court is broken? >> . >> i have never said anything about the supreme court being broken. i was not able to comment on the structure or the size or the functioning of the supreme court. >> finally, demand justice says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interest on their website. judge jackson, do you agree with that or disagree?

or no opinion? >> again, or whether or not the supreme court so now i don't have a comment. >> i am not aware of that quotation by demand justice or anything they have said quite frankly. but the code of conduct for the united states judges do apply to nominees as well. so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of views on the supreme court

or the supreme court rulings. those would be binding on me as a circuit judge. >> good luck to both of you. >> . >> banks and welcome to you both and the committee. that is the nature of the pandemic at the appellate level. and in the subcommittee yesterday on this veryon question. it was my training and law school when mentored by experiencing to bring along other appellate advocates.

because the only two ways the appellate court gets to look at facts and then to overturn a factual determination byat the court below. and with that erroneous standard. and not a great avenue of the appellate advocacy. and the judicial notice could be taken that christmas fell on ain wednesday in a particular year. what are your thoughts about the role of appellate courts engaging in fact-finding that is outside of the record

either by congress with the statute that is the subject of the challenge as it assembled the record. >> for those judges that i clerked at the appellate level and that's way i was taught to think about the role of the appellate court. and to know what the practices in the district of columbia and we have an unusual docket insofar as many of the cases even at the district court level not looking at trials

very much for developing records very much. there is already the administrative record that travels with the case. >> whether a congressional record or trial court record or administrative agency record. those are three sources that the appellate court can determine the facts in the case. and overruled the finding of the district court. what happens when they go out find the facts on their own quick. >> i don't know. would have to talk with my colleagues to look at the federal rules of appellate procedure. i'm not sure that circumstance in which the appellate court

would be at liberty to do that sort of thing. >> okay. >> and one duty circuit court judges is to be quite restrained federal judges should be restrained only those issues that appear before them and no other issues it is the way that you describe to fact-finding so it would be both clerking and litigating before the seventh circuit court of appeals quite rare for appellate judges to go outside the record. i cannot tell you a circumstance right have seen it in my own practice i cannot tell you what exceptions there

might be to make that rare thing happened. >> they case that comes to mind with enormous impact of those of us in the political line of work is citizens united which allows unlimited amounts of money into politics on the predicate or the premise that all of that spending wants to be transparent with the appearance of corruption in the political system. and of course it is indisputable it has been anything but transparent. so that fact that justice kennedy stood his decision on is provably false. so what you do with that decision? if that would hinge so where

do you go? >> for lower court judges we cannot go anywhere really. >> even with fact-finding. you are supposed to agree with the legal determinations of the supreme court and to follow them. but it is an interesting question if a false factual determination of the supreme court merits deference or separation of powers to put the legislative and executive branches on a supreme court decision. and had not been the custom of the court with free range fact-finding so those political decisions of the court have fallen on fact-finding with a whole new set of questions about what do

you do when the supreme court made a factual determination not supported by any record that all of government is powerless? i have abuse my time something you to ponder and to move toward the circuit courts of appeal which i will strongly support. thank you. >> . >> thank you for willingness to be here today. so it has been widely reported that president i then met with you and congratulations on your nomination. during that meeting with him where you ask for commitments

did you discuss abortion nor second amendment or dc versus heller or defined the police or illegal immigration? any of those issues? >> none of the above. >> judge jackson? >> no sir. >> judge jackson. in your notes for presentation you gave at columbia law school in 2019, i believe. court disparities in judicial outcomes can also occur when judges consider relevant factors. thatto me about what meant. >> thank you senator. the symposium i was invited to that article was about judicial biased and based on

my experience. and i would have to see the context of the quote of what i was suggesting was the idea because the factors and the law concerning something like sentencing are open-ended. that congress says you have to sentence defendants two terms of imprisonment sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purpose of punishment. it lists the purposes of punishment. any judge that looks at that with the broad parameters with how they word sentence if they

think about deterrence or retribution of how they word sentence. that that would reach a different result. to be inherent in the nature of judicial exercise of discretion. >> that is helpful. >> with your experience as a judge and as a lawyer. would you agree or disagree with someone who said that most racial disparities and criminal convictions and sentencings result from an

unconscious racial bias of judges and juries and other judicial decision-makers. do you agree or disagree with that statement? >> let me say as a judge now it ist very important for me to make commitments i am aware of social science research there is a professor at harvard and studies from the commission to talk about and indicated that all of us human beings can

have biases and policymakers in the criminal justice system. but i'm not a social scientist. >> i'm not asking for a commitment and in 2019 and prepared with the same speech that are largely attributable to factors other than group based bias another decision-makers. because there there were these demographic disparities that were attributable. so i was trying to give another perspective.

>> so what are the leading factors other than unconscious bias you see having an impact that account for some of the disparities in convictions in sentencing? >> one of the things where the differences of statutory penalties for things like. >> the class disparities what you are sentenced for. >> correct. having a demographic affect because research and statistics show the overwhelming number of defendants convicted of crimes involving crack were african-american. >> . >> presidents are not kings

a, and i have made a number of time as well and agree with that. sitting in court you have to review executive action it seems have more of a likelihood to come up in that court of appeals with the dc circuit then other places. is that prosecutorial discretion for any president of united states to tell an agency not to enforce a particular law? >> senator, unfortunately i cannot engage in a hypothetical discussion precisely because that might come before me i do not want to pre- judge any case. i do understand the implications of the log related but i cannot tell you if it is appropriate or not. >> i would love to delve more into this but my time is expired.

