>> good morning. this meeting of the senate judiciary many will come to order. the senate judiciary committee will hold its first traditional

nominations hearing of the 117th congress. our first panel will include two circuit court nominees with outstanding credentials. candace jackson-akiwumi to be taking an illinois seat on the seventh circuit and judge ketanji brown jackson for the d.c. circuit judge of our second panel will feature three highly qualified district court nominees. julien neals judge zahid quraishi both nominated to the district court of new jersey and regina rodriguez nominative for the district of colorado. other senators will join us to join in introducing the nominees. before i turn over to them and to ranking member grassley i would like to make a few points about this historic day for the biden administration. looking at this late of nominees i am struck that they not only bring qualifications that are

extraordinary to this next level of achievement, but also jet -- denim -- demographic and professional diversity. we needed on the federal bench. i'm reminded of what president lyndon johnson said when he nominated oregon marshall to the supreme court in 1967. mindful that he just sent up the nomination for the first african-american supreme court justice, president lyndon johnson said that marshall "had a distinguished record as private counsel and government counsel in the courts of the land. i believe he has already earned his place in history. i think it will be greatly enhanced by his service on the court. i believe he earned and deserved that appointment and is best qualified by training and valuable service to the country. i believe it's the right thing to do and the right time to do it and the right man in the right place. importantly he closed with this admonition. i trust that this nomination

will be promptly considered by the senate. i would say if i could to president johnson, a lot of nominees wish the same thing. surveying these five nominees i believe that they are qualified by training and distinguished records and the right nominees to fill these vacancies and they earned and deserved these appointments. all five of these nominees are people of color. they come from a range of professional backgrounds. all five received well-qualified ratings by the american bar association. both circuit court nominees are former federal public defenders and will as a result that perspective and experience that is far too often missing on the bench. that is not a partisan point of view. 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. today we are on our way to doing

that. today's district court nominees represent the depth and breadth of experience that will serve them well on the bench. they will in turn serve the people of new jersey and colorado. this district court panel includes julien neals a dedicated public servant who presided over more than 6000 cases in the newark municipal court system. judge zahid quraishi. a decorated military veteran, federal magistrate who if confirmed would be the first american muslim to sit on an article to record. regina rodriguez. a pathbreaking formal chief of the civil division of the colorado u.s. attorney's office whose mother family was interned during world war ii in one of our nation's most shameful moments. while this depth and breadth of experience is important so too is the confidence we can have that all of these nominees once confirmed understand their responsibility as judges.

it's a welcome change to see nominees who have been selected for their credentials and abilities rather than those who simply checked the box in their political experience. for four years president nominated senate republicans and approved far too many nominees, many of whom never should have been nominated. 10 of the nominees in the trump administration for lifetime appointments in the federal court have been found unanimously unqualified by the american bar association, but that did not deter their nomination or in most cases their selection. thankfully with today's nominees the biden administration has taken an important step towards bringing the courts back towards evenhandedness, fair mindedness, and confidence. the administration has done so with a group of nominees whose qualifications are beyond mention. have the honor and privilege of introducing them candace jackson-akiwumi. nominated to an illinois seat on

the seventh circuit. she is the daughter of two judges. her father is the federal district court judge in virginia. her mother previously served as a state court judge. their daughter, candace, served -- received her undergraduate degree from princeton, her law degree from yale where she served on the yale law journal. she clerked on the u.s. district court for the northern district of illinois, -- judge roger gregory of the fourth circuit court of appeals. she then practiced at the law firm in chicago and then did something which is highly unusual. she decided to leave the private practice to join the federal public defender's office in the northern district of illinois. working in that office for 10 years, leaving just last fall when she came to d.c. with her husband, pursuing a job opportunity. for the last several months she has practiced at the d.c. office

of a law firm, but 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. it is a sad reality that for years of president trump and a republican senate did not expand diversity on our federal courts. this includes both democrats, diversity, and life experience. president trump appointed 54 judges to the circuit courts, none of them, not one of them was black. currently the seventh circuit has no judges of color. only one judge of color has ever served on the seventh circuit, my friend andrew titled -- retired judge and claire williams who was appointed with my strong support. in 2016 president obama nominated a highly qualified attorney to an indian a seat on

the seventh circuit. republican senators blocked her nomination for nearly an entire year. the naacp has made it clear that this lack of diversity means something important to the federal bench. in a november letter the naacp president wrote and i quote that the absence of diversity undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the federal judiciary. judges from different racial, ethnic, and other backgrounds in rich traditional decision-making and promote trust and confidence by communities impacted by their rulings. thankfully we have miss jackson-akiwumi highly qualified with a unique perspective and only a tiny fraction on the federal bench has spent the majority of their careers as public defenders or in legal aid. out of 179 current federal circuit court judgeships, there appeared to be only two judges who spent a significant part of

their career as public defenders, one of them from the state of iowa. the eighth circuit judge and the third circuit judge of pennsylvania. in contrast there are many former federal prosecutors on the federal bench. many are extraordinary jurists, but they do not share the same life experience as these nominees. as a federal defender she represented over 400 federal defendants at all stages of the process. she has tried and argued six appeals before the circuit court and litigated hundreds of contested hearings including -- she knows the criminal justice system inside and out, she is exactly the type of nominee we should look for of -- look forward to. i look forward to seeing her experience. i have that honor of introducing this judge -- judge ketanji

brown jackson to the d.c. circuit judge her parents were working as public school teachers and when she was three years old the judge and her parents went back to miami to attend law school at the university of miami. they later served as the principal attorney for the dade county school board while her mother served for 14 years as a principal of the leading school in the area. the judge herself attended harvard and harvard law. she then went on to a series of clerkships at the district court of the first circuit and finally a supreme court clerkship for the justice. the breath of her legal career is impressive. from a work in private practice to her service as an attorney on the u.s. sentencing commission to her time as a federal public defender. judge jackson is well known to us on this committee in light of her prior nominations and sentencing at the u.s. district court for the district of columbia.

she won unanimous support -- there are two aspects of her record i would like to highlight. the first is her tenure on the sentencing commission. the issue of criminal sentencing is deeply important to me and my colleague. as a sentencing commission member and a federal judge that is handing out sentences judge jackson has faced the often difficult question inherent in that responsibility and will bring her experience to bear on the d.c. circuit judge second is more broad -- she has shown time and again that her decisions are guided not by ideology or preferred outcome but by a steadfast belief in approaching every case with fairness or impartiality. we see that reflected not only in her evenhanded record but in the comments of those that have served with her. she has been praised across the ideological spectrum including

from a d.c. circuit judge who wrote to the committee in support of her nomination. >> -- "although she and i have differed on the outcome of a case i have always respected her agreeable manner." two essential traits. in these times her words rang more important. i look forward to hearing from judge jackson and all five of these nominees. i turn it over to my friend and former colleague in the ranking member, chuck grassley. sen. grassley: for the first three paragraphs of my remarks i would ask the democrats to pay attention. it may sound facetious but i want to make a point. today we are hearing from five nominees to be considered are judgeships including two circuit nominees. because this is the committee's first hearing on judicial nominees of this congress, i

will be very attentively listening to my democratic friends to see if i catch any apologies from them to justice amy coney barrett. you see, last fall, we heard from them time and time again for weeks that judge barrett 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 publicly, she is right next door and i bet she would be happy to accept any apologies in person. turning to today's nominees, judge jackson has been nominated to the d.c. circuit court, often called the second highest court in the land. judge jackson was appointed by

president obama to serve the d.c. district court in 2013 and has been involved in over 500 cases as a judge since then. as someone who has been very interested and invested in criminal justice reform as senator durbin has i appreciate judge jackson's work on the sentencing committee -- commission where she also served. we will also hear from miss jackson-akiwumi nominated for the seventh circuit. she is a nominee who served as a federal public defender for 10 years in the chicago area before moving to d.c. and is 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 play into that. my review of her record shows --

from my review of her record it certainly seems she has been a zealous advocate for clients and criminal defendants are deserving of competent representation in our justice system. i will be asking her today about some of the specific positions she has advocated for. i am sure democrats will complain that we shouldn't hold a nominee responsible for her clients, and perhaps that once was true. the fact is that previous nominees like kyle duncan, howard nielsen, rosie alston, mike park, and countless others were opposed by democrats because of the clients that they represented. at the same time there is a growing hostilities of fair representation on the left with student radicals saying not

everyone needs representation and liberal activists seeking to penalize law firms representing clients with wrong positions, so-called wrong positions on social or political issues. as a wise man said recently it can't be one set of rules for republicans and another for democrats. i plan to look at candidates records including their legal advocacy on behalf of clients. the far-left group demands justice -- demand justice which seems to be in charge of judicial selections in this administration says that you can tell what kind of judge someone will be by their clients. they strongly support judge jackson and judge jackson-akiwumi because their time as federal defenders were apparently because for them to pursue social justice rather than

follow along. of course i hope not and it's not an accusatory statement. it does take off on some very fair accusations against nominees of one party versus the nominees of another party. this hearing is our first look at president biden's judicial nominees. i'm hopeful these nominees will engage with all senators and respond to our questions. congratulations to all of you for your nominations. sen. durbin: thank you, senator grassley. a number of senators would like to formally introduce one or more of our nominees. i have a list of those who are available in the first is physically present from the state of new jersey, our colleague, senator cory booker. sen. booker: it is indeed an honor for me to introduce julien the two nominees julien neals ,and judge zahid quraishi.

they have both been nominated to serve as district court judges for the district of new jersey and we are in a judicial emergency right now. both are highly qualified and experienced people who have served and share an understanding of the impact that our courts will have on the people of our state and across this nation. the first individual i choose to introduce, we have done this before. judge neals. was nominated by the obama administration in 2015 to serve as a federal district judge about the senate failed to bring his nomination up for a vote. display the delay on that confirmation i would like to speak to who he is. the judge and i have worked together for a very long time. we have history. he is someone that i have had the honor of working with in my career and i've worked with extraordinary individuals in the

u.s. senate ended my career in newark. this judge is among the best people i've had the honor to work alongside. for two years he served as chief judge at the newark municipal's -- municipal court which is the largest court in the state of new jersey. he provided out -- he presided over 6000 cases and ushered in a spate of reforms helping to create the states first veterans corps and the face -- the states first youth court and other innovations that helped newark, new jersey become the national model for court innovation. he joined my mayoral administration and served again as the head of the busiest corporation counsel's office in our state and the newark corporation's counsel's office and he served as business administrator for the city of newark. he served at a time that we were in crisis and the city was going through the great recession along with the rest of the planet earth. i don't think there is any person here who was a former governor or a former county

executive or former mayor who had to do what julien and i had to do which is to govern down our city size 25% to cut our city's budget and to cut our personnel. days and months and years of painful work of getting our budgets to fit with the massive shortfalls in revenue that we have had, he is a brilliant, skilled administrator who has a balance to keep his head about him when all else are losing theirs. he currently served as a counsel to new jersey's biggest county, county of my birth and where i was raised. if you talk to people in that county they talk about him as if he is a holy, sanctified figure. they say he has more cool than obama. they say he is one person that truly when they would -- when he walks into a room everyone listens.

