0 stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review and yours is entitled "prevention versus punishment: towards a principled distinction in the restraint of released sex offenders." and in it you argue, and i quote, "a recent spate of legislation purports to regulate released sex offenders by requiring them to register with local law enforcement officials, notify community members of their presence, undergo dna testing and submit to civil commitment for an indefinite term. at many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who have already been sanctioned for their crimes. under existing doctrine the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially preventative rather than punitive." and what you go on to explain is if they're viewed as punitive they are unconstitutional, if they're viewed as preventative they are not. and throughout the course of your note you argue they should be viewed as punitive and therefore unconstitutional. indeed in the second to last page you go through each of those four categories. you say requirements that sex offenders register may or may not be unconstitutional depending upon whether "in which sex offenders have no privacy right in registration information or blood samples." so you suggest that may or may not be constitutional. you raise doubts about it. and then you raise very significant doubts about community notification. and you heavily suggest that civil commitment for sexual predators is unconstitutional. do you still agree with the sentiments you expressed in your law school note? >> respectfully, senator, those are not the sentiments that i expressed in my law school note. my law school note was about sex offender registration laws, which at the time were relatively new. as you know from our time in law school, one of the things that law school students do is they look for new developments in the law and they try to analyze them. that's something that makes for good fodder for a law school note. my note, which came out in 1996, was shortly after there were new megan's laws. and the point that i was making was not that the laws were bad, that the laws were wrong. i was trying to assess something that is sort of fundamental in terms of the characterization of the laws. i didn't say that they were unconstitutional one way or the other. what i was trying to assess was how they are characterized. some courts would look at those laws and call them preventative, and that has a certain set of consequences. some courts would call them punitive, and that has a certain set of consequences. and what i was trying to do is figure out how to make the determination whether they were punitive or preventative. >> well, your note argued that they were punitive. and i would note that that view, there had been some on the bench that have advocated that. the supreme court in 1997 decided a case called kansas versus hendricks in which it upheld kansas's civil commitment statute. that was a 5-4 vote. this has been a question that has been close at the supreme court. and i would note beyond that that in terms of the prevalence of these statutes all 50 states and d.c. have registry requirements. 47 states have community notification requirements. all 50 states have dna or blood banks for sex offenders requirements. and 20 of the states the federal government and d.c. have laws that allow for the indefinite detention of sex offenders. i would note in the state of texas a state court of appeals relying on very much the same sort of reasoning you advocated in your note struck down texas's sexually violent predator civil commitment law. at the time i was the solicitor general of texas. i personally argued that appeal in the texas supreme court. and the texas supreme court unanimously reversed the court of appeals and upheld our statute. and if the views you advocated in law school prevailed civil commitment laws across the country would be struck down, releasing sexual predators. and under the argument community notification and dna bank laws could well be struck down as well. is that -- is that an outcome that should concern people? >> senator, my note wasn't advocating for the striking down of those laws. my note was trying to identify criteria that i thought could be applied consistently to determine whether the laws were punitive or preventative. >> but with respect -- >> either -- >> you argued that they were punitive and you further say in the note and you further say if they're punitive they're unconstitutional. >> i was looking at four different kinds of laws, and not all of them did i say were punitive. >> okay. so let's take civil commitments laws. if you look at civil commitment laws right now, the ucla school of law williams institute estimates more than 6,300 sex offenders are currently detained in civil commitment programs. if the view you advocated prevailed, presumably those 6,300 sex offenders would be released to the public. is that an outcome that should be concerning? >> senator, in law school when i was writing a note i was looking at a brand new set of laws that had not previously been enacted in any jurisdiction. they were new. and i was assessing at the time as law school students do what criteria i thought might be used by courts to make a determination in the future as to whether or not they should be treated as punitive and therefore not unconstitutional but as therefore ones that carry with them certain rights versus -- excuse me. preventative. those -- >> okay, judge jackson. so you've pointed that these reviews in law school -- and listen, i will recognize that all of us when we were students may have views that as time and maturity passes on we may change. but what troubles me was this was not just a law school view. it's one that has continued. so when you were vice chairman of the sentencing