>> congratulations to both of you for your nomination and your incredible work. judge jackson the last time you were here december 2012, representative ryan introduced you. do you remember that quick. >> i do. >> saying our politics may differ but my praise for her intellect and character and integrity is unequivocal. march 23rd, 2013 you were confirmed by the senate by voice though and has since presided over many jury and bench trials writing 562 opinions. what have you learned during your time as a district court judge on the dc circuit? >> thank you senator. i have been very fortunate to work in a wonderful district

with terrific colleagues.wh what i have learned is a lot about agency practice. i did not do agency work with my role as a federal public defender. i learned a lot how our government works in talking with our colleagues. in looking forward to being in constant communication with other judges looking at these complicated issues concerning our government and its operation. and the importance of having a collegial relationship with your colleagues on the bench. i look forward to continuing that in my role as a circuit judge if im confirmed.

>> . >> you ruled for and against the government including center for biological diversity. and you also rejected a challenge with the plan to build a wall along thehe southern border. how do you ensure you partially review the facts and how do apply those principles as a circuit court judge? >> senator i tried to stick to the same methodology in my thrulings. i do focus on the arguments and the facts and the law and the binding precedent. and i very methodically work through an analysis ofca those

issues and inputs in every case. and that helps me to not pay attention to who was involved for one administration or the other i'm just focused on the arguments made. and the court say your opinions are allll the same. and i say yes. exactly. that's the point. that's a trying to do to make sure and treating everyone equally and not paying attention to who was in the administration when i rule on the case. >> thank you for v that answer. ms. jackson-akiwumi you spent many years working as an advocate for various clients in both criminal and civil cases with the breath the experience. if you're confirmed i hope you

will be you have to impartially apply the law. and how it differs from that has an advocate and you have any reservation to set aside your past advocacy when analyzing a case? >> as you indicated we have a variety of different roles that large and small law firm federal public defenders and federal judges and in each of those roles i have had to get up to speed in a variety of new areas of law to represent different types of clients nonprofit organizations. i i have enjoyed the challenge and the variety.

i believe that will be a transition i am up to and i am also fully confident i can apply the law neutrally and fairly as a circuit judge as i indicated in one of my answers. being an advocate requires you to work within the framework of existing law. so i am prepared to work within the existing framework within the supreme court precedent and then finally, i am aware the role of advocate and judge has an advocate the physician is given to you because you are coming up with the best arguments for your clients within the framework of existing law to advocate what is best for your client. as a judge to approach with an

open mind and listen to thear arguments of those parties without the thumb on the scale. you do their research. i am familiar with the fourth circuit and conference with your colleagues. >> look at someone as a public defender and those that you may have represented and you have a job to represent under the law. and those issues do not confirm some people to be in the role a prosecutor before

to differentiate for on the criminal defense side. >> judge jackson you spent on the sentencing commission vice chairman and commissioner how has that informed yourst approach as a district court judge for sentencing principles and how that informs your work as a circuit court judge quick. >> . >> was to work on the actual drafting of the guidelines even apart from the substance with the meticulous work todr draft the guidelines and with

respect to the substance it is useful for me as a trial judge because as i said i have sentence more than 100 people. you use the guidelines manual as the supreme court directs to do that. and i came to the job and understanding trial procedures that would be very helpful because the court of appeals abuse those in criminal cases. v and i think that perspective should be valuable. >> thank you to both of you.

thank you senator klobuchar in senator cotton. >> thank you for your nomination. >> judge jackson in your career before you are a judge did you ever represented terrorist at guantánamo bay? >> 16 years ago as a federal public defender. >> it was. >> it was a client that you had quick. >> i don't remember the name. >> can we get that for the record? >> sure. >> ms. jackson-akiwumi in your legal career have you ever represented a terrorist at guantánamo bay? >> no senator. does can they treat americans

differently because they are race? >> no senator. >> i'm glad we agree. >> judge jackson? no senator. >> the first amendment protects the freedom of a religion. the government can institute frequent policies like or casinos is that right ms. jackson-akiwumi? >> the first amendment protects religious liberty, religious freedom that those are actively litigated right now in the supreme court. >> that the government cannot treat a religious organization worse than they would a secular business like adg restaurant or casino. correct? >> .

>> you are referring to neutral laws. there is a principal there that if a lot is neutral that it can be precluded the supreme court recently granted in a junction of california i just want to reflect that nuance in the supreme court is working to those issues. that is not my area of practice the last two years or 16 years but that's my a broad understanding of what is happening right now at the supreme court. >> judge jackson? >> i haven't had many cases with religious liberty issues. i have one right now.

>> i am aware the supreme court the supreme court has rightly viewed the first amendment rights as foundation fundamental and it is working through the doctrine. the last few years. and to treat religious organizations differently. >> do you believe individuals right to keep and bear arms for self-defense quick. >> the supreme court has said that very clearly that justice

scalia said the individual right to keep and bear arms with heller. >> that has been extended toar state and local governments through mcdonald. >> that's correct. >> what are the limits on the right quick. >> and then that's what the supreme court is figuring out right now. >> you have anyak personal views quick. >> if i had any personal views they certainly would not be relevant to the decision-making i would engage in as a circuit judge i'm bound by the supreme court precedent in heller and mcdonald and any others that develop. >> i agree wholeheartedlyol with what ms. jackson-akiwumi said any personal views of the fundamental right to bear arms have no bearing on my decision-making would be bound by the supreme court precedent. and in heller andn: mcdonald. >> .