bergen county, new jersey is a political place with a lot of different power bases. 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 when i imagine what a federal judge should be i imagine someone with the qualities, gifts, kindness, decency, and love for others that he possesses. it's an honor for me not only to introduce him, but to have recommended him to the president of the united states and it's so great to see my old friend here today. the second person i would like to introduce is judge zahid quraishi. judge quraishi has had an extraordinary life of commitment to country.

he said it, mr. chairman. he was in the military, in the jagged core. at the department of homeland security, and most recently worked as an assistant united states 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 this nation and her ideals and is dedicated to serving them. he has honors in just about everything he has done including his military service. the judge is a well-respected person who is also seeing -- seen as a stand out. he is one of the best that new jersey has. his legal skills and experience will serve the people of new jersey in our judicial crisis as a u.s. district court judge. if he is confirmed it has been said that 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 of these nominees are dedicated to the rule of justice fairness. both of these nominees will help restore integrity and independence and public aid in our courts. both of these nominees are exceptionally, extraordinarily, unequivocally qualified. i thank president biden for recognizing and nominating the judge to serve as the united states district court judges for the district of new jersey and i strongly urge my fellow committee members to support their nominations. thank you. sen. durbin: senator bennet, i believe by remote, are you there? sen. bennet: i am, can you hear

me? sen. durbin: we can hear you. please proceed. sen. bennet: can you hear me now. sen. durbin: yes. sen. bennet: thank you for inviting me to share a few words about regina rodriguez president biden's nominee for the u.s. district court for the district of colorado. she comes to this committee with broad support in my state. we received a flood of letters on her behalf. all of them testified to her character, hard work, and commitment to justice and the rule of law. she learned all of this from her family who join us today. her mom's family knew in justice firsthand. the chairman mentioned during the second world war they were relocated from california to an internment site in wyoming joining over 10,000 people whose loyalty to america was questioned for no reason but their japanese ancestry. her father was a

mexican-american who went from living in a railroad boxcar on the south side of chicago to earning a nomination for the nfl hall of fame. her mother became a teacher and administrator in the denver public schools -- education and hardware transformed parents lives and regina has always sought to live up to their example. the ranking member might be interested to know she graduated with honors from the university of iowa and then returned home. after starting at a private firm in denver gina joined the u.s. attorney's office. the department of justice recognized her talent and she went to work for the attorney general on alternative dispute resolution, a new approach to avoid lengthy trials through arbitration and mediation. gina helped with this mainstream

approach saving the government countless hours and taxpayer dollars. her leadership in washington earned her a promotion in denver where she rose to become chief of the civil division in the u.s. attorney's office. she is one of the most respected trial lawyers in colorado and has received award after award for her work. commitment to the community has been just as impressive. she is a founding board member of the colorado youth at risk on nonprofit that helps kids stay on the right track and she served as one of colorado's higher education commissioners and still serves on the board of denver's highest performing charter school. somehow she finds time to mentor lawyers from underrepresented communities. i can go on and on but the evidence is overwhelming. regina rodriguez is an exceptionally qualified nominee with a distinguished career and commitment to service. she has blaze trails through the sheer force of her intellect,

hardware, and character are. she has my full and enthusiastic support and i urge the committee to approve her nomination. sen. durbin: thank you, senator bennett. i believe senator duckworth is available remote. senator, can you hear us? please proceed. sen. duckworth: thank you, mr. chairman. it is my honor to appear before this committee to introduce and offer my strong support to miss candace jackson-akiwumi the nominee to be the next united states district debt judge of the seventh circuit. she exemplifies president biden's fulfillment of his promise to hunt nominate highly qualified individuals to the federal judiciary to reflect the diversity of our great nation. she possesses an impressive academic background, graduated with honors from princeton and earning her jd from yale law school where she served as the

senior editor of the yale law journal and was an naacp legal defense fund legal scholar. after graduation she quickly gained experience serving in the federal judiciary. and then for a fourth circuit judge. i was especially struck by her commitment to public service and she has dedicated the majority of her legal career to public service and spent a decade in the city of chicago serving as the staff attorney in the federal defender program. as that public defender she gave immense litigation experience while advocating for those who are also the most vulnerable and underserved in our communities. she represented over 400 defendants, tried seven jury trials, and argued five appears -- five appeals before the seventh circuit. she is a member of the firm's business and white-collar defense group.

even in the private sector she demonstrated a strong commitment to public service spending a significant portion of her time working on pro bono matters involving adoption, civil rights, criminal law and litigation. she won lawful permanent residency and protection under the violence against women's act for her mother and two children and advocated for better conditions for incarcerated clients and represented a plaintiff in a successful mediation. it is important to recognize the groundbreaking nature of her -- if seated on the bench she would be only the second black women in history to serve on the second circuit and only the second person of color serving on that court today. she would strengthen the seventh circuit by bringing a broad diversity of experience --

thank you again for allowing me to introduce her -- sen. durbin: of next is our friend and colleague from the state of new jersey, senator menendez, are you with us? [no audio] sen. durbin: we will come back to senator menendez in a minute. currently i believe senator hickenlooper of colorado is waiting period senator, can you hear us? sen. hickenlooper: yes. can you hear me? sen. durbin: please proceed. sen. hickenlooper: yes. thank you, chairman, and ranking member, for letting me share a few words about regina rodriguez president biden's nominee for the district court of colorado. i would like to add to what michael bennet said.

she comes to the committee with broad support in our state. 30 years of legal experience and accomplishment and has dedicated her career to the people of colorado and fighting for historically disadvantaged communities. she has the enthusiastic support of the colorado lawyers committee, the colorado sanitary bar association. these two organizations consist of attorneys dedicated to providing legal services to children and acknowledging the law to improve our society and our legal system. former united states attorneys appointed by presidents from both political parties note that regina's experience and knowledge, demeanor and work ethic make her an ideal candidate. throughout her career she has managed complex matters that require the coordination of hundreds if not thousands of cases in trials in multiple jurisdictions.

she understands the importance of a bind a lot evenhandedly based only on the facts. as the latina first foundation put it there is no person better qualified to effectively serve on the u.s. district court than regina rodriguez. i wholeheartedly agree and regina has my full support and i hope this committee will confirm her nomination and that the senate will act swiftly to confirm her. thank you, chairman durbin, and ranking member grassley and all the members on the committee for your consideration of this outstanding nominee. sen. durbin: now the question is whether senator menendez is available. sen. menendez: i am available. thank you to mr. chairman, and ranking member grassley. it's my great privilege to join my colleagues from new jersey in recommending to highly qualified nominees to the united states district court for the district of new jersey. julien neals

and zahid quraishi . these nominees represent the best of new jersey and reflect our proud and rich diversity and both demonstrators have a steadfast commitment to equal justice under the law. mr. neils served as the county council for bergen county since 2016 prior to taking on that role he served the people of newark and an array of capacities. from 2010 to 2014 he was the business administrator for the city of newark and the highest appointed administrator in new jersey's largest city. he led the city's department of law and served as chief judge of the newark municipal court. he commands a enormous respect in our legal community and serves on the supreme court -- serving as chairman for volunteer lawyers for justice and personifies the meaning of public service.

his tremendous breath of knowledge and experience and even temperament and exacting judgment make him a superb candidate to serve on the federal bench. also honored to be joined and introducing zahid quraishi prior to his appointment he was a partner at a firm and he chaired the white-collar criminal defense and investigations group and served as the firm's first chief diversity officer. the judge also served as an assistant united states attorney for more than five years in newark. previously he served our country as a military prosecutor with the u.s. army judge advocate general corps where he achieved the rank of captain. he offers impeccable credentials and if confirmed he would also make history as the first muslim american federal judge and the first asian-american to serve on the federal bench in new jersey. the judge has demonstrated

integrity and intellect throughout his distinguished career in public service and i believe he will bring to this position the wisdom, experience, and demeter that the district court of new jersey deserves. new jersey's district court currently faces six vacancies all of which have been declared judicial emergencies by the judicial conference of the united states. i strongly urge the committee's unanimous support and hope that we can have a speedy confirmation process on these qualified nominees. thank you for bringing up these nominees as quickly as you have. sen. durbin: what our first two nominees stand to be sworn?

[no audio] >> equipment timeout. sen. durbin: t-square or affirmed the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect both witnesses answered in the affirmative. we will start with judge jackson. you may make an opening statement. judge jackson: good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much. it is an honor to be here and appear before you all this morning. i would like to start by expressing my sincerest gratitude to you, mr. chairman,

for scheduling this hearing and introducing me. i would also like to extend my thanks to our ranking member grassley and all of the committee for participating in this hearing today. i have had the great privilege of having been invited to come before this committee twice before this nomination, so i know i have taken up a great deal of your time and i am humbled and grateful to be here once again. i am truly thankful to president biden for giving us the honor of this nomination to the circuit court. i don't have opening remarks, but i would like to introduce you to my family members some of whom who have traveled great distances to be here today. i will refrain from giving individual attributes. i want each of them to know that

they are loved -- their love and encouragement has meant so much throughout the years and there is no question i would not be who i am or where i am today without their support. i would like to start with my parents 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 virginia where they partially reside. my parents in law, gardner, and pamela jackson are lifelong boston and cape cod residents and they made the effort to travel here via i-95 to be here with me today. also here are my terrific brother-in-law and sister-in-law who live in maryland and if william looks familiar it's because his identical twin brother is my husband, dr. patrick jackson who is also here.

he did not have to travel very far. he has been with me all along and has been on this incredible journey by my side for 25 years come this october. finally here is the younger of our two daughters who is a junior in high school and is in the most demanding season of this extraordinary challenging academic year so it's a special treat for me that she is with us today. our older daughter would have made the effort but she is a freshman in college and after spending three 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. there are so many other members of our family who could not be here with us at this time they are in wisconsin and florida and

utah and colorado and massachusetts. some are dearly departed. i am truly grateful for all of them and all of the wonderful friends around the country who are watching these proceedings and cheering me on through this process. with that, mr. chairman, let me reiterate my thanks to you for inviting me here this morning. i am a norma's lead grateful and i look forward to answering the members questions. sen. durbin: mess jackson-akiwumi please proceed. judge jackson-akiwumi: i am deeply thankful to the senator from my adopted home state of illinois, senators durbin and duckworth for their warm introductions. i am grateful to chairman derman and ranking member grassley for convening the hearing today and all of the members here for considering my nomination. i am also grateful to the

president for the honor of this nomination. my immediate family is here today supporting me. i have struggled to assist simply capture how truly wonderful they are and what a gift they are to me. my parents have traveled from my hometown of norfolk, virginia to be here. they are just over my right shoulder. my father, the honorable raymond a jackson, united states district court judge for the eastern district of virginia. seated next to him is my mother, the honorable gwendolyn jones jackson, a retired judge for the commonwealth of virginia. my siblings are here today as well. my sister is the reverend arlette, estelle jackson. she is a longtime resident of

the district of columbia. my brother is here, raymond jackson attorney-at-law who has traveled from tampa, florida to support me today. last but not least, my husband. eric akiwumi. he remains the best friend i have ever had and in addition to many other amazing roles he plays in our partnership my husband and i have not invited today our very active 15 month old daughter. we will all be much more productive today without her here. also missing is her big brother, my 14-year-old stepson, isaiah who lives in tampa, florida. he will be watching this hearing later today as an excellent civics lesson in the advise and

consent role of the united states senate. there are obviously many other family members and loved ones and friends who could not be here today because of the covid restrictions here in the building. i am deeply grateful to them all . my family is the best part of me and i would not be here today without their love and support. thank you, again. sen. durbin: 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 these two circuit court nominees that we have seven minutes to ask questions. i asked senator grassley before this hearing how he enforced the time when he announced these things and he came up with the grassley rule and i'm sure i won't stated in its entirety, but it said if you are in the midst of a question as your time

runs out finish the question but keep the answers short. is that about right? my ruling has been blessed by senator grassley. the second panel on district court nominees will go back to the five-minute standard. let me start my questioning. you both have an extraordinary background in having served in the federal public defender's office representing indigents and people who often struggle in our system of justice. i think we know that we are engaged in a national conversation about justice long overdue and it has raised questions about law enforcement, questions about sentencing and questions about incarceration and calls into question the agenda of this committee on the

criminal justice side. you have a special perspective that you bring to this that many nominees do not in light of what you have done with your life. i don't want you to address any case or any specific situation, but i would like for your observations, because you spent such a big part of your lives, and that goes back to what langston hughes once said, it's been such a long part of your life for those who can say life for me has not been a crystal stair. folks, black, brown, poor defendants seeking representation in the system that seems to have overwhelmingly and fundamentally unfair in some cases. it what would be your general thoughts without any specific case in mind about justice in america today and how you have seen it and how it has changed in your time? judge jackson?