commission you expressed significant concerns that the white house has argued that your quotes were taken out of context. so i want to provide the full context of your quote because you said, "yes, i want to ask you about the means by which we can distinguish more or less serious offenders. i know that all of you sort of touched on that. mr. fitrell, you talked about going from singular to one on one to group experience. i'm just wondering if there's some sort of inevitable and natural progression from one stage to the other such that you could say that the least serious offenders are in the singular experience stage. i guess my thought is in looking at some of the testimony that other people will have later in the day i was surprised at some of the testimony with respect to the motivation of offenders, and we're talking about child pornography offenders, and that there are people who get involved with this kind of activity who may not be pedophiles and who may not be interested necessarily in the child pornography but have other motivations with respect to the use of technology and being in the group and, you know, here are lots of reasons why people might engage in this. so i'm wondering whether you could say that there is a -- that there could be a less serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge or to use the technology, they're very sophisticated technologically but they aren't necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it." now, i find that a pretty remarkable argument that people in possession of child pornography are not actually interested in the child porn, they're not pedophiles, they're just interested in technology. is that -- and i want to provide the whole quote because the white house said that portions of this were used out of context. so this is your entire quote. do you agree with that sentiment, that there is some meaningful population of people who have child pornography but are not in fact pedophiles or getting -- getting satisfaction from it? >> thank you, senator, for allowing me to address what aappears to be a question that i was asking in the context of a hearing on child pornography. you've provided the entire quote, and it looks as though i was asking that of someone, not taking that position. and the position that i've taken in all of my sentencings involving child pornography offenders is to ensure that despite the attitude and view of many of the offenders who came before me when i was a trial judge that they were just lookers, that they weren't really harming anyone, that they were curating their collections and they never touched a child, i made sure that they understood that notwithstanding their collecting behavior that they were causing significant harm. >> so judge jackson, all right, you raise your actual sentencing, and i think that's very productive. let's take a look at your actual sentencing. and you've had ten different cases involving child pornography. these are the cases. there are two, u.s. versus butry and u.s. versus cann for which the government did not make a recommendation. you said earlier when chairman durbin was trying to pre-empt this line of attack, you said it's a sickening and egregious crime, which i very much agree with. and you said the guidelines lean to extreme departures. let's look at what the prosecutors are asking for. i would know this was in the district of columbia where prosecutors are far more liberal than many of the prosecutors in this country. and in every case in which -- united states versus hess there was i amandatory statutory minimum of 60 months and you imposed 60 months because you had no discretion. in united states versus nickerson there was a mutual agreement of the parties to 120 months and that's what you imposed. in every other case, united states versus chasen, the prosecutor asked for 78 to 97 months. you imposed 28 months. 28 months is a 64% reduction. in united states versus cooper the prosecutor asked for 72 months. you imposed 60 months. that was a 17% reduction. in united states versus downs the prosecutor asked for 70 months. you imposed 60. that was a 14% reduction. in united states versus hawkins the prosecutor asked for 24 months. you imposed 3 months. that was an 88% reduction. in united states versus savage the prosecutor asked for 49 months. you imposed 37. that was a 24% reduction. and in united states versus stewart the prosecutor asked for 97 months. you imposed 57. that was a 41% reduction. every single case, 100% of them when prosecutors came before you with child pornography cases you sentenced the defenders to substantially below not just the guidelines, which are way higher, but what the prosecutor asked for on average of these cases 47.2% less. now, you said you made sure the voice of the children was heard. do you believe in a case like united states versus hawkins where the prosecutor asked for 24 months and you sentenced the offender to only 3 months, do you believe the voice of the children is heard when 100% of the time you're sentencing child -- those in possession of child pornography to far below what the prosecutor's asking for? >> yes, senator, i do. >> could you explain how? >> i will. a couple of observations. one is that your chart does not include all of the factors that congress has told judges to consider including the probation office's recommendation in these cases. >> well, judge, we don't have those -- the committee has not been given the probation officer's recommendation. we would welcome them. mr. chairman, i would love to see those -- >> the second thing i would say is that i take these cases very seriously as a mother, as someone who as a judge has to review the actual evidence in these cases and based upon congress's requirement take into account not only the sentencing guidelines, not only the recommendations