>> do you agree with the late justice ginsburg that there should be nine justices and nation not be added? >> senator have to admit i am not familiar with their particular views on that issue. and i don't think it would be appropriate for me to opine on the composition of the supreme court of what should or should not happen. it is left to the legislative branch. >> senator. >> i won't ask you. congratulations again. >> so welcome to the two nominees before this committee today. both of the nominees before us are highly qualified and

impressive candidates demonstrating a commitment to justice and fairness throughout their extraordinary legal careers. and somehow suggest that you are biased. to rule for and against administrations of both parties. but even with those overtones how it is a mischaracterization of the judicial record to simply look at your record in the last four years. >> i let others characterize my record i'm doing the work of analyzing the arguments in the facts and the line every case. >> can i frame that? >> if we assess the judges records simply based on the

scorekeeping so what about the judicial philosophy and qualifications and with that important seat with that approach the case? >> i apply methodology looking only at the arguments one party or another in the government case to test out the merits of the claims that are being made and how thein

binding on the supreme court of the dc circuit in light of the facts looking at the judges body of work that doesn't vary based to find cases that the judge may rule and form of the administration the driving force behind the judges ruling i have had cases that i can think of in which i ruled partially for one party or the other. meaning a party in the case not a political party so both parties in the case that what the law required.

thatat the same dynamics that they try to find in their rulings. >> judge jackson's beat to the value of the independent judiciary insulated from partisan political considerations. >> it is one of the bedrock serve the rule of law the foundational constitutional principle everything in the government but if you don't have judges who are able to do their duties marbury versus madison to say the law independent of the political brancheshe that the founders wanted us to have the way the government was constructed so

the independence of the branch is crucial. >> do you care to comments on the significance or the importance. >> i will say it's hard to improve upon the answer judge jackson just gave and i will also add that i clerked forward to federal judges they seem to understand this principle about their independence. it does not seem to be in dispute those i have worked for. >> my understanding is both of your parents were also judges. fill me in briefly what motivated you to pursue a career in the law? >> it is true i grew up in a

family that very much valued public service i always knew the bulk of my career would be working in public interest i'm honored to have this opportunity to return to public service. it is simply an honor. my parentst have taught me a lot throughout my life in terms of judicial careers i watched will without fear or favor. i watched my mother put litigants first even at risk of her own body she sat for hours on the bench because she knew litigants had taken time off of work to come to court

away from their beating caregivers away from their families and she did not want to delay for justice and set for hours without taking a break so i learned about service from my parents and judicial service long before of serving our country in this way before i was presented with this opportunity by our president. >> you would bring badly needed diversity that cato institute show there was four times as many prosecutors as defense attorneys in the judiciary and in terms of background in life experiences with racial gender background having a more widely diverse federal judiciary is a goal of the administration and one that i support. speak briefly why is that the value of background diversity for federal judiciary?

>> demographic diversity and professional diversity in the court system. people can accept decisions as more fair that a broad array that the court isn't just restricted to an important role modeling function so young students were law students no past and public service on the bench is open to everyone not just those have taken a certain career path. i hope to being something to discussions if confirmed because of my experience just in the way of the collegial arguments for a particular case. and just like a wind and the

record or a colleague and then on prosecutor and another fact. i hope that i to can bring something to our discussion because of my experience as a federal public defender and enhance our collective discussion and decision-making. >> i look forward to supporting your nomination. >> thank you to the nominees for being here. ms. jackson-akiwumi i want to ask you about the reginald taylor case you served as a defense attorney and armed robbery case. that this must not be for the

armed career criminal minimum should not apply to this defendant. what where is your argument about not applying a mandatory minimum sentence that they should be free to depart from that? help me to understand your argument. >> it was based on the career criminal act which congress stated this it should only be subject to the mandatory minimum if they had certain predicate offenses and their criminal history. that evidence that was residential burglary. the supreme court and the seventh circuit and many circuits around the country were working through the issue of whether residential burglary qualified as a predicate offense.

we took the position residential burglary did not qualify. if it did not the mandatory minimum of the armed career criminal act would not apply in mr. taylor's case. >> that makes sense to me. he wrote the departure from the mandatory minimum was appropriate because black defendants continue just received longer sentences for the same crime as white defendants. no additional time would be added to entrench this disparity. is it your review the armed career criminal act or mandatory minimum sentences are racially disparate quick. >> thank you for that question. there has been research by the sentencing commission and other agencies in the government that have shown

racial impact of mandatory minimums to this very committee has considered. what i word is referring to that you quoted the supreme court case law that says above and beyond the mandatory minimum a judge does not have to impose any additional time if in her discretion feels the mandatory minimum that is sufficient but not greater r than necessary then the judge does not have to add time on top of that. the argument i was making is if it has a sufficient please do not add additional time on

top. >> i've asked other nominees do you think us criminal justice system is systemically racist or infected with systemic racism and bias? >> those are not terms that i use. looking at issues of race look at discrimination which has very specific standards under statutory law in terms of csignings looking for attorneys for in discriminatory intent and retaliation those are not that i have seen in a court of

law based on the constitution or the applicable statute. >> just to be clear those are not words or descriptors you t would use to describe her criminal justice system as it currently exist quick. >> i would be able involving race. >> . >> and that the mandatory condition of electronic monitoring from persons charged him as a sexual offender under the appropriate statute so in the presentation a number of district courts have found this act unconstitutional as a violation of the bail clause and separation of powers doctrine.

since you are advocating these arguments of the defense counsel do believe the child protect protection safety act is unconstitutional? >> so what i can tell you is if confirmed i am bound and to be called upon with the facts of the case c of the seventh circuit is at the same for those as well? >> yes. i don't recall that presentation or the content. >> and you can get back to us on that. so just in my final moments

ms. jackson i think i am right you served on the board at the christian school. >> about one year we should speak on behalf of the unborn and content for the sanctity of all life and children from the moment of conception are a blessing and inheritors from the lord and thein school took the position uniting of a man and a woman in a covenant as a commitment for a lifetime and the state has no right to impose on religious opinions of any kind. >> because i distinctly recall that justice amy barrett was attacked by defended her at

that time and to religious liberty to serve on the board and i take it that from your service with the constitutional right of religious liberty is that fair to say quick. >> i do believe in religious liberty. that is a foundation on tenant of the entire government to the case law. that you can't infringe on religious rights. that concept comes to observe supreme court precedent not the personal views i might have for any personal views about religion and waited never come into my service as

a judge. i would also say i have served on many boards and they don't necessarily agree with all of the statements of all of the things the boards might have been their materials. i'm not even sure that was something that was in the scroll circumstances that i was there because i was not aware of that. in any event i do believe in religious liberty. >> thank you for your willingness to serve and to your families who are undoubtedly very proud of you

and justifiably so. i'm proud to be here as a member of the judiciary committee to be involved in your confirmation. i will support you because you are both superlatively well qualified your academic background and professional standing and service to our nation and your families. and want to begin by saying you both have backgrounds as sepublic defenders. i served four and a half years as the us attorney in connecticut as chief federal prosecutor. then attorney general of the state for 20 years involved in law enforcement. i really welcome the hapresidents emphasis on elevating.ha and is a prosecutor.