judge jackson: thank you, senator. i had the privilege of serving as the federal public defender and assistant public defender in washington, d.c.. i think it was some 16 years ago . as part of that experience i represented people and represented them and the appellate division of my office. all of my clients were convicted. i think that the insights that one gains from that kind of professional experience really can be very helpful in future endeavors especially if you go into the judicial service as i have. 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 and things that have gone wrong in trial proceedings so i can raise them on appeal. one of the things i noticed that i was really struck by was how little they can help me with that project. most of my clients did not really understand what happened to them, they had just been through the most consequential proceeding in their lives and nobody really per saint -- explain to them what to expect. i learned from that experience when i became a trial judge. one of the things i do now is take extra care to communicate with the defendants who come before me in the courtroom. i speak to them directly and not just to their lawyers.

they use their names and i explained every stage of the proceedings because i want them to know what is going on. i sentenced more than 100 people and i always tell them, i explained to them that this is why your behavior was so harmful to society that congress thought it had to be made a crime. this is why i as a judge believe that you have to serve these consequences for your decision to engage in criminal behavior. i think that's important for our entire justice system because it's only if people understand what they have done, why it's wrong, and what will happen to them if they do it again they can start to rehabilitate. there is a direct line from my service to what i do on the bench and i think it's beneficial. sen. durbin: miss

jackson-akiwumi i noted in my introduction that you made the extraordinary career move from private practice to the federal defenders program for 10 years i believe. i would like you to consider the same question i just ask judge jackson, and in the process perhaps you can comment on the demeanor and temperament of judges. judge jackson-akiwumi: certainly, senator. 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 the importance of being heard. it's actually something i learned well before i went to law school from my mother when she served as a judge. she often talked about the importance of letting people

make sure they have been heard by the court. it's easier for people to accept even adverse rulings by the court when they at least know they have been heard. that is built into our system of due process which involves an opportunity to be heard. i gained an extraordinary amount of experience listening is a federal public defender and listening to the views of the opposing counsel about their views on where we might negotiate and find common ground and listening to stories of my clients to understand why and how they came to be standing before the court and what their fears and questions were and listening carefully to the questions that pierced trial judges and a fellow at appellate judges. i know that even though those josh -- england jobs as advocate and judge are different one

skill that should transfer will is compassion because circuit judges must listen to parties before they even attempt to reach a reason -- reasoned decision. the other observation from my time in the criminal justice system as an advocate is the importance of setting aside personal conviction, personal opinion. at the federal defender program we represented whoever walked in the door charged with what it crime so long as they needed an attorney, if they could not afford an attorney. with each and every case i have to put aside any personal opinions i had about my clients and any personal opinions -- and represent them zealously in the court. even though the role of advocate and judge are completely different, that is one similarity.

like a federal public defender, a judge has to set aside personal opinions and personal convictions in decision-making. thank you. sen. durbin: thank you. senator grassley echo sen. grassley: i will start -- sen. grassley: i will start with the recent seventh circuit hearing we heard about the supposed link between indiana gun shows and street violence in street violence in chicago for four years you represented a man who during one year that brought nine firearms in the indiana 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 sen firearms that he had bought in indiana. you said in the pre-trial motion that, quote, this case is not about gun violence or gangs in chicago.

end of quote. do you stand by the view that a case about illegal firearms, traffic from indiana to chicago is not about guns, violence, or gangs in chicago? >> senator, i lived in chicago for many, many years. my formative years as an attorney, and just 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. ands that without regard to the crimes they are charged with. that's how our system works

best. if youys look at the sixth amendment an how the supreme interpreted this sixth amendment in gideon lien right it talks about right to counsel and there's no limitation on that base on what someone is charged with. >> i think i'll accept that answer. going on, on the same case do you agree that vigorously prosecuting unlicensed firearm traffickers is the best way to stop pipeline of illegal guns into the city of chicago that should be an easy one to answer. [laughter] >> well, senator thank you for the question. i think there are number of tools in the tool book for combating an issue like guns and if gun violence. prosecution is one tool. i also know that this body and other legislative bodies at every level state, federal, and local have to consider these issues and have been working on these issues vigorously so a number of tools out there. >> thank you. last question on that case well

no it is not really on that case. just give me a very rough idea of how many firearm traffickers you defended in court. just a rough number. >>fe senator, i appreciate the question it actually be hard to say. i've always described my career over a deck decade a third of my cases are fraud there's so many frauds in the united states code book, it would blow your mind. a third of my cases involved if drugs and firearms whether it was possession of firearms, trafficking of firearms, and then about a third of my cases involved a big mix of everything else from bank robbery to immigrationin census and sew it would be difficult to give you an exact number. >> i accept that answer. second point with you in your sentencing memoranda you repeat highlighted sentencing differences that exist between blackig defendants and white defendants charged with a same crime. in fact, you've gone so far as

to argue that your black client should not receive a sentence higher than any applicable mandatory minimums, quote, to avoid further entrenching proving racial disparities end of quote as sitting senator i agree with your policy points about racial disparities in the laws we write. but i have concern about the courts engaging in those policy arguments. when you made these arguments in court, did you expect district judges to let broad social policy concerns govern how they applied the law in the case before them? maybe i can give you a short answer. you would say they should apply the law not the policy, right? >> well, senator yes because that's actually the law that congress passed. congress passed this sentencing statute 18usc53a and one of the

factors congress has said that judges should consider is disparities any disparities that might result from sentence the judge imposed so in those cases, like the one that you provided anho example of i was asking the court to apply that statutory sentencing factor. >> okay. another question, if district judges should let policies concern governing how they apply the law, would it be right for them to give white defendants longer sentences than the facts require in order to correct racial disparities? >> senator, every sentencing judge that i've ever appeared before has been guided by the same statute i've referred to you that set forth at least 7 sentencing factors including disparities. so everyone in this system both the judge, and the attorneys are operating within that it framework that if congress provided and if confirmed, that

is the exact framework i'm looking to refer sentencing by judges. >> all right. as an appellate judge would you have ability to take social facts such as racial disparities into consideration when reviewing a sentence? >> senator, what guide for circuit judges and what guide for me if confirmed is law and applying law to facts of any given case. s that purely what guide. >> i think i'm going to have a question for you in writing so i can q ask judge jackson only one question. you j worked on sentencing refo, and as someone who was worked hard on the first step to act in other issues of criminal justice reform, i really appreciate your

work on the sentencing reform. now, when it comes to more sentencing reform, people like you and judge bill pryor both agree sentencing needs to be reformed. can you explain how your views differ from judge pryors or specifically why do you trust judges with more if discretion when it comes to sentencing than pryor? >> thank youen for that questio. senator, first let me just say -- as a former member of the sentencing commission thank you for your work. i know that the chairman that you, that senator lee, and others on this committee were very, very active in making changes to the sentencing system partly because the commission did research and pointed out to you some of the disparities in our laws and congress has made

changes that have been very beneficial to the system. i did have the privilege of serving with judge pryor. we were on the commission together, and he and i both did talk quite a bit about in our public statements and in the meetings about the need for reform and how do you change the systemem after this supreme court's decision making the guidelines advisory and not, not binding anymore on judges. i would say my primary answer is because in my experience most judges really don't like to be outliers when they're sentencing, most judges really do want to do something that is consistent not only with the law but also with what similarly sichghted other defendants are gheght their district so in my

view, instead of more mandatory minimum and prescriptions that bind judicial discretion if we're we can give judges more information that -- that turning to a repository of information like the sentencing commission that captures every sentence that federal judges give and then giving judges access to that information is a way of ensuring that judges are handing out their sentences that are similarly situated to other defendants. i think judge - pryor he said -- that we need to do a little bit more to constrain judicial discretion. butco my hope and faith is that judges will constrain themselves to an extent when they get the information that they need. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much mr. chairman.

according to the center for american progress, only 1% of sitting circuit judges have spent the majority of their career as public defenders or within a legal aid setting. in light of this fact, i just want you to know that i'm very pleased that we're considering two nominees today with extensive service as public defenders. so if i want to you this question: there are some critics who claim wrongly in my book that a public defender can't function as an impartial judge. how do you respond to that question? the judge may go first. >> thank you, senator. well i've been g a judge for eit years, and as i've mentioned at the outset, i think that actually having defender experience can help not only the judge him or herself in

considering the fact and circumstances in the case. but also help the system overall in terms of their interactions with defendants in the way in which they -- proceed in the courtroom. i would think that there would be no difference between defender experience and prosecutortorial experience from the standpoint of whether or not someone can do what law requires andaw many, many prosecutors hae been appointed as judges. the -- when you become a judge you take an oath to look only at the law oin deciding your cases. that you set aside your personal viewsid about the circumstances, the defendants or anything else and you apply the law. so that i wouldn't see

prosecutor backgrounds and ability to stay true to their oath. >> thank you. judge jackson, also i was impressed to learn that according to the alliance for justice, you have a reversal rate of less than 2% of your more than 550 decisions since assuming the role of u.s. district judge for the district of columbia. toge what do you credit that 98% affirmative rate on appeal? >>te oh. thank you senator. i think it might be my methodology in the way that i approach cases. and -- what i'll say about that is that when i get a case, if you look at my 550 cases, you'll see that there's a consistency in the way in which i'm analyzing the

issues. i am applying a particular method as the supreme court has directed which is that i'm looking only at the arguments that the parties have made at the facts in the record of the case and at the law as i understand it. and i'm sticking very closely to those three inputs and i'm also applying the same amount of analytical rigger to my analysis of those inputs. and as a result, i think i'm not making many errors although the d.c. circuit tells me that i do occasional willly but i want too that because i want to see through the same analytical lens, and it doesn't make a difference whether or not the argument is n coming from a deaf inmate or president of the united states. i'm not injecting my personal views. i'm lookingno at these three