of the parties but also things like the stories of the victims, also things like the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. congress is the body that tells sentencing judges what they're supposed to look at. and congress has said that a judge is not playing a numbers game. the judge is looking at all of these different factors and making a determination in every case based on a number of different considerations. and in every case i did my duty to hold the defendants accountable in light of the evidence and the information that was presented to me. >> in 100% of the cases was the evidence less than the prosecutors asked for? >> senator, the evidence in these cases are egregious. the evidence in these cases are among the worst that i have seen. and yet as congress directs, judges don't just calculate the guidelines and stop. judges have to take into account the personal circumstances of the defendant because that's a requirement of congress. judges have to consider things like the victims. and when i was talking about making sure that victims' circumstances are heard, it was about my sentencing practices, that i -- >> victims being heard, with respect. thank you, mr. chairman. >> in 2012 the sentencing commission on a unanimous bipartisan basis issued a report recommending changes to sentencing for non-production child pornography, which is the subject at hand. offenses because of widespread concern among judges and other stakeholders, for example. 70% of surveyed judges said the guideline ranges for possession offenses were too high. 71% said the mandatory minimums were too high. notably, the report was supported by every member of the commission. i believe the question which the senator was texas was referring to was part of the proceedings that led to that commission report. unanimous bipartisan basis commission report. >> mr. chairman, very briefly i would ask unanimous consent that the books i referenced be entered into the record. ? without objection. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman. ranking member grassley. judge jackson, good to be with you. >> good to be with you, senator. >> i'd like to take a few minutes, if i could, and just give you a chance to address some of the issues just raised. my colleague suggested that you've never sentenced a defendant in a child pornography case consistent with what the government requested, what the prosecution requested. but according to my staff's research, that's just not true. so let me briefly ask you about three specific sentencing cases. do you remember u.s. v. nickerson? you sented charles nickerson jr. to ten years in prison. exactly what the government requested. >> i do, senator. >> do you remember u.s. v. fife? you sentenced him to 20 years in prison. exactly what the government requested. >> i do, senator. >> and do you recall u.s. v.negin. you sentenced him to 37 months in prison. exactly what the prosecution requested. >> i do, senator. >> so in these three cases it's also true that the government, the prosecution requested below guidelines sentences. would that seem surprising to you at all? >> it would not. >> and is that because overwhelmingly nationwide in 70% of cases and in your district 80% of cases downward departures from the guidelines are the norm? >> that is correct, senator. >> so to the extent there seems to be some concerted effort to try and characterize you as being soft on crime or somehow unconcerned about child safety, i just want to take another moment and give you a chance to respond to that. as a parent, as the member of a family that's had several members who've served your brother, your uncles in law enforcement. could you share a bit about how having loved ones who serve as law enforcement officers, in one case a detective on a sex crimes unit, has had an impact on your sense of the balance of justice and mercy in the case of ensuring that we hold to account those who commit crimes against children? >> thank you, senator. as a mother these cases involving sex crimes against children are harrowing. what i think is important to understand is that trial judges who have to deal with these cases are presented with the evidence. or descriptions, graphic descriptions. these are the cases that wake you up at night. because you're seeing the worst of humanity. when there are victim statements that are presented, when people talk about how their lives have been destroyed as children, how the people who they trusted to take care of them were abusing them in this way, and then putting the pictures on the internet for everyone to see, i sometimes still have nightmares about the main witness, the woman i mentioned earlier who cannot leave her house because of this kind of fear. the vulnerability. the isolation. these crimes are horrible. and so i take them very seriously just as i did all of the crimes, but especially crimes against children. >> so your honor, if i could, the characterization that was just presented, in a recent column in the "national review," a conservative publication, has characterized that view of you as a smear that appears meritless to the point of demagoguery and characterizes your approach in sentencing in these cases as mainstream and correct. and i'll just remind my colleagues and those watching that two of the largest, most substantial law enforcement advocacy organizations in our country, the national fraternal order of police and the international association of chiefs of police have spoken up in support of your qualifications and your capabilities. the f.o.p. letter says there's little doubt you have the temperament, intellect, legal experience and family background to have earned this appointment. that sentiment was echoed by the iacp. in their letter they said you believe you have a deep understanding of and appreciation