>> i know the positions are very competitive but public defenders bring a perspective to judging that prosecutors may not because people come fromer private practice bring a different perspective. i congratulate and thank you for your background as a public defender. diversity is very important on both circuits that you will join. the seventh circuite presides over seven.5 million of color including chicago, milwaukee and indianapolis among other cities. all judges are sitting are white in 2021. im dumbstruck. it is breathtaking.

that a federal circuit court in any part of our country is all white and i have remarked on this before. just to say it again, thank you to the president and thank you to you for helping to correct this onwh justice which undermines the faith of the public in our judiciary. the reason we are strong and resilient as br is because of the independentdi judiciary that has had the courage to stand up to the potential abuse that wewe have seen the contempt of the rule of law in the highest places that we are add a

moment when we need to saying the judiciary is an independent branch ofrt government with the district court and courts of appeals for continuing to stay strong in our democracy. i'm proud to support you in roughly the same question i asked judge jackson eight years ago as a nominee for the district court about your position on sentencing discretion. this is critically important now to make it fair and more

just. i would be interested in your views when departures from the sentencing guidelines are justified in the more common reasons that should be departed from those sentencing guidelines to give us the benefit of your experience on that point. >> senator, thank you for that haquestion. the sentencing system not only do we have that guideline manual and the departures in the manual but and the decision of booker. now judges can use the

guidelines as a starting point for their analysis and determine with the guideline sentence and any departures are sufficient penalty for the case. that is within the guidelines manual for imposing a sentence that is different from the initial calculation. and in the guidelines manual there is a lot of room for judges to take into account those circumstances of the individualpa. in my district and know the judges vary from the guidelines as well that the

age of the person may mean the guideline penalty is too much. and also the most prevalent departure which is one so all of those factors enabled to impose sentences that are sufficient but not greater than necessary but obviously congress as a policymaking body to evaluate if any changes need to be made. >> this isso my second time saying this today but it's hard and in that regime that i

was under in a decade. and i was representing a client because of mitigating factors. was wanted in the judges mind a higher sentence in the rare case. in the more common case mitigating factors that warranted in the advisory guideline range. and all those cases they were still operating in the statutory framework the body laid out about how they should sentence.

>> thank you mr. chairman. and also ms. jackson-akiwumi congratulations on your o nomination sure your friends and family are proud of you but it's important to highlight the nominee before us i have spoke about this committee before when we held a hearing on dark many campaign. but that is largely responsible for the nomination we had before ust today. demand justice is a dark many group's first priority is getting left-wing judges to follow a liberal agenda instead of the constitution if confirmed. i should also add demand

justice spends millions of dollars advocating for the expansion and packing of the supreme court. in fact they have been pushing for liberal judges since before president biden was even elected. demand justice call on candidate biden for the potential list of supreme court nominees but he refused. demand justice release the list of their preferred supreme court nominees and the short list was released october 152019. without objection mr. on - - mr. chairman i would submit documents for the first and the second list. those of bold progressive leaders to rebalance the supreme court. according to demand justice those who champion progressive values as public defenders, public interest

lawyers, scholars, and elected officials. however the two nominees was not on the first demand justice list for april 2020 with the supreme court nominee for soon to be president biden to pick from. both judge jackson and ms. jackson-akiwumi were on the list from demand justice. now they sit in front of this committee today for the circuit court position. so what changed? in judge jackson's case one month after the first demand justice supreme court list, a judge jackson issued a ruling in a case by house democrats to compel former will those

conclusions one thing is clear the 120 page ruling had a purpose rachel maddow explained the purpose of the 120 page ruling well if the production crew can run the video clip. do so now. >> has ruled against the president that in this specific instance the official the president has instructed to defy theen subpoena the judge says don mcgann must comply and must turn up to congress to testify. this is a long ruling. it is interesting. it seems to me it is written with a broad audience in mind. it's not legalistic that mcgann has to show up in here is the president. this is the court order or

judicial ruling that if this for the indictment you would call it a speaking indictment it is designed to be read for people outside this case. >> just to repeat some of the comments the ruling was written with a broad audience in mind. not just a legalistic being a judicial ruling. if this were the indictment it would be a speaking indictment a ruling designed to be read by people outside the case it is one month after demand justice shortlist came out they released their second supreme court shortlist in 2020 how is this any different how democrats which is republicans of the last four years why is it suddenly okay

with liberal dark many for those in the highest courts in the country. and with the states unanimous consent from the demand justice website. thank you. >> does the senate have any comments or questions. >> i am clearer. >> . >> were judge jackson like to reply to your comment? >> i have been a federal judge 48 years and i have a duty of independence. i clerked for three federal judges before he became a judge and they were models of judicial independence.

what that is meant is i know very well what my obligations are and not too will with partisan advantage in mind. to tailor or craft my decisions in order to try to gain influence or do anything of the sort. i have no control with outside groups or reporters say about my rulings. to some extent all of my 560 opinions are written for people outside of the case. they are written for the public. they are written for the appeals court and they are written for the parties. so my statement is that i have always been an independent judge.

that's why the president has honored me with this nomination. >> judge jackson i said from the onset it was one of the factors. i am sure your jurisprudence weighed into that that your response was almost identical to dozens of jet on - - judges who came before the judiciary and were rejected out of hand. dark many is influencing and demand justice is trying to expand the supreme court. so you can understand after four years hearing how the federalist society and otherer organizations were a dark many group with maligned intentions that is very much supporting you why we would draw the same conclusion. thank you mr. chair. >> let me just add one other element. i went to make it clear.