things and i think by being very methodical, i've been able to produce opinions that the circuit can see my reasoning and they understand that i'm even handedly apply the law in every case. j i would like to ask the other candidate here since supreme court held in u.s. booker that federal guidelines are not binging on judges at sentencing, we've seen a gradual return to discrepancies in the way different judges at different courts sentence those before them. how do we ensure fairness and consistency in sentencing while maintaining judicial discretion consistent request the supreme court's ruling in booker? senator fine sign thank you for what is really an incredibly difficult question that you've

rightly recognized. that is, in fact, why the guidelines wereat invented, created to avoid disparities and then that's why they were moved from mandatory to advisory to remove disparities and give judges more discretion. signature sitting here today, what i know is that it would not be, my role as a circuit judgef confirmed to opine on those issue and sort through those issues in the way that for example, the sentencing commission would and this body would. and -- but my role would be to review cases very carefully, review the records scrupulously to see if sentencing judges at least adhered to the sentencing law

and took into account fairly all of the factors that they were supposed to if i may address your earlier question about public defenders being able to be fair and neutral judges, i'll note that in northern district ofut illinois this body has confirmed a few district court judges of the district court level with public defender experience those judges have been serving long time and all doing so diligently fairly neutrally and partially and i'll note that my entire career i've had to work within framework of the rule of law. every argument i ever made to a court was grounded in the constitution or a statute you don't geton anywhere with our fe judges of the northern district of illinois in the 7th circuit if you make arguments that don't have a basis in law. and i have had to advise clients when the law is not on their side. when thedz an argument that they hope we might be able to make and i did researchh or i knew

immediately that there was no law to support that argument. thatly happened many times. so i am confident that i can serve iff confirmed as a neutral fair and partial judge who works within rule of law i've had to doe it my entire career. >> thank you very much. thanks mr. chairman. >> senator white -- thank you mr. chairman. i very much appreciate the fact both of you that extensionive as prak practitioners and case of ms. jackson i think that is very important qualification for somebody going to sit in judgment on appellate court that they actually know how the trial courts operate. and understand appropriate standards ofth review on appeal. both of you have a very impressive background.

i agree with my colleagues that it's important to have the public have confidence in the judiciary and i think part of that confidence is knowing that people like them can be served on the bench and that we applaud that diversity. i've noticed a difference in the way those issues have been treated in the past when my democrat colleagues blocked for example janice brown an african-american on the d.c. circuit and thankfully we've had some great judges in the -- on the west district in northern district of texas people like jason and san antonio, and then asian americans circuit court judge jim ho who was confirmed for the circuit. but since our democratic colleague seem to be placing so much emphasis on race, and i

just want to ask this question, none of this can choose our parents. and even if we could choose our parents, i suspect that most of someone would choose very narnts we have.e. but what role does race play judge jackson in the kind of judge that you have been and the kind of judge you will be? >> thank you, senator. i don't think that race plays a rolena in the kind of judge thai have been and that i would be in the way that you asked that question. i as i mentioned -- to senator feinstein, i am doing a certain thing when i get my cases. i'm looking at the arguments, the facts and the law. i'm methodically and intentionally setting aside

personal views, any other inappropriate considerations and i would think that race would be the kind of thing that would be inappropriate to inject in my evaluation of the case. i would say that my different professional background than many of the court of appeals judges including my district court background which will be different if i'm confirmed than many of my colleagues, would bring value sort of like the oliver quote that the life of the law is not logic it is experience. and so i've experienced life in perhaps the different way than some of my colleagues because of who i am. and that might be valuable i hope it would be valuable if i was confirmed to the court. the circuit court. >> thank you very much. ms. jackson same question for

you please. >> thank you senator. i agree with judge jackson i don't believe race will play a role in type of judge that i would be if confirmed. i do believe that demographic diverse ties of all types even beyond race plays an important role in increasing public confidence in our courts. an increases the public's ability to accept the legitimacy of court decisions. it is very akin to the way in which we guarantee a jury of one's peers and the idea that you walk into the courtroom and 12 people from all kinds of different backgrounds might decide your case. i also think demographic diversity of all types helps us achieve a role modeling result for young students, law students, young lawyers, it is important for anyone aspiring to public service to know that that path is open to all.

>> well thank you very much for that answer for what it is worth i agree with you. it's well said. judge jackson, i just have a few questions for you -- you know, in this town, there's a lot of people expressing themselves on a variety of topics. and i know you're not responsible for what these third parties are saying. buthi i just want to ask you fit of all are you familiar with an organizationrs called demand justice? >> senator, i know of demand justice, yes. >> and do you know that they are spending money to promote candidates, your nomination to this sir circuit court? >> if you mean by advertising or placements in various publications i'm aware of that. >> okay. >> and on their website they say they advocate adding dirnl seats

to the supreme court. do you think congress should add supremeal seats to the court? >> senator, as sitting judge, i am bound by the supreme court, and i don't think it is appropriate for me to comment on the structureo or the size of te court anymore than it would be for me to comment on courts rulings i regardless of the sizes, i would follow the precedence of the supreme court. >> the demand justice claims that the supreme court is broken. do you think the splowrt is broken? >> i've never said anything about the supreme court being broken, and again, you know, i'm not able to comment on the structure, the size, the tonguing even -- function even of the supreme court. s j and finally demand justice

says that the supreme court has been captured by partisan republican interest on their website. judge jackson, ms. jackson, do you agree with that? or disagree or do you -- have no opinion? judge jackson first? >> senator again i'm not able to make any comment about whether or not the supreme court is influenced in the way you see it believes that it is so i don't have a comment. >> thank you ms. jackson. >> senator i'm not aware of that quote by demand justice or anything they've said quite frankly. but like wise, the code of conduct for united states judges does applyke to nominees as well and so leak judge jackson, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of views

about the supreme court. the supreme court rulings would be binging on me as a circuit judge. >> thank you very much. good luck to both of you. >> thank you senator cornyn and senator white house. >> thank you both to the committee i'm sorry we're so far apart andre spread out that's te nature of the pandemic that's usually setting in which we can see one another a little bit better. i want to ask you questions both about fact finding at the appellate level. we have an interesting hearing in my courts sub committee yesterday on this very question. it was my training in law school, my training when mentored by experience appellate

advocates and my mentoring when i was trying to bring along other appellate advocates, to stay the hell away from the facts because really the only two ways that an appellate court gets to look at facts is either to be asked to overturn a factual determination by the court below which is heavily defended by clearly erroneous standard therefore not usually a great avenue for appellate advocacy. or facts that are not really in dispute, facts of which judicial notice can be taken. that christmas fellch on a wednesday in a particular year, or whatever -- what are your thoughts about the role of appellate courts

engaging in fact finding that is outside of the record that is presented to the court either by congress as i put together the statute that is subject of the challenge, or by the court below as assemble record to support its decision? what is appellate judge do you get the to do at that point regarding facts? >> well thank you senator, for that question -- let me just say that my training was similar to yours in terms of the judge's for whom i clerk at the appellate level and way in which at least i was taught to think about the role of the appellate court in terms of the facts. i don't as i sit here and know what the practice is in the district of columbia i will say that we have a little bit of an

unusual docket in so far as so many of our cases come through the administrative process where even at the district court level, we're not looking at trials very much and we're not developing a factual record very much. there is already an administrative record that travels with the case. so i think, you know, i would have to -- >> whether it is congressional records or whether it is administrative agency record or trial court record, those are three sources that a appellate court can draw from to determine what the facts are in the case. and to support overrule the finding of the district court. what happens when a court goes outside those records and starts finding tax on its own -- >> i frankly don't know. i would have to talk with my

colleagues and look at the it shall federal rules of appellate and local procedures of our court i'm not sure the serk circumstance in which appellate court would feel at liberty to do that sort of thing. >> okay. >> yes, senator broadly speaking federal courts are courts of limited power, and one duty of circuit court judges and i remember this very clearly from my time clerk on fourth circuit court of appeal it is to be quite restrained federal judges are supposed to be restrained and decide only the issues that appear before them. and no other issues -- it extends in the way you described to fact finding so it would be from my experience both clerking and then also litigating before the 7th circuit courtan of appeals quite rare for appellate judges to go

outside the record. and i -- sitting here today, i can't tell you a circumstance where i've seen it in my own practice. so i can't't tell you what exceptions there might be as to make that rare thing happen. >> yeah. the case that, obviously, comes to mind that has enormous impact on thosee of us in the politicl line of work is citizens united. which allowed unlimited amounts of money into politics on the predicate on the premise that all of that spending was going to be transparent and therefore, would not contribute to corruptionsp or the appearance f corruption in of the political system. and, of course, it is indisputable it has been anythinge but transparent well through a billion dollars in anonymous political funding. so that fact that justice kennedy stood his decision on is

simply provably false. which then raises question now what do you do about that decision? if that fact was the hinge upon which the decision swung, and the fact is false, where do you go? >> well senator for lower court judges we keangts can't go anywhere really. >> even when it is fact finding you're supposed to agree with the legal determination of the supreme court and to follow them. but it is an interesting question whetherm, a false factl determination by the supreme courtte merts deference or separation of powers puts the legislative executive branches under with respect to a supreme court decision. it's something to ponder because it is not been the custom of the court to engage in this free-range fact finding and

particularly false three range fact finding but some of the political decisions of the court have stood on false free-range fact finding and it raises this whole new interesting set of questions about -- what do you do when the supreme court has made a factual determination that is not supportedab by any record that s provably false that is essential to the logic of their decision decision -- is it really true that all of government is powerless to address that error? so i have used my time something for you to ponder, as you move towards your seats on our circuit courts of appeal which i will strongly support. thank you. >> thank you senator white house and thank you both for being here and serve if confirmed. has a number of questions we'll start with you mrs. comey jackson. been widely reported that

president biden met with you in anticipation of your nomination to the u.s. court of appeals for theyo 7th circuit congratulatios nagain on that nomination. during that meeting with him, did you asked for comments regarding or did you discuss abortion or roe versus wade second amendment or defund the police, illegal immigration any of those issues? >> none of the above, senator. >> okay. >> judge jackson what about you? >> no, sir. >> okay. judge jackson, in your notes for a presentation that you gave at columbia law school in 2019, i believe. you said that, quote, disparities in judicial outcomes can when considered relevant factors talk to me a little bit about how what that meant. >> thank you, senator. that presentation was a impose

yum i've been invited to comment on an article that was being presented and the article itself was about judicial bias. and i was critiquing it and making arguments in response to it based on my experience, and i believe that the, i would have to see exactly the context of the quote that you read. but what i was suggesting was the idea that because the factors in the law concerning something like sentencing are open ended that congress says, youth have to sentence defendans to terms of imprisonment that are sufficient but noto greater than necessaryon to promote the purposes of punishment that list purpose of punishment and any

judge who looks at that has basically those broad parameters within which to think about how they're going to sentence. but the judge then will have to decide whether they're thinking about deterrence or retribution or various purposes in order to determine how they're going to sentence and my idea was that a similarly. situated judge lookig at the exact same setful facts applying those factors in 35, 503a could reach a different result. so that you're going to have sort of inherent in the nature of judicial exercise of discretion in the world of something like sentencing disparity -- unannounced. >> that's helpful -- in your, you know, you've been a judge now for about eight years if i'm not mistaken. in the experiences as a judge, and prior to that your experience as a lawyer.