for the challenges and complexities confronting the policing profession and you have during your time as a judge displayed your dedication to ensuring our communities are safe and that the interests of justice are served. i find it hard to believe that these organizations having looked closely at your judicial decisioning record, your sentencing decisions, your lifetime conduct, would have taken those unusual steps to be that forceful in supporting you if in fact you had somehow a disturbing record of coddling child pornographers or being soft on crime. in fact, judge, your record in my view demonstrates you're an evenhanded and impartial judge, and i can see that when i look at cases you've ruled on that involve very politically charged or partisan interests. you've delivered rulings on both sides for plaintiffs and defendants, and in my review of your record you've put any personal views or concerns aside. you've based your decisions on the argument of the parties, the facts in the record, the applicable law and precedent, and the well-reasoned and thorough opinions you've written show to me a judge striving to make evenhanded decisions based on facts and law, not on some caricature of a leftist agenda. but don't just take my word for it. we've received an outpouring of support for your nomination, as we'll hear on thursday. a very wide range of groups and individuals have sent letters or testimony to this committee in support of your nomination. it's no surprise to me that your legal mind, your experience, your temperament inspires strong support from some of the best and brightest of our legal community. and i think it is worth highlighting that among those many that have written to us are included well-respected conservative and republican lawyers and republican-appointed judges who agree with my characterization that you're an evenhanded and impartial judge. we've received a letter from 24 conservative lawyers who held positions in republican administrations or are well known for their conservative political or legal views who wrote this committee to urge your speedy confirmation. they praised your character and intellect and called you, and i quote, a truly excellent person. i'd like to focus, though, on the way these conservative lawyers characterized your judicial decision-making, which is after all the core issue before us, is whether you are the sort of judge at the district court and circuit court that should be elevated to the supreme court. and they note in this letter that in nearly ten years on the bench as a district judge and on the court of appeals judge jackson has been involved in thousands of cases, running the full range of federal law. there are approximately 500 -- i think it's 570 now opinions written during this time, and i'm quoting, "demonstrated complete command of the legal subject matter. a judicious and evenhanded approach. a fine ability to express yourself with force and great clarity." they've also demonstrated, and i'm quoting, "another attribute essential for a judge, a sense of empathy for the situations of others." judicious and evenhanded. these prominent conservative lawyers want this committee to know you're judicious and even-handed and recommend you for the supreme court without reservation. despite having noted they differ with you concerning some political or partisan issues. and they're not alone. judge griffith in a letter to this committee and then followed up with personal testimony in your introduction yesterday, a judge appointed by former president george w. bush, enthusiastically supports your nomination. i was struck by his description of your intellectual capacity, your keen legal mind, as well as your character and judicial approach. and now i'm quoting from his testimony to this committee yesterday. judge jackson, he told us, is an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and the law, not as a partisan. he went on. "as justice scalia taught us, an indispensable feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judges who've taken an oath not to a president or a party but to the american people and to god that they will be impartial." and he concluded that you, judge jackson, have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to that oath. that's a conservative judge appointed by a republican president who told this committee he's confident you'll decide cases based on the facts and the law. not as a partisan. now, i value the working relationships i have with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we can and do at times have fierce policy disagreements. but we also work together to try and find ways as lawmakers and individuals to respect each other. and i take it as a personal sort of badge or source of pride when someone with whom i really disagree on one issue is able to legislate with me on another. and so i imagine, your honor, it must be gratifying to know that a judge who literally sat in judgment of, reviewed dozens and dozens of your opinions, in fact, i think he reversed you once. >> oh, more than. more than. >> here is someone who closely read and reviewed your decisions and as a circuit judge sat in review of your work over years as a district -- hundreds of opinions as a district court judge and has such unequivocal praise for the evenhanded, impartial, thorough and non-partisan way you've approached judicial decision-making. could you just briefly share with me what it means to you to hear that someone like judge griffith has such confidence you would make an excellent member of our highest court? >> thank you, senator. it means the world to me to have the support of judge griffith. his coming here yesterday and testifying on my behalf was so gratifying. i have tried in every respect to follow my methodology that enables me to rule impartially in every case and