this hearing was scheduled today not because of a plea by any special interest group at all. the nominees go through an extensive background check. all of them do. and that's before it is submitted to both sides of me has scheduled the five judicial nominees today as soon as the process has been completed and i'm sitting here looking through your questionnaires i don't know how you managed to accumulate all this information in response but it was a good faith effort to comply with everything under the law and as soon as it was ready no outside group demands or please have anything to do with the timing of this hearing. senator it is your turn. >> democrats have long

criticized the role of dark money and politics and certainly in judicial nominees.ag but republican colleagues are now on the same page with us we should all be voting for legislation with those dark many sources. i welcome that change. i congratulate the two nominees. you are eminently qualified that's why the president nominated you. i congratulate both of you. for every nominee coming from where i sit. have you ever made unwanted request for sexual favors are committed any verbal or physical harassment of the physical nature? >> no senator. >> no senator. >> have you ever faced

discipline entered into this type of conduct? >> no senator. >> no senator. >> those of you have served as public defenders. you have been asked some questions about that. and ms. jackson-akiwumi you gave an interview to yale in which you discussed being a black woman attorney and the burden that you carry when a prosecutor accused you to be overly aggressive and yelling because you forcefully made a point. but you also describe theef benefits. sometimes my families are very grateful to see me a young black woman in a position of power. now you are nominated to fill the seat of the seventh circuit the first black person of color on the bench. what is the significance of that to you?

>> thank you senator. i would be the second person of color nominated to the seventh circuit judge williams served for decades and retired in 2017. but i indicated earlier and i stand by it that there is the same role modeling function that i played when i was an advocate and that i was referring to in that interview. often times you can inspire without knowing it because maybe it is the first time they saw a black woman standing up in court before theme bench. and the same would be true if i were confirmed as a judge. i can serve as a model for any number of people coming behind me. that is not limited to people of the same race or gender.

one can inspire any number of people. it hope to do that through my service of confirmed. >> i very much appreciated you knowing the importance of demographic diversity and professional diversity such as being a public defender to achieve the role modeling that you speak of. this should reflect the diversity of our country. i very much appreciate you saying that. we saw highly competitive and difficult job. going to the prosecutor's office. we rarely have considered public defenders with the judiciary committee. can you talk more on why you sought out these positions as public defenders? >> senator my service as a public defender was a while

ago. coming from a staff position on the sentencing commission and working on sentencing policy. i felt like i didn't have enough of an idea of what really happened in criminal cases and to understand the system if for no other reason to be a better policymaker at the end of the day. ll. i come from a background of public service. my parents were in public service, my brother was a police officer in the military, being

in the public defender's office felt like the opportunity to help with my skills and talents. sen. hirono: it sounds as though it is kind of an experiential diversity, the people came for you and whose lives you can impact with your decisions. would you like to respond ms. jackson-akiwumi? ms. jackson-akiwumi: what i initially applied, i was looking for a job where i could help protect constitutional rights and work in that realm. i was looking forward to being a trial litigator and public litigator outside of federal -- at the federal level. we represented clients from arrest through appeals even when they wanted to petition in the u.s. supreme court which i did

in two cases. i was looking to represent individual clients, i had been a civil litigator for three years and most of my clients were corporations, nonprofit organizations. i was only representing individuals through my extensive pro bono work. i wanted to do it full-time. now with the benefit of 10 times -- 10 years of service, i was correct about the reward that comes from helping our country to live up to its constitutional ideals in the sixth amendment. that everybody should have assistance of counsel. what i did not appreciate when i began but learned was how gratifying it was to walk with someone through the toughest days and nights of their lives when they were being judged for the worst moments in their lives. to serve as a guide, counselor,

investigator, social worker, strategist, negotiator, there were so many hats in addition to a trial litigator, appellate litigator, oral and written advocate. there was no end to the variety of ways i was called upon to help people and communities and victims. because the system works when everybody is ably represented. many of my clients were clients when they put victims of day before. it was a robust way for us to live up to our constitutional values. sen. hirono: thank you. sen. durbin: thank you senator hirono. is senator blackburn available by remote? sen. blackburn: yes i am. i am so pleased we have these nominees in front of us.

judge brown i want to come to you first if i may. i know you are aware that you are discussed regularly as a future supreme court nominee, many of our supreme court nominees come from the circuit that you would be serving on. we have some that are advocating to pack the court, expand the court, that has been discussed, senator cornyn talked with you about it. i see this as a dangerous proposal. it would set up a judicial arms race, if somebody adds, someone else will. it is said that even president roosevelt's threat and unsuccessful attempt to pack the court was enough to intimidate justices.

do you believe that deliberately expending the court to about one president two packet with their nominees what undermined confidence in our laws and undermine the separation of powers? if they were to expand the court, if president biden did that, would you accept a supreme court nomination under those circumstances? judge jackson: i am a sitting judge in the lower courts. as such i am bound by supreme court precedent and rulings. i do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on proposals without the structure -- about the structure of the court, expending the court or anything of the sort just as it would not appropriate for me to talk about or critique supreme court

precedent. i am unable to answer your question. sen. blackburn: you are aware the groups advocating for you, support that. judge jackson: there are a lot of people that have -- for me and i am gratified but i am focused on this nomination. i am hoping to be confirmed to the d.c. circuit. sen. blackburn: ms. jackson-akiwumi i appreciate the comments about diversity. having good relationships with individuals who are different from being, who have different points of view from me is something that is important. to help me in public policy and

to do a better job in representing all tennesseans. i appreciate the comments you have made there. i noted as i looked through your record that you represented many different clients during your tenure, you have been a zealous advocate for those clients. i want to draw attention to a case where you defended a man who preyed on women for sex, prostituted them, his victims accused him of physically restraining them with a firearm. despite believing all women, you called these women lies to cast doubt on their testimonies and climbed there was no evidence from the testimony. in your sentencing memorandum, you shamed the victims alleged prior prostitution work to

support a more lenient sentence for your client. do you support to believing the believing survivors of sexual violence? ms. jackson-akiwumi: thank you senator blackburn for the question. i am not sure which case you are referring to, i have represented more than 400 clients with sex offense cases. what i can say is calling a victim a liar is not something i have done in court or written record. it is my job as an attorney to examine the evidence and present questions about the evidence to the courts where appropriate and necessary. sen. blackburn: let me give you the specific case and you can submit in writing.