would you agree or disagree with someone who said that most racial disparities in criminal, in criminal convictions and sentencings result from an unconscience racial bias of judges, juries and other judicial decision makers, would you agree on disagree with that statement? >> senator let me just say that as a judge, now, it is very important for me not to make, you know, personal commitments about things like the question that you asked. that my personal views about anything don't impact my rulings. i'm aware of social science french. there's a professor at harvard who was done implicit bias work and there are studies from the commission when i was back at

the commission in the policy makingon role that talked about and indicated that all of us human beings can have biases that we're unconsciencely operating on and that we have to think about that. when we are making decisions and especially policymakers in the criminal justice system. soan aware of those studies but i'm not a social scientist. >> so i understand that. just asking for your overall census for a judge and not a commitment or social science. in 2019, i think in connection with the notes prepared in connection with with the same speech you noted that court observed inconsistently largely attribute to group bias by decision makers is that ring a bell is that something you -- >> context of the critique that i was making because the article

had indicated that they saw they showed research that there were these demographic disparities in the article said theyth were attributable to bias so ith was trying to give another perspective. >> right so what are some of the leading factors that is other than unconscience bias that you see having an impact there? that account for some of the disparities that we see in convictions in sentencing? >> one of the things that i was aware of in my time on sentencing commission and something that you all have worked on -- were the differences in stat statutory for crack and powder, disparity between whatt you get sentenced for crack rather than cocaine. >> having a demographic effect because research and statistics show that overwhelming number of defendants who were convicted of -- of crimes involving crack were

african-american. >> okay. thank you, and that is very helpful i do want to make sure i get to one other thing i wanted to talk to you before i run out of time if we marked that president or not that comment that i've made is a number of times as well and tend to agree with it. wherever you're sitting in a court you have to review executive actions it seems like they have more of a livelihood of coming up and u.s. court of appeal for d.c. circuit and many other places do you think it would be appropriate under the guys and discretion for any president of the united states to tell an agency not to enforce a particularr law? >> senator, i am unfortunately not going to be able to engage in a line thet hypothetical discussion because matters might come before me and i don't to prejudge a case that might involve those facts i do understand the implications of the law related to it.

but i can't tello you whether it would be appropriate or not. >> yeah. love to delve more into this see my time has expired thank you mr. chairman. >>th thank you senator lee thank you senator klobuchar. >> thank you chairman grassley and congratulations to both of you for your nominations and for your incredible work jack san p son last time you were here 2012 paul ryan introduced you. you remember that? >> yotd. i do. >> saying our politics my differ by praise for her intellect and her integrity is unequivocal. on march 23rd, 2013 you were senate by voice vote and have sense preside over many jury trials, bench trialings and written 562 opinions. what have you learned during your time as a district court

judge that will inform your service as a judge on the d.c. circuit? >> thank you senator i've been very fortunate to work in a wonderful district with terrific colleagues and what i've learned is a lot about agency practice, as has been previously mentioned i did not do agency work in -- in private practice or in my role as a federal public defender. and so i learned a lot about how our government works. in talking with my colleagues, and i'm looking forward to if i'm kiferled confirmed being in constant communication with other judges in looking at some ofco these very, very complicatd issues concerning our government in its operation.

i've learned the importance of having a collegial relationship with your colleagues on the bench, and i look forward to continuing that in my role as circuit judge if i'm confirmed. >> very good. over the kowrgs of your service as a judge, you've ruled both for and against the government including in center for biological diversity -- that case where mccharlie-- you have a group supposing previous administration plan to build the wall along the southern border. how do you ensure that you impartially review facts and law whenso approaching a case and hw will you apply those principles as a circuit court judge? >> well senator, i try to stick to the sail methodology in any rulings. i try to focus, i do focus on

the arguments, the facts and the law that binding presence dense of the supreme court and the circuit. and i have methodically worked through an analysis of those issues of those inputs in every case. an that's helped me to not pay attention to who is involved whether it's -- you know, a government that is being run by one administration versus other i'm focused on arguments that ares being made. and it's -- it's funny because my clerk sometimes they say your opinions is all the same. elementary they all look the same i say yes exactly that's the point that's what i'm trying to do to make sure that i'm treating everybody equally and i'm not paying attention to who is in the administration when i'my ruling on the case. >> very good. thank you very much for that answer. ms. jackson clooney again congratulations to you, you

spent many years working as a advocate for various clients in bothan criminal and civil cases. with impressive experience, if you are confirmed to serve on the 7th circuit which i'm very much hope you will be -- you will have to impartially imply the law can you say more you talked a little bit about youre experience but could you talk about how you view the role of a judge and how it differs from that of an advocate and do you have any reservations about being able to set aside past advocacy when analyzing case? j thank you senator klobuchar as you indicated i've had a variety of different roles civil lit gator at large law firms small and law clerk to two federal judges, in each of those roles, i've hadad to get up to speed ia variety of new areas of law. and represent different types of

clients corporations, nonprofit organizations individuals, i have enjoyed the challenge and the variety and that's what i fully expect to pen counter on circuit court if confirmed. so i believe that will be transition and i'm fully confident that i can apply law neutrally as a circuit judge as i indicated in one of the earlier answers, being an advocate requires you to work within the framework of existing law you can't go off on your own, and so i'm prepared to work within the existing framework of 7 circuit precedent and supreme court in reaching reason decisions. and then finally senator, yes. i'm aware that the role of advocate and judgege are so very different. as an advocate, your position are essentially given to you because you must create you're coming up with the best argument for your client the best

positionses within the framework of existing law to advocate what is best for your client. as a judge, you don't come from that perspective at all. you approach each case open mindedly with an open mind. and you listen to the arguments of both a parties without a thub on the scale. yous do the research. i'm familiar with the fourth circuit the collegial atmosphere you tack with your colleague, conference with your colleagues. and then you work through the law to get to a reasoned result. and it is not at all dictated by a position that you started with. >> okay, very good, and i think taces good description as wheel you look at someone who serve as public defender and people may, ofeo course, not agree that this and clients that you may have represented or with crimes that were committed but you have a job to represent them under the law and i think it is that confusion of those issues that

have sometimes led the senate to not confirm some people and i just see it as the role of the prosecutor before that a little bit on the public defender side are more pro bono. just seeing that we have to differentiate that or we'll never have anyone in the jobs. that has been an advocate for clients on the criminal defense side -- and i guess i would end with that area judge jackson you spent two years as an assistance special counsel on the u.s. sentencing commission later vice chair and commissioner, how is that experience informed your approach as a district court judge for sentencing principles and how will that inform your, your work as a circuit court judge? >> well thank you, senator. one thing that the assistant special counsel did was to work on the actual drafting of the guidelines.

and so even apart from the substance just the meticulous work that was necessary to draft the guidelines has been helpful in myy drafting opinions. and with respect to the substance, understanding sentencing,ce understanding sentencing politician and practice has really been useful for me as a trial judge because as i've said i have sentenced more than 100 people and you use guidelines manual as supreme court direct in order to do that so i came to job with sense of what sentencing was about -- and i think that for appeals, my experience and actually engaging in sentencings and understanding trial procedures from the trial court perspective would be very helpful because the court of

appeals reviews trial court proceedings and sentencings in criminal cases. and i think that that perspective should be valuable if i were confirmed. >> thank you very much. thank you to both of you. >> thanks senator klobuchar, senator cotton. >> congratulations to you both on your nomination. judge, judge brown jackson or judge jackson? >> judge jackson thank you. >> your career before you were a judge have you ever represented a terrorist at guantanamo bay? >> about 16 years ago when i was a federal public defender. >> right. was that case assigned to you as a federal public defender? >> it was. >> whoho was the client that you had? >> oh senator i don't remember the name. >> can you get that for the record please? >> sure. >> ms. jackson comey -- >> thank you i want to get it right in your legal career have you ever represented a terrorist

at guantanamo bay? >> no, senator. >> thank you. i want tomo speak about race constitution does the constitution allow the government tope treat americans differently because of their race? >> no, senator. rng thank you iemg glad that we agree on that judge jackson -- >> no senator. j thank you. >> let's turn to religious liberty if we can. first protecting freedom of religion and treat religious organizations such as churches worse than they treat sexual organizations such as restaurants or clubs or casinos is that right ms. jackson akumy. >> senator the first amendment protects religious liberty, religious freedom, exercise of religion. and those all of those issues are being actively litigated including at the supreme court. >> but government can't treat a

religious organization worse than they would a secular business like a restaurant or casino is that correct? es>> senator, you're referring o the principle about neutral laws ande that -- there is a principle there that if a law is neutral as to everyone, a religious organization can be included, and that it is my view that the supreme court is testing areas of that for example if the supreme court graduated injunction out of california, that involved one of those issues, so i just want to be sure to reflect nuance there, senator, and the fact that the supreme court sworg is working through those issues and also add first amendment litigation has not been my area of practice. thedm last ten years or even 16 years. but that's any broad understanding of wheys happening with the clause right now at the sprouters.

supreme court. >> i too have not had many cases involving religious liberty issues i have one right now that -- might involve some of these issues. but i'm aware that the supreme court has rightly viewed the first amendment right to religious liberty as foundational fundamental, it is in the first amendment, and the supreme court is working through. the doctrine, there's been a series of cases in the last few years as the court determines what it means to treat religious organizations differently. >> thank you. let's turn to second amendment ms. jackson do you believe there's a right to bare arms for

self-defense? >> sthaid very clearly that was justice scalia writing heller that supreme court protects an individual right to keep and bare arms. >> which has been extended through mcdonald's correct? >> correct senator. >> what do you believe is the limit onn that right? >> that's very thing that circuit court across the supreme court are figuring out right now. >> have you -- do you have any personal views on that have you -- >> well if i had any personal views, they certainly wouldn't be relevant to decision making that i i would engage in as a circuit judge if confirmed, i would be bound by the supreme court's in heller in mcdonald and any of the prodigies that develop. >> judge jackson. >> i agree whole heartily with what jackson acume fund minnesotaal right to bear articles have no baring on my decision making concerning those

issue and i would be bound by the supreme court and the d.c. circuit precedence concerning issue. >> in heller mcdonald -- >> yes. thank you. >> ms. jackson do you agree with justice stephen breyer an late justice ginsburg that sprowrtd supreme court and justices should not bee added? >> well senator i will have to admit that i'm not familiar with their particular views on that issue. i don't think it would be appropriate to opine upon the position of the supreme court or what should or shouldn't happen. it is a question that -- that this body must sort through. it is a question left to the legislative branch in the executive branch. >> yes. senator i'm currently -- >> i won't ask since you're -- >>tl okay, thank you. >> thank you both for your testimony today congratulations again. >> thankto you.

