WASHINGTON — Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s historic nominee to the Supreme Court, promised Monday that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, she would "defend the Constitution and the grand experiment of American democracy that has endured over these past 246 years."
"I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously," she said. "I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath."
She also lauded Justice Stephen G. Breyer, for whom she served as a law clerk and would replace on the high court. He "exemplifies what it means to be a Supreme Court justice of the highest level of skill and integrity, civility and grace. It is extremely humbling to be considered for Justice Breyer’s seat, and I know that I could never fill his shoes. But if confirmed, I would hope to carry on his spirit."
Jackson began her confirmation hearing Monday morning before an evenly divided Senate committee this week, where she is likely to be sharply questioned by Republicans about her past work as a public defender.
Democrats praised Jackson as a strong, experienced choice.
“Today’s a proud day for America,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin, chair of the Judiciary Committee, said in his opening statement. “Judge Jackson, I have no doubt that history will remember you as a justice who never stopped working to defend the Constitution.”
“This is a day of joy,” said New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. “This has never happened before. This is a hopeful day. It shows the world the promise of a true democracy.”
“The men who wrote our founding documents never imagined you could be here,” said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., describing himself as the “proud son of immigrants from Mexico. Your appearance here begins a new chapter in American history.”
Opening statements from Republicans skewed less toward Jackson’s record and view, and more toward criticizing their Democratic colleagues for their past handling and treatment of conservative nominees, such as Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the Republicans “won’t turn this into a spectacle. We will ask tough questions.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., repeated his disappointment that Biden did not select U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs from his home state of South Carolina, the candidate Graham said he would have preferred.
At least three members of the House, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, Nikema Williams, D-Ga., and Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., attended Monday’s hearing, occasionally capturing the historic moment with pictures and videos from their cellphones.
Guests filled nearly all of the available seats inside the hearing room, including members of Jackson’s immediate family and her nomination advisers, Doug Jones and Minyon Moore.
The first Black woman nominated to the high court, Jackson has the solid support of Democrats, who can confirm her without GOP support thanks to a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris, president of the Senate.
But this week may prove to be an uncomfortable ordeal for the nominee, since the Judiciary Committee has several Republicans who have presidential ambitions — giving them a prime opportunity to appeal to GOP voters.
“I think both parties would like to lower the temperature of the Supreme Court hearings, but there are several firebrands on the Republican side who are not likely to go along,” said Sarah Binder, a Brookings Institution scholar who tracks judicial nominations.
They include Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who said last week he found an “alarming pattern” in which Jackson favored lighter prison terms for those convicted of possessing child pornography. The proper level of punishment for such defendants has been much debated, and the issue came before the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where Jackson served for several years.
A White House spokesman described Hawley’s charge as an example of “toxic ... misinformation.”
Since Jackson graduated from Harvard Law School in 1996, she has worked steadily as a lawyer. She clerked for three judges, including at the Supreme Court, worked briefly at four law firms, served eight years as a U.S. district judge and one year as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
But the most cited aspect of her legal career is the two years she spent in the federal public defender’s office in Washington beginning in 2005. These attorneys represent persons charged with federal offenses, recently including many of those charged with assault at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection last year.
Progressives say her time there means she would bring a different perspective to the high court. Since Justice Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991, the court has not had a justice who had represented criminal defendants.
But Republicans pointed to the same service as evidence she may be unduly sympathetic to criminals.
“Liberals are saying that Judge Jackson’s service as a criminal defense lawyer and then on the U.S. Sentencing Commission give her special empathy for convicted criminals,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said last week. “I guess that means that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial at a disadvantage.”
Last year, during her hearing for the appeals court, Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questioned her about representing several detainees who were being held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., asked if she was concerned about putting “more violent criminals back on the streets.”
They are likely to raise these issues again this week.
A.J. Kramer, who has headed the public defender’s office in Washington for 30 years, said he assigned cases to the attorneys. He said he gave Jackson several of the Guantanamo cases because of her stellar legal background.
“When I looked at her resume, I thought she should be interviewing me, rather than me interviewing her,” he said.
The Bush administration had insisted the prisoners held at Guantanamo had no rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed and said they may file appeals to federal judges. But even so, the law was unclear and in flux.
On Monday, the 22 senators on the Judiciary Committee took turns delivering opening statements and then introduced Jackson to deliver her remarks.
The committee will begin questioning her Tuesday morning and continue through Wednesday. Thursday will be devoted to testimony from outside witnesses.
In recent years, Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominees have become fiercely partisan. All the committee’s Democrats opposed President Donald Trump’s three nominees, and at times, walked out of the room in protest.
Coney Barrett, confirmed in October 2020, was the first successful nominee in 150 years to win approval without a single vote from the opposition party.
The committee has not said when it will vote on Jackson’s nomination.
If it divides entirely along partisan lines, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., can introduce a motion to have her nomination sent to the Senate floor.
____