your sentencing memo causes me concern. we have been through time where a previous supreme court justice , we have an issue with governor cuomo, knowing where you stand on that is important. i will get that to you. ms. jackson-akiwumi: thank you senator. pres. biden: -- sen. blackburn: judge jackson i want to come back to you. in 2019 you granted a preliminary injunction against the dhs rule expending the use of the statutory authority to use expedited removal procedures. the d.c. circuit judge reversed your injunction and found that congress granted the dhs secretary soul and unreviewable

discretion on expedited determination to enforce immigration law. since beginning of resident biden's term, the amount of illegal border crossings has skyrocketed and it appears that we will exceed everything we had at the border in 2019. last month, border agents took over 170,000 migrants into custody at the southern border. including 19,000 unaccompanied children. these apprehensions have hit a 15 year high. the biden administration's flawed policy has encouraged more and more migrants coming to the country illegally. the administration is failing to properly handle the surge in crossings and has allowed our borders to be overwhelmed. they have failed to acknowledge the crisis exist.

the administration's failures have caused massive suffering and endangered communities and anybody who is not been to the border it needs to go. i was astounded. do our homeland security officials lacked sufficient authority to act decisively and timely to keep us safe? judge jackson: thank you senator. i had a number of immigration cases. in those cases, like the one you mentioned, what i am doing is evaluating the law, the immigration law is very complex, the facts in the case and the claims that are being made, the arguments of the parties. i am not assessing the policy. i'm not making a determination

in a general sense of whether or not dhs officials have enough authority or any other policy consideration. given what i do and what is in my purview, i cannot say whether they have enough authority. what i can tell you and that the case you reference, that i worked on, there was a disagreement, the d.c. circuit judge disagreed with the way i analyzed the statute and that sometimes happens. judges disagree on statutory interpretations. they made the ruling that they made and that is binding precedent. sen. blackburn: i have one other i will submit you for writing, and that has to do with the number of reversals.

i see senator booker and i thank you for the time. sen. durbin: i think you very much for -- i think you very much. senator booker are you ready? sen. booker: i was having trouble admitting myself. i am grateful for that. i would like to make the case, it was said earlier in an equivalency that was stunning to me about the outside groups influence on the picking of judges for the circuit and the supreme court. joe biden has said no such thing, he has directly refuted questions about outside groups governing his decision. he understands this is one of the civic glee sacred p owers given to the president.

i am sure that he would feel that it would be a betrayal of that power too far out responsibility for making choices to an organization, especially one that does not necessarily aligned with these principles, values. that is dramatically different than what president donald trump -- former president donald trump did. he promised that his nominees would all be picked up by the federalist society, he also said that he turned to the federalist people and heritage foundation to assemble his initial list of 21 potential nominees. which is think that -- saying that power was turned over to organizations -- that should bring up questions for every senator. who are these organizations? what is the money and interest behind them? is it dark money, folks with agendas that cut across the

concerns that should be held in a bipartisan manner by members of congress? this is a stunning departure from our national history. farming out should be abhorrent to everyone. i wanted to make that distinction. to both of our nominees, it is an extraordinary honor to be sitting before you. this is the date that is worthy of celebration given your background, the uniqueness of your careers and i want to thank you both. i talk often about issues of race and diversity, those have been brought up by members on both sides. i want to ask one question and it is about another type of diversity that is not talked about enough, which is diversity we do not see many on the higher courts.

once not having prosecutorial background or time working as public defenders -- but time working as public defenders. this is an ideal that goes back to adams representing the british involved in the boston massacre. this belief that everybody deserves defense. it is noble work. it brings diversity to our system. an urgent silly -- urgently needed level diversity. i will take my answers back on mute and turn it over to the chairman. could each of the explain -- of you explain why it is important to have diversity on the federal bench when appellate judges are deliberating? how does that help inform the

decisions in your opinion and how each of your experiences affect your opinions? with that i will go on mute and think the nominees in advance -- thank the nominees in advance. judge jackson: thank you senator , i had the pleasure of working as a law clerk for two appellate judges. i do not know yet and i hope to be confirmed and see firsthand what the deliberation process is. i know that the judges meet and discuss cases, in that context it seems to be quite typical for judges from all different backgrounds, prosecutors, people who have worked in private

practice, other areas to be able to contribute to the discussions about the cases. i look at it from the oliver wendell holmes of view that the life of the law is not logic, it is experience. the more experiences brought to bear on our complex legal problem is, the better. i know from my experience as a district judge that there have been changes in my own way of practicing, interacting with defendants that are based on insights from representing clients 16 years ago when i was an assistant federal public defender.

you learn things. from experiences that relate to what you are doing. they can be useful. i told the story about the way in which i communicate and forecast and layout for defendants what is happening in cases. i was aware as a defender, how many of my clients did not understand the process and that was detrimental to their rehabilitation. i work on that aspect based on my insights from my time i was a defender. ms. jackson-akiwumi: i would only add that the seventh circuit has judges from many different backgrounds. there are state court judges who are sitting on the seventh circuit, law professors, judges who have been prosecutors,

attorneys for the executive branch, i hope that i would and to that mix. as i reflected earlier and judge jackson referred to, it is a collegial environment and judges spend time discussing their impressions of the cases. in their effort to reach individual opinions in a case. i hope my background as a federal public defender and as a civil litigator as well will help bring something to the table in the way i know that my colleagues background already do. sen. durbin: thank you senator booker, senator cruz. sen. cruz: thank you mr. chairman and congratulations to both of the nominees. judge jackson, you and i attended lawsuit -- law school together. judge jackson: good to see you. sen. cruz: congratulations.