thank you senator cotton senator coons. durbin twok two nominees who are before this committee today. both of the nominees are qualified and impressive candidate and those have demonstrated commitment to justice and fairness throughout their extraordinary legal careers. judge jackson, some critics have pointed to cases where you ruled against the trump administration and somehow suggest that is evidence you are biased. a review of your actual record shows you have ruled both for andd against administrations of both parties. even on some presses porkt legal matters with political overturns. could you speak about smef these examples and how it is a mischaracterizization of your judicial record to look at your record in the last four years. >> thank you, senator. i tend to leave it to others to characterize my record i'm doing work of analyzing the arguments

in the facts and the law in every case. >> can i reframe that? >> that be helpful, thank you -- >> if we try to adjust judge record simply on score keeping of which administration either they were confirmed under or they rule for or against what does that myth about a judge's judicial philosophy and qualifications and is that an adequate way to assess how you as a nominee for an important circuit seat would approach a case? >> well, i do think it misses quite a bit because i'm applying a methodology through my cases and it involves the cities looking at the argument of the facts and the law. and sometimes those arguments are being made by one party or another. in a government case, but that

doesn't matter because i'm testing out the merits of the claims that are being made and how the law, the biengsding law of the d.c. circuit apply to claims in light of the fact. if you look at body of work you'll see that claim and law and the facts don't vary really based on party, and so sometimes you're going to find cases in which the judge might rule in favor of one administration sometimesou you might find agait that's not what it is driving force behind judges rulings. i've had cases, many cases, in fact, that ili can think of in which i've ruled partially for one party or the other. so that the party meaning a

party in the case not a political party. so that it's a split decision, and you know, both parties in the case are upset at the end of the day but it's because that's what i believe the law required so if judge is going to do their duty, they're not focused on the same political dynamics that you're talking about that other people try to find in their rulings. >>s.s. can you both then i'll ak you to go first if i can jackson speak to value a of an independt judiciary one that's insulated from temporal partisan political considerations. >> well senator, i think it is one of the bed rocks of the rule of law which as you know is -- a foundational constitutional principle, it is what everything in our government is really erected around, and if you don't have judges who are able to do their duty, their march bury

versus madison saying what law is independent of the political branches then we have lost that very important check that founders wanted us to have is the way our government was constructed and so the independence of the judicial branch is crucial. >> thank you. ms. jackson acumi also care to comment on importance of a federal judiciary indent from wins of politics? >> i will say senator coons it has hard to improve upon the answer that judge jackson gave and i will also add that -- i'veve clerked for two federal judges and every single judge aye ever appeared in front of seem to understand this foundational principle about their independence. it does not seem to be in dispute among judges appeared in front of and worked for. >> my understanding is both of your parents were also, also a

judges could you just fill me in briefly on what motivated you to pursue a career in service and in particular in the law. >> thank you, senator. it is true i grew up in a family that very much valued public service. i always knew that the bulk of my career would be spent working in the public interest so i'm honored to have this opportunity and the face of the president in our community in returning to icpublic service. it's -- it's simply an honor. my parents have taught me a lot throughout my life. ...

even at risk of her own body, she sat for hours on the bench because she knew that litigants had taken time off from work to come to court. police officers were away from their beat. caregivers were away from their families, and she did not want to delay the administration of justice so she sat for hours without taking a break. so i learned a lot about service from my parents and judicial service long before the thought of serving our country in this way ever came to belong before i was presented with this opportunity by our president. >> last question. you would bring some badly needed diversity to the seventh circuit of several kinds. the cato institute had a study that showed there were four times as many prosecutors as defense attorneys in the federal judiciary. and in terms of background, life

experiences, upbringing, racial, gender background, having a more broadlyia diverse federal judiciary is a goal of this administration and one i strong support. could you speak briefly to what difference does that make and why is that a value for our federal judiciary? >> as i indicated earlier, demographic diversity and professional diversity certainly increase public confidence in the court and our court system. people can accept decisions as more fair knowing that a broad array of judges have considered the matter and the courts that restricted to just some important role modeling function so that young people in our country, young students, law student, young lawyers know that the path to public service on the benches opened everyone, noo just those have taken a certain career path. and then i hope to be able to bring something to discussions with my judicial colleagues, , f

confirmed, because of my experience. just in the way, i'm aware of the collegial nature of our circuit court. from clerking i'm aware judges conference after oral arguments to discuss the impressions about any particular case. and just like a colic with the background as a state court judge might notice one fact in the record and want to discuss that or a colleague with a background in mergers and acquisitions might notice another fact in the record and want to discuss that, or a prosecutor still another fact, i hope i too can bring something to our discussion because of my experience as a as a federc defender and thereby enhance our collective discussion and decision making. >> thank you both. i really appreciate your answering my questions. i look forward to supporting your nominations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the nominee's for being here, congratulations on your nominations. ms. jackson-akiwumi, if i could strut with you on what asked

again about the reginald taylor case which i think you served as a defense attorney. thisis was an armed robbery cas. one as you but you're sensing memorandum in this case. you argued in that memorandum that the defendant should not be subject to the 15 year mandatory minimum for the armed career criminal minimum that it should not apply to this defendant. it was a mandatory minimum so walked me through this. what was your argument about not applying a mandatory minimum sentence? is it your view judges should be free to depart from those mandatory minimums?e hubby understand your argument. >> thank you for the question. the opportunity to address that. that argument was based on the armed career criminal act which stated congress stated that defendant should only be subject to the mandatory minimum if they have certain offenses in the criminal history. predicate defe government relied on in mr.

taylor's criminal history was residential burglary. the supreme court, seventh circuit, and circuits around the country were working through the issue of whether residential burglary qualified as a predicate offense. we took the position that residential burglary did not qualify. and if it did not, that meant the mandatory minimum of the armed criminal career act would not apply in mr. taylor's case. sen. hawley: that make sense to me. let me ask you about something you wrote in that same memorandum. wrote that this departure from the mandatory minimum was appropriate because when black defendants continue to receive longer defendants for the same crime, no additional time should be added to further entrench this disparity. is it your view that the armed career criminal act, or mandatory minimum sentences in

general, are racist, inherently? judge jackson: in queue for question as well. -- thank you for that question as well. there has been researched by the sentencing commission and other agencies in our government that have shown the racial impact of mandatory minimum sentences. it is an issue that this body and this very committee has considered. what i was referring to in the portion of my sentencing memorandum you quoted is the supreme court law -- there is supreme court case law that says above and beyond a mandatory minimum a judge does not have to impose any additional time. if the judge, in her discretion, feels that the mandatory minimum will impose what congress has stated the standard is -- a sentence which is sufficient but not greater than necessary --

then a judge does not have to add time on top of that. the argument i was making to the judge was, if you feel the mandatory minimum imposes a sufficient but not greater than necessary sentence on mr. taylor, please do not add additional time on top. sen. hawley: let me ask you a question i have asked other nominees who have come before this committee. do you believe the criminal justice system is systemically racist or infected with systemic racism and bias? judge jackson: those are not terms i use. in the law, when we look at issues of race, we look at discrimination, which has very specific standards under supreme court and statutory law in terms of making findings. so, courts will be generally looking for attorneys to prove discriminatory intent, discriminatory impact, in some cases retaliation.

there is no supreme court doctrine that speaks to systemic racism, and it is certainly not -- those certainly are not words i have ever used in a court of law to make claims based under the, to make claims under the constitution or statute. sen. hawley: those are not words you would use for our criminal justice system. judge jackson: that is not the weight of an advocate. i would be hesitant to push any case involving race. sen. hawley: let me ask about the child protection safety act. you stated that the law includes a new mandatory condition of electronic monitoring for all persons charged with child sexual abuse or pornography crimes including register as a sexual offender under the appropriate attitude.

in your presentation you noted a number of district court had found this unconstitutional as due to a process -- a commandment, due process clause, i want to ask about this since you are advocating -- making these arguments as defense counsel. do you believe the adam walsh safety and protection act is unconstitutional on eighth amendment grounds? judge jackson: i cannot remember that presentation or anything that i said in that presentation, if confirmed as a judge i am bound by the statutes of this body, i would be called upon to apply them to the facts of any case that is before the seventh circuit. sen. hawley: i wanted to ask the same question about the statute being unconstitutional on the fifth amendment grounds or

separation of powers grounds. is your answer the same? judge jackson: yes, i am sorry, i do not remember the presentation. sen. hawley: i will give this to you as a question for the record, your king look at your notes get back to us. in my final moments i wanted to say judge jackson, i think i am correct about this that you served on the board of montrose christian school. is that right? judge jackson: about a year. i mention it because like noted in the statement of faith of the time that it said we should speak on behalf of the unborn and contempt for the sanctity of all human life, it went on to say that children from the moment of conception are a blessing. the school took the position that urges the uniting of one man and one woman in a commitment for a lifetime interstate has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.

those are positions i agree with, which is beside the point, i raise them because i recall that justice amy barrett was attacked for serving on the board of trinity schools which took similar positions. i defended her at that time, i would defend your right to religious liberty and to serve on this board, whatever opinions may be, from your service, that you believe in the principle -- at the constitutional rights of religious liberty, is that fair question mark -- is that fair? >> i believe in judicial -- religious liberty. the supreme court has made clear through its case law that governments cannot infringe on religious rights. those ideas -- that concept comes from my duty to serve

supreme court precedent, follow its tenants. not from any personal views that i might have and any personal views about religion would never come into my service as a judge. i served on many boards and i do not necessarily agree with all of the statements of all of the things those boards might have in their materials. the statement is that you read i am not sure the that was something that was in the circumstances at the time. i was not aware that. in any event. i do believe in religious liberty. sen. hawley: thank you very much. sen. cruz: senator blumenthal.

sen. blumenthal: thank you to you both for your willingness to serve, thank you to your families which are undoubtably very proud of you. i am 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 provably well qualified by your academic background, service to our nation and your families. i want to begin by saying you both have backgrounds as public defenders. i served for 4.5 years as the united states attorney in connecticut. the federal prosecutor i was then attorney general of our state for 20 years. and involved in law enforcement.