let me start with a general question which is how would you find judicial activism -- define judicial activism? judge jackson: when a judge is unwilling to separate out their own personal views of a circumstance or case and they rule consistent with those views rather than the law as they are required. ms. jackson-akiwumi: i would give the same answer and out other judicial activism means many things to different people, for me it suggests a judge who goes beyond the issues presented to the court. judges are limited. they have a restraint rule in that they only decide the issues presented to them. one form of activism is going beyond. sen. cruz: what should a principled judge do if the law

requires one outcome into your own personal, political policy views are to the contrary? how does the judge resolve that? judge jackson: the judge is duty-bound to follow the law, the binding and simple -- binding principal that guides the case. judges need to sort out their personal views. when i rule in my cases, i look at the facts, the law and the arguments in the same way. i methodically apply only those inputs. i am trying very hard to not look at this through anything but the prism of the binding precedent of the supreme court and d.c. circuit judge. there is no question that a judge has to set aside their

personal views about how a case comes out and rule consistent with the law. ms. jackson-akiwumi: that is absolutely correct. the roles of advocate and judge are different. in the semi as an advocate i set aside my personal opinions about my clients and what they were accused of or guilty of, i would also set aside if confirmed my personal views, convictions if any. the law is what guides and should guide judicial decision-making. sen. cruz: what are your views on the notion of a living constitution and whether we have a living constitution? judge jackson: i have not had any cases that have required me to develop a view on constitutional interpretation and the way the supreme court has to do and thought about, the

tools of interpretation. i am aware that the supreme court with respect to certain provisions of the constitution, that it has interpreted has looked at history and focused on the original meaning of the text , say in the second amendment context in the heller case. i have not had any opportunity to do that. i have worked with those materials when i was in private practice, i filed an amicus brief in which we argued using english common law about whether or not the english courts would have accepted evidence that had been extracted by torture. sen. cruz: was this in the booting case?

judge jackson: that was. i represented 20 federal judges that wanted to make that point. sen. cruz: pro bono representation usually reflect your own views, which is frequently why lawyers take that on. what led you to take that? judge jackson: i was out working alone, i was at a big law firm, it was a client, it was a group of judges i was assigned to work with as part of my employment. sen. cruz: did you agree with the position you are advocating? judge jackson: i was focused on my clients interests, i was doing what advocates do. i do not have a personal view of the issue that to make sure thought i was making the most convincing argument i could make on behalf of my client. sen. cruz: let me go back to the

original question, do you believe that we have a living constitution? judge jackson: the constitution is an enduring document, the supreme court has set affixed meaning to look to the original words in the constitution and interpret and as a lower court judges interpret positions of the supreme court does, that look out the text and original meaning. if i ever had one of those cases that is how i would approach it. ms. jackson-akiwumi: thank you for the question. i did not find these phrases useful. as a lawyer, a living constitution is somewhere to meet like judicial activism, it means so many things to different people. under the supreme court has not use those terms. i know that chief justice

marshall said that we have a constitution that was meant to endure, which it has and be adopted to the crises of human affairs. i think that is what has happened with our constitution. beyond that, it is the supreme law of the land and if confirmed, i would be bound by the supreme court interpretations of the constitution. it would not be my job to make law. sen. cruz: if you could both tell me your view of the importance of the first amendment and the protections of free speech and religious liberty. judge jackson: my view comports with the supreme court because as a judge i have to apply the doctrines of the supreme court. it is clear from the recent

rulings -- the recent covid cases, trinity lutheran, a masterpiece cake shop that the court is looking into restrictions on first amendment. as they should because the first amendment religious liberty as a core constitutional right. my views comports with what the supreme court has held. i would have to apply the supreme court principles. sen. cruz: ms. jackson-akiwumi. ms. jackson-akiwumi: i agree it is fundamental, all of the freedoms there, assembly, petition for redress and religion. sen. cruz: thank you.

sen. durbin: thank you senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chair. before i begin, i want to take a moment to remark on the significance of this hearing. as chairman durbin reminds us and tells us, for the past four years, the prior administration appointed 226 judges to the federal courts. almost 30% of the current federal judiciary. an overwhelming majority of those appointees were white. nearly as many, 171 were men. over the course of the prior administration, our judiciary came markedly less diverse -- became markedly less diverse.

this is an important step in reversing that trajectory and creating a judiciary that reflects america that it serves. this committee has heard and will hear testimony from five nominees, all persons of color and three women. they have experience in public defense, prosecution, civil litigation, municipal law and military service. the diversity of backgrounds and professional experience they offer to the judiciary in addition to their impressive qualifications is remarkable and important. i hope mr. chair and expect that this will be only the first of many such nominations this congress. now to my question. the first for ms. jackson, if

confirmed you will be one of the few former public defenders to serve in this capacity. can you take a minute to speak to the role and importance of public defenders to our criminal justice system? >> did you mean ms. jackson-akiwumi? sen. padilla: i did. ms. jackson-akiwumi: the sixth amendment gives the right to counsel, the has been interpreted to mean counsel in criminal cases went one cannot afford an attorney. judges make the best decisions when they are presented with the best arguments from both sides. due process guarantees that people beat represented and have the opportunity to be heard,

regardless of their ability to pay. it was my honor and privilege to work on that system for one decade to ensure that might clients were competently represented, regardless of their ability to pay and regardless of what they were accused of. and to help our country to live up to its values. sen. padilla: follow-on, earlier in your career, you spent years working at a corporate law firm. with i am sure very nice offices and resources and high salaries. you chose to leave that comfortable path to spend the next decade of your career as a public defender. just for a moment, what would prompt you to make such a change? ms. jackson-akiwumi: i am grateful for the three years i spent litigating there, it was a term in this experience representing our client which

ranged from corporations to nonprofit organizations, individuals. i get a lot of experience, tried my first jury trial, argued my first case before the seventh circuit court of appeals. for which i appeared many times after as a federal public defender. i always knew that i wanted to return to public service. i began my legal career serving to federal judges and i wanted to spend the bulk of my career that way. this nomination has given me an opportunity to serve the public if this committee and the senate decides. sen. padilla: next question for ms. brown jackson. judge jackson: thank you. sen. padilla: you have presided over hundreds of cases. in that time, you have ruled for both prosecutors and criminal

defendants, for workers and employers, for the government and those challenging governmental decisions. is there an ideology or philosophy that guides your approach? how do you view that not really a philosophy, more of a methodology, the idea that it is only appropriate for the judge to take into account the arguments of the parties, the facts of the case, and the law that applies. i have found that if you do that, you can be consistent in the way you are analyzing issues, and you can set aside any thoughts about who is making the argument, what advantages any side might take away from

your opinions. if you have a fidelity to the rule of law that is grounded in looking at only those inputs, then i think you can rule without fear of favor, which is what i attempted to do. sen. padilla: thank you both for your willingness to serve and thank your families for supporting your service, because i know it is not easy. in the last minute i have, i would ask you both to briefly comment on what this means to you personally for you and your family for you to be here with this opportunity before you? judge jackson: i am fortunate enough to have an office now just a few blocks away from the national archive. sometimes i go there and i reflect on the moment --

momentousness of my duties and the fact i have had an opportunity that my grandparents would not have been able to fathom. it is the beauty and majesty of this country that someone who comes from a background like mine could find herself in this position. i am enormously grateful to have the opportunity to be part of the law in this way, and i am truly thankful for the president giving me the honor of this nomination. >> i also grew up with a preset of to whom much is given much is

required. despite those humble beginnings, my family has always been one that valued education. i have been given a top-notch education. and top-notch experiences that i am so grateful for. i recall attorney general garland telling you all it was the highest and best use of his skill to serve his country in this way now. although i am certainly not attorney general come i agree with attorney general garland. in this moment now, to serve as a circuit judge at the request of our president, would be the highest and best use of the skills that i have in such a way to think my family and this country -- thank my family in this country for the opportunities i have been given. sen. padilla: is a proud son of immigrants, a work ethic the little 40 years of working as a

short order cook and domestic worker, who had an opportunity to study at the massachusetts institute of technology, and years later get to sit on this side of the dais, i hank you both. -- i think you both. sen. kennedy: thank you. council, let me start with just a few general questions for can you give me your thoughts about the meaning and importance, if you think it is important, of the adequate and independent state ground doctrine? which you will probably see a lot. judge jackson-akiwumi: it is actually a doctrine of the supreme court that governs. when a case presents federal ground. but, if there is also

independent and adequate state court ground that supports the decision, the supreme court will not choose to take the case. so, the supreme court is a body that has the ability to exercise that doctrine. the seventh circuit court of appeals would not have that opportunity. as you know, the court of appeals takes every case that is appealed to it. it does not have the ability like the supreme court does to pick and choose which cases it will hear. sen. kennedy: so you are saying the seventh circuit can't decide a case, or invoke adequate independent state ground doctrine? judge jackson-akiwumi: there are other doctrines that would govern if the seventh circuit -- if a panel fell there were state court questions that needed to be resolved, so the federal case should hold off, or if there was

independent state court ground for the case that necessitated -- assisted tainted a particular type of ruling, but that doctrine would not cause the seventh circuit to not take the case to begin with. the seventh circuit has to consider the appeal, then issue a decision. sen. kennedy: right. but you are not saying that the adequate and independent state ground doctrine is not applicable to the seventh circuit? judge jackson-akiwumi: that is a doctrine of the supreme court. the seventh circuit has other doctrines. sen. kennedy: it is a doctrine of the circuit court of appeals, isn't it? judge jackson-akiwumi: this is not an area i have been litigating in the past 16 years, but this is my broad understanding that it is a doctrine of the supreme court. sen. kennedy: ok. what is your definition of justice? judge jackson-akiwumi: thank you

for the question. emblazoned on the supreme court is "equal justice under law." i am mary that with the ethical canons and codes of conduct that apply to judges. one of them includes treating all parties fairly and impartially, and acting with diligence and upholding the independence of the court. i think when you marry those concepts together, you arrive at what hopefully is justice for the parties who come before a court. sen. kennedy: do you believe that crime is a disease that

needs a chore -- cure, or an antisocial behavior that deserves punishment? judge jackson-akiwumi: senator kennedy, neither of those options are words i have ever used to describe crime, which has been my province for the last 10 years representing people accused of crimes. if there's anything that might decades have taught me is how gray everything is. there is often a faint line, an indescribable line from when someone goes from law-abiding to breaking law and all of the

reasons that happens are all the different ways society can address that. i hope to bring that nuanced understanding with me to the circuit court if confirmed. i will be guided by the law and have to apply the law and would willingly do that to the facts in any case, but that nuanced understanding will enhance my ability to understand the facts in any given case. sen. kennedy: ok. are you a textual list, or propose to this -- judge jackson-akiwumi: one of the things i expressed to your colleague who asked a question about a living constitution, there was another western about activism, i do not find these labels particularly helpful. they mean different things to different people.

sen. kennedy: i think they are pretty standard definitions. could you tell me which way you lean? judge jackson-akiwumi: no, senator. the supreme court has that -- has instructed that one must first look to the text of the constitution, the plain meaning there, also the plain meaning of the text of the statute. that method the supreme court has instructed judges what to do -- sen. kennedy: i am sorry to interrupt, but my chairman is strict that i want to get the asked -- get to ask the judge a question. i'm sorry to interrupt. judge, you have been on the bench and you have seen the federal judicial system up close and, i agree, america is a

remarkable country. do you think the federal judicial system is systemically racist? judge jackson: thank you for that question. i am aware of social science research. sen. kennedy: i'm sorry? judge jackson: i am aware of social science research. in particular, my former area of expertise, which is sentencing.