i welcome the emphasis on elevating and showing that public defenders are as diverse -- deserving by virtue of their background to appointments as a federal judge, prosecutor anybody else. under the positions are competitive now. -- i know the positions are competitive now. public defenders bring a perspective to judging, that prosecutors might not. just as people who come from private practice bring a different perspective. i congratulate and thank you for your background. diversity is important on both the circuits that you will join. the seventh circuit presides over 7.5 million people of color

including chicago, milwaukee, indianapolis across -- including other cities. yet all of the judges sitting on the court are white in 2021. i am dumbstruck, it is breathtaking that a federal circuit court in any part of our country is all white, i have remarked on this before. just to say it again, thank you to the president, you. for helping to correct this injustice which undermines the public. the reason that we are as strong and resilient as we are as a democracy is because of the independent judiciary. that has had courage to stand up

to the potential abuse in our democracy that we have seen. the contempt for the rule of law that we have seen in the highest places in the previous administration. i want to avoid going into politics but i think that we are at a moment when we need to think the judiciary as an independent branch of government. most especially district courts, court of appeal for standing for democracy. i am proud to support you. i went to ask each of you, roughly the same question i asked eight years ago as the nominee for the district court about your positions on

sentencing discretion. this is important as we approach the justice in policing act and revisions to our law to make it fairer and more just. sentencing is an enormous power, you will not have it as circuit court judges but i would be interested in your views as to when departures from the sentencing guidelines are justified and the common reasons there are two beat for departing from those guidelines. if you could give us the benefit of your experience on that point. jackson-akiwumi: thank you for that question, the sentencing system --judge jackson: the

sentencing system has gone through different phases, not only do we have the guidelines, manual and departures in the manual but as a result of the supreme court decision in booker , judges can use the guidelines as a starting point for their analysis and they can determine if the guideline and departures are sufficient penalty for the case. what is that meant is in some districts, judges do not depart in the same way. departures are grounds within the guidelines manual. for imposing a sentence that is different that comes out from the initial calculation. in the guidelines manual, there

is room for judges to take into account certain factors concerning the circumstances of the individual in departing. in my district, judges tend to vary from the guidelines in circumstances in which the age of the person may mean that the guideline penalty is too much. there are lots of different reasons, mental health reasons are in the guidelines but they tend to be factors that have to do with the individual. there is also the most prevalent departure which is the one that prosecutors recommend in a situation in which a person is cooperating. all of those factors enable judges to impose sentences that are sufficient but not greater than necessary, but congress has

to continue to evaluate whether changes need to be made. sen. blumenthal: thank you. jackson-akiwumi: this is my second time setting up but it is hard to improve upon the competence of answer. she explained that the sentencing regime i litigated under for one decade. in almost every case where judges departed from the guidelines and i was representing a client it was because of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors. there would be aggravating factors that warranted a higher guideline sentence in the rare case and in the more common case, mitigating factors that warranted a sentence or lower than the guideline range. the judges were operating under the statutory framework.

that this body laid out about how they should sentence. only one of those many factors was the sentencing guidelines. there are many other things that judges needed to look to. sen. blumenthal: thank you both of you. sen. cruz: is -- sen. durbin: is senator tillis available remote? sen. tillis: i am. sen. durbin: proceed. sen. tillis: congratulations on your nomination, i am sure that your family and friends are proud of you and rightfully so. mr. chairman, i think it is important to highlight one of the reasons why we have these nominees before us. the group demand justice, a group i have spoken about in this committee before and i spoke about it with senator whitehouse -- senator whitehouse on the dark money.

that group is behind the nominations before spirit demand justice is a dark many groups, whose first priority is getting left-wing judges that will follow a liberal agenda instead of the constitution. demand justice is spending millions of dollars advocating for the expansion and packing of the supreme court. they have been pushing for liberal judges since before president biden was elected. like many of us last year, demand justice called on president biden to release a potential list of supreme court nominees but he refused. however, they released a list of their preferred nominees, the first list was released in october 15, 2019. without objection, i would like to submit to documents that were on the website for the first and second list i will talk about.

the first contained 32 names of progressive leaders who would help rebalance the supreme court. the list included lawyers who had champ and progressive values as public defenders, public interest lawyers, scholars, length of lawyers and elected officials. the nominees before us were not on the first list. but in april of 2020, demand justice released a second shortlist of their supreme court nominees for soon-to-be president biden. both judge jackson and miss jackson-akiwumi were on this list. now they are sitting in front of this committee as nominees for circuit court positions. what changed between the first list and the second? in judge jackson's case, one month after the first demand justice supreme court shortlist

came in, miss jackson -- judge jackson issued a ruling in a case brought by house democrats who wanted to compel former white house counsel to testify. we can debate the conclusions of judge jackson, one thing is clear, the 120 page ruling had a purpose. i think rachel maddow explained the purpose of the ruling well. if the production crew can run the video clip, do so now. [video clip] >> the judge in this case, has ruled against the president and ruled that in this instance, the officials that the official instructed to defy the subpoena, the judge says that he must comply with the subpoena and turn up to congress to testify. this is a long ruling.

it is interesting, it seems to meet like it is written with a broad audience in mind. it is not super legalistic, it is not a mechanistic order that he has to show up and here's the president -- precedent. this is the kind of ruling that if it was an indictment, you would call it a speaking indictment. it is designed to be read by people outside of the case. sen. tillis: it was written with a broad audience in mind, it was not just at legalistic thing. if this were to be read this will be a speaking indictment. this is one month after the supreme court shortlist came out.

the demand justice released their second supreme court shortlist in 2020 and judge jackson was added how is this any different from what democrats have accused republicans of? or is it archaic when it is liberal dark money picking the nominees for the highest courts? mr. chairman i would like to seek unanimous consent to add the shortlist from the demand justice website. sen. cruz: with -- sen. durbin: without objection they will be, do you have any further comments or questions? sen. tillis: i am done. sen. durbin: i will ask if joe jackson wants to respond to your comment. judge jackson: thank you mr. chairman. i have been a federal judge for eight years.

i have a duty of independence. i clerked for three federal judges before i became a judge. they were models of judicial independence. what that has meant is that i know very well what my obligations are, what my duties are, not to rule with partisan advantage in mind. not to tailor or craft my decisions to try to game influence or anything of the sort. i have no control over what outside groups say about my rulings. i have no control over what reporters saying about to bite rulings. and to some extent all of my 560 opinions are written for people outside of the case.

they are written for the public, for the appeals court and the parties. my statement is that i have always been an independent judge in the belief that is one of the reasons why the president has honored me with this nomination. sen. tillis: i said from the onset it was one of the factors, i am sure that your jurisprudence weighed in. your response would read almost identically to dozens of judges who came before the judiciary and they were rejected out of hand. dark money is influencing, demand justice is trying to expand the supreme court. you can understand after four years of hearing how the federalist society and other organizations were a dark money

group with malign intentions, i group that is supporting you, why we would draw the same conclusion. thank you mr. chairman. sen. durbin: thank you senator. let me add another element, i do not want to incorrectly infer this but i want to make it clear about this hearing is scheduled today cannot because of a plea by any special interest group at all. the nominees go through an extensive background check, all of them do. it takes some period of time before that is completed and submitted to the committee, both sides of the committee. we have scheduled the five nominees today as soon as that process had been completed. i am looking through your questionnaire spent agenda not know how human is to accumulate all of this information in response but it was a good faith effort to comply with everything under the law as soon as it was ready, we set this hearing. no outside group's demands or

plays had to do with the timing of this hearing. senator hirono are you available by remote? sen. hirono: imp aren't democrats have long criticized the role of dark money in politics and judicial nominees, if what i am hearing is that our republican colleagues are now on the same page with us and criticizing dark money then we should be voting for legislation to require disclosure of dark money sources. i welcome that from the republicans. i congratulate our nominees. you are eminently qualified emma that is why the president nominated to you. i congratulate both of you. i have their questions for every nominee before any committees on which i said.

first question, since he became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed verbal or sexual harassment? judge jackson: no senator. jackson-akiwumi: no senator. sen. hirono: have you ever face discipline or entered into a settlement related to this? judge jackson: no senator. jackson-akiwumi: no senator. sen. hirono: you have both served as public defenders and you answered questions about that. for miss jackson-akiwumi you gave an interview in which you described the burden you carry as a black woman attorney like when a prosecutor accused you of being overly aggressive because you forcefully made a point. you describe the benefits, sometimes my clients families are very grateful to see me, a

young black woman in a position of power, i can inspire a child without no. you are nominated to fill a seat on the seventh circuit making it the first black person -- person of color on that bench. what is the significance of that to you? ms. jackson-akiwumi: i want you to know i would be the second person nominated, judge and wilson retired in 2017. i indicated earlier that there is the same role modeling functions that i played when i was an advocate. that i was referring to in that interview. often times you can inspire a child without knowing it because it might be the first time they have seen a black woman standing up in court.

the same would be true if i were confirmed as a judge. i could serve as a role model for an eighty -- any number of people behind me. that is not just for the people of the same race or gender, i would hope to do that through my service if confirmed. sen. hirono: i appreciate you noting the importance of demographic diversity and professional diversity, such as being a public defender to achieve role modeling. this modeling should reflect the diversity of our country. i appreciate you saying that. getting back to both of you serving as public defenders, these are highly competitive and difficult jobs. you could have gone to a prosecutor's office. we have rarely considered public defender nominees in the committee, can you talk each of

you white you sought out these positions -- why you sought out these positions? judge jackson: my service as a public defender was a white logo -- while ago. i am trying to think back. i came from a staff position on the sentencing commission and was working on sentencing policy. i remember thinking clearly that i felt like i did not have enough of an idea of what really happened in criminal cases. i wanted to understand the system, if for no other reason than to be a better policymaker. otherwise did not end up doing that -- although i did not end

up doing that. i thought it would be a good opportunity to help people as well. 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 i look at it from the oliver wendell holmes view that the life of the law is not logic, its experience. and so the more experiences that canht be brought to bear on our complex legal problems, the better. i also know from my experience as a district judge that there have been changes in my own way

of practicing, in my own way of interacting with defendant's in my courtroom that are based on insights that i had from representing clients 16 years ago when i was an assistant federal public defender. and so you learn new things. you learn things from experiences that relate to what you were doing in the judicial system, and they can be useful inin helping. i told the story earlier about the way i now communicate and forecast and let layout for defendant's what is happening in cases, and to do that because i was aware as a defender of how many of my clients did not really understand the process,ha and that was detrimental to their rehabilitation. so i work on that communication aspect based on my insights from the time when i was a defender.

>> senator booker, i would only add that the seventh circuit has judges from many different backgrounds. there are state court judges who are now sitting on the seventh circuit, law professors, people have been, judges have been prosecutors, attorneys for the executive branch.d so i hope i would just add to that mix because as a reflected earlier and judge jackson also just referred to, it's a collegial environment, and judges spent time discussing together their impressions of the cases in the effort to reach their individual opinions in a case. so i hope that my background as a federal public defender and, frankly, my background as a civil litigator as well will help bring w something to the table in the way that i know my colleagues backgrounds already do. >> thank you, senator booker. senator cruz.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations to both of the nominee's. judge jackson come you and i attended law school together. >> we did. >> it's good to see. >> good to see you again. >> congratulations. let me start with a general question to both of you. which is how would you define judicial activism? >> i think judicial activism is when a judge is unable or unwilling to separate out the own personal views of a circumstance or case and they rule consistent with those views rather than the law as they are required to do. >> i would give the same answer, senator cruz, and also add other judicial activists mean many things to different people. for me it also suggests a judge he goes outside beyond the

issues presented to the court. judges are limited. get quite a restrained role that there only to decide the issues presented to them, and one form of activism is going be on that. >> so what should a principled judge curiel if the law requires oneo out, and your own personal political policy views are to the contrary? how does a judge resolve that conflict? >> oh, absolutely judge is duty-bound to follow the law. the law is the binding principle that guides the case, and judges need to methodically separate out their personal views. when i rule in my cases i look at the facts, the law, and the parties arguments in thein same way in every case. i methodically apply only those inputs because i am trying very

hard not to look at this case through anything other than the prism of the binding precedents of the supreme court and the d.c. circuit. so absolutely there's no question that the judge has to set aside their personal views about how a case comes out and rule only consistent with the law. >> that's absolutely correct, senator. the roles of advocates and judge a completely different, but in the same way as an advocate that i set aside my personal opinions about my clients and what they were accused of our what they were guilty of, i would also set aside, if confirmed, my personal views, my personal convictions, if any, because the law is what guides and should guide judicial decision-making. >> what are both of your views on the notion of a living constitution and whether we have a living constitution?

>> senator, i have not had any cases that have required me to develop a view on constitutional interpretation of text in the way that the supreme court has to do and have thought about the tools of interpretation. i am aware that the supreme court, at least with respect to certain provisions of the constitution that it has already interpreted, has look at history and has focus on the original meaning of the text, say in the second amendment context in the heller case. i just have not had any opportunity to do that. i have worked with those kinds of 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. >> so was this the amicus did in the booming teen gay? >> that was. >> was that pro bono repetition? >> it was. andwa the representatives the 24 formal federal judges want to make a point. >> pro bono reflection often reflection on views, that's why frequently lawyers take it on. what ledeq you to want to take deposition? >> i wasn't working alone. i was at a big law firm and i was in their appellate division and was a group of judges who was assigned to work with as a part of that, by employment in the law from. >> did you agree with the position you are advocating? >> i was focused on my clients interests.

i was doing what advocate to do. i didn't have a personal view really of the issue other than just to makee sure i was making the most convincing argument i could make on behalf of my client. >> so let me go back to thee original question, which is do you believe we have a living constitution? .. , 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 >> if i ever had one of those cases that's how i would approach the task. >> ms. jackson-akiwumi.

>> thank you for the question. i don't have find these phrases particularly useful. a living constitution is similar to me like judicial activism, it means so many things to so many different people. i know that the supreme court hasn't used those terms and we had meant to last forever and adapt to the crisis of human affairs and i think that's what happened to our constitution over the years and beyond that, it's the supreme law of the land and if confirmed, i would be bound by the supreme court's interpretations of the constitution, it would not be my job to make law. >> so if you could both tell me your view of the importance of the first amendment and in particular the protections of free speech and religious

liberty. >> well, senator, my view come ports with the supreme court's view because as a judge i have to apply the doctrines of the supreme court and it is very clear from the court's recent rulings from the recent covid cases, to new lutheran, masterpiece cake shop and various others that the court is looking into and is concerned about restrictions on religious liberty as a first amendment principle. as well they should be because the first amendment includes religious freedom as a core constitutional right. so my views comport with what the supreme court has held about these things and i would have to apply the supreme court's principles in any of my cases.

>> ms. jackson-akiwumi? >> i agree, senator cruz. foundational freedoms protected, speech, redress and row ligs. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to remark on the significance of this hearing. as chairman durbin reminds us, and noted this hearing. 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 pointes, 189 were white and

nearly as many 171 were men. over the course of the priority administration our federal judiciary became markedly less diverse. today marks an important step in reversing that trajectory and creating a federal judiciary that reflects the 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 federal judiciary, in addition to their impressive qualifications is

remarkable and important. so i hope, mr. chair, and expect that this will be only the first of many such nomination hearings this congress. now to my question, the first for ms. jackson. if confirmed, you'll be one of the few former public defenders to serve in this capacity. so can you take just a minute to speak to the role and importance of public defenders to our criminal justice system? >> senator, did you mean ms. jackson-akiwumi? >> yes, i'm sorry. >> thank you, senator padilla, the sixth amendment guarantees the right to counsel and the court the right to counsel in criminal cases when one cannot

afford an attorney. this is important because the integrity of our system depends on it. judges make the best decisions when they're presented with the best arguments from both sides and due process guarantees that people be represented and have the opportunity to be heard, regardless of their ability to pay. so it was my honor and privilege to work within that system for a decade, to ensure that my clients were competently represented, regardless of their ability to pay and frankly, regardless of what they were accused of and to help our country live up to its constitutional values. >> and a follow on, early in your career you spent about three years working at a corporate law firm with, i'm sure very nice offices and a lot of resources and high salaries, but you chose to leave that very comfortable path to spend the next decade

of your career as a public defender. just for a minute, just for a moment what would prompt you to make such a change? >> well, senator, i'm very grateful for the three years i spent litigating, and it was tremendous representing our clients, ranged from corporations to nonprofits individuals. i gained a lot of experience and tried by first jury trial and argued my first case against the 7th circuit court of appeals for which i appeared many times after that as a public defender, but i always knew that i wanted to return to public service. i began my legal career serving the public as a law clerk to two federal judges and i wanted to spend the bulk of my career that way and this nomination by the president gives me an

opportunity if the committee of the whole decides. >> the next question from ms. brown jackson. you served in that hundreds v of cases, for workers and employees, for the government and those challenging governmental decisions. is there an ideology or a philosophy that guides your approach to judicial decision making and, you know, how do you view that changing if at all if confirmed to the circuit court? >> thank you for that question, senator. not really a philosophy, more of a methodology. it is the idea that it is only appropriate for the judge to take into account the arguments of the parties, the facts in the case and the law that applies in every case. and i have found that if you do

that, you can be consistent in the way that you're analyzing the issues and you can set aside any thoughts about who is making the arguments, what advantages any side might take away from your opinions. if you have a fidelity to the rule of law only those inputs, then i think you can rule without fear or favor, which is what i have attempted to do. >> i want to, as some of my colleagues have already done, thank you for your willingness to serve and thank you to your families for supporting your service because i know it's not easy, but in the last minute i have left, ask you both to briefly comment on what it just means to you personally for you and for your family, for you to be here with this opportunity before you. >> well, senator, i am

fortunate enough to have an office now that is just a few blocks from the national archives. sometimes i go there and i reflect on the momentousness of my duties and the fact that i've had an opportunity that my grandparents would not have been able to even fathom and it is the beauty and the majesty of this country that someone who comes from a background like mine could find herself in this position. and so, i'm just enormously grateful to have this opportunity, to be a part of the law in this way and i'm truly thankful for the president's giving me the honor of this nomination. >> thank you. >> senator padilla, i share a

similar sentiment. i am the granddaughter of a sharecropper, three of my four grandparents had only a fourth and sixth grade education. but i also grew up with the precept to whom much is given much is required and despite those humble beginnings, my family has always been one that valued education and i have been given a top-notch education, and top-notch experiences that i'm so grateful for and i recall attorney general garland telling you all that he believed was the highest and best use of his skills to be able to serve the country in this way now and although i've not been a circuit judge and i'm certainly not the attorney general, 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 and in such a way to thank my

family and this country for the many opportunities that i have been given. >> well, as from immigrants from mexico, and little education, and a short order cook and a domestic worker, who had an opportunity to study at the massachusetts institute of technology and earn a degree and years and years later get to sit on this side of the dias, i thank you both. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator padilla, senator kennedy. >> thank you, judge, counselor, welcome. counselor, let me start with just a few general questions. can you give me your thoughts about the meaning and the importance, if you think it's important, of the adequate and independent state ground

doctrine which you'll probably see a lot on the courtroom field? >> sure, senator kennedy. it's actually a doctrine of the supreme court that governs, when a case presents federal grounds, but if there's also an 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 the body that has the ability to exercise that doctrine. the 7th circuit court of appeals, if i am confirmed to it, would not have that opportunity because, as you know, the court of appeals takes every case that's appealed to it. it doesn't have the ability like the supreme court does, to pick and choose which cases it will hear. >> so you're saying that the 7th circuit can't decide a case or invoke adequate and independent state ground doctrine?

>> senator, there are other extension doctrines that would govern if the 7th circuit -- if a panel felt that there were state court questions that needed to be resolved so the federal case should hold off for a bit or if there was an independent state court ground for the case that necessitated a particular type of ruling, but it wouldn't -- that doctrine would not cause the 7th circuit to not take the case to begin with. the 7th circuit has to consider the appeal and issue a decision, yes. >> right, right. but you're not saying that the adequate and independent state ground doctrine is not applicable to the 7th circuit, are you? >> i'm saying that's a doctrine of the supreme court and the 7th circuit has other. >> it's a doctrine of the court of appeals, too, isn't it? >> my understanding and i will

tell you senator kennedy, this is not an area i've been litigating in the last 16 years, it's my understanding it's a broad doctrine of the supreme court. >> okay. what is your definition of justice? >> thank you for the question, senator kennedy. emblazoned on the supreme court across the street is equal justice under law. i marry that with the ethical canons and codes of conduct that apply to judges and one of them includes treating all parties fairly and impartially and acting with diligence and upholding the independence of the court. and he think when you marry all of those concepts together,

then you arrive at hopefully what is justice for the parties who come before a court. >> counselor, do you believe that crime is a disease that needs a cure or is it anti-social behavior that needs punishment? >> senator kennedy, neither of those options are words i've ever used to describe crime, which has been my province for the last 10 years, representing people accused of crime and who have pled guilty to crime. if there's anything that my decade as a public defender taught me is how gray everything is.

and how there's often a faint line, an undescribable lines sometimes, a complicated line from when someone goes from being law abiding to breaking a law and all the reasons why that happens, and all the different ways we as a society can address that. and 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 of any different case, but i think that nuanced understanding will enhance my ability to understand the facts of any given case. >> okay. are you a textualist or--

>> okay. thank you, senator kennedy. i answered questions about judicial activism, i don't find these particularly helpful, they mean so many things to seem people and i think-- >> actually counsel i think they're pretty standard definitions. can you it he will-- tell me which way you lean? >> no, senator. the supreme court 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 a statute and so that method, the supreme court has instructed judges what to do. >> counsel. >> yes. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but my chairman's very strict on me and i do want to get to

ask the judge one question in my 35 seconds and i'm sorry to interrupt you. judge, you've been on the bench and you've seen the federal judicial system up close and i agree with you, america is a remarkable country. do you think the federal judicial system is systematically racist? >> senator, thank you for that question. i am aware of social science research-- >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear you. >> i am aware of social science research, particularly in my former area of expertise, which is in sentencing, that relates to ways in which policy choices

about various aspects of the system can have demographic disparate affects. the most obvious one is one that this body has worked on very hard and much appreciated, the 100 to 1 disparity. as a judge, i'm not looking at systemic effects. i'm not thinking about or focusing on or forming opinions about the research or the -- or the circumstances in the abstract like that. i am looking at each case. a person might make a claim that they've been discriminated against in a particular context and i am applying the law to determine whether or not the law sustains that claim. so i don't really have a frame of reference to answer a

question about systemic racism, but i am happy that you are thinking about those things because they're in the province of the policy makers like yourself. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kennedy and i would like to thank our two circuit court nominees for your patience, your endurance, please be find-- mindful as you've heard that senators can send you questions and be diligent as they're sent your way. i'm going to excuse this panel, just in time, in the nick of time comes the senator from new jersey. have you voted? >> yes, sir. >> good. come right on up here because i haven't. and thank you, to this panel and i'm going to ask the senator from new jersey with the second panel and prepare them for testimony and i will

return briefly. >> coming up live today, a house appropriation subcommittee looks at the role of domestic terrorism on c-span at 7 p.m. former vice-president mike pence has his first appearance, and a water structure bill at c-span 3, global security threats with the head of the national defense and defense agencies. followed by a subcommittee hearing on nasa's mars perseverance rover. and there's more on-line, including eric lander to head the offense of white house and