to understand the limits of my own judicial authority and thereby reach decisions without fear or favor. my record demonstrates that i am not proceeding from any sort of preconceived notion about how a case comes out, i'm not ruling consistent with any sort of ideology, i'm doing what impartial and fair judges do, which is to decide in every case based only on the facts and the law of that case. and i'm very, very pleased that judge griffith has seen that in the years that he supervised me effectively as a court of appeals judge when i was a district judge, and i think it's wonderful that he was able to come here and testify to that. >> well, judge, for those watching and for those following this they might be puzzled because my colleague, the junior senator from the state of texas, has tried to ascribe all sorts of views to you in his recent questioning that try to paint you as some kind of an activist with a radical agenda. and in my review of your experience and your record these letters from judges and scholars, i don't see anything that remotely substantiates that claim. we are here to evaluate your qualifications, your judicial decision-making. so let me get at a few of these points specifically, if i could. i've heard references to the 1619 project and critical race theory. but i didn't hear that cited in any reference to your opinions as a jung. in your nine years on the bench as a district court judge, more than 570 decisions, have you ever cited the 1619 project? >> no, senator. >> in your nine years on the bench and more than 570 opinions have you ever cited the journalist or principal author of that 1619 project, miss hannah-jones? >> i have not p. >> and in your nine years on the bench and 570 decisions have you ever used, employed, relied upon critical race theory to determine the outcome of any case or to impose any sentence or as a framework for your decision-making? >> no, senator. >> would you just explain to us briefly what sort of factors you do in fact consider in your analysis? >> senator, when i analyze a case, i am looking at the arguments that the parties raise in the case. i'm looking at the record, which is the facts of the case developed, if i'm on the court of appeals developed below. and i'm looking at the law. i'm looking at any statutes. i'm hewing to the text. i'm looking at the constitutional provisions to the extent they are applicable. and any precedent related to the case at issue. those are the inputs that are appropriate for a judge to consider. and those are the only things that i use in my decision-making. >> well, i appreciate your laying that out. and i'll just -- let me dig into two cases if i can that i think are also probative here because i agree with the wide range of supporters we've heard from that you've demonstrated an even and impartial judicial approach in your record. but this is true not just in the hundreds of sort of run-of-the-mill quotidian cases that are considered by a district court judge but in several that have been highly charged and really quite political in terms of their consequences. i'd like to discuss your opinion in the center for biological diversity versus mclenan. do you recall that case? >> i do, senator. >> it was a dispute between groups advocating for environmental protection and the trump administration's department of homeland security. the dispute was about president trump's efforts to quickly construct a physical border wall between the united states and mexico. i'm sure i don't need to remind you or anyone here that at the time democrats were just about unanimous in thinking that physically building a wall from coast to coast was not the wisest use of resources to secure the border, there were other ways to do it. and with republicans pretty much unanimously willing to defend it. so it was a policy matter with some sharp divisions and some political consequences. you ultimately ruled in favor of the construction of the wall and against an attempt by environmental groups to halt its construction through legal case -- through a legal case. can you discuss what you recall just briefly of the claims presented and how you came to a decision in favor of the trump administration? >> senator, the claims in that case, which as you say were brought by an environmental organization, related to the administrative procedures act, which is something that we often see in the district of columbia, and whether or not the agency could waive certain environmental laws per tairning to the construction of the wall, whether or not the agency's determination to do so was lawful. and i looked at the relevant circumstances and i ended up i believe dismissing that case on threshold grounds before getting to that point in the analysis, but consistent with what you said, i was guided by my understanding of the law and what it required. and not by anything else. >> i could spend a lot of time on the details of this case. but let me try and summarize it this way. you analyzed the statute. you concluded congress had clearly blocked the courts from hearing non-constitutional challenges. there was no jurisdictional bar to the constitutional claims to decide them. you considered whether the plaintiff's claims were viable. you looked for precedent. you found one. while not controlling, you thought it was legally sound and persuasive. but there was no controlling circuit court or supreme court precedent that stopped you. if you were in fact an activist judge, a motivated partisan determined to let these plaintiff environmental groups proceed, you certainly could have. there was no clear precedent that barred that from happening. you analyzed the statute. you applied the best precedent you could find. and you reached a result. without regard to the political consequences. >> that is correct, senator. >> so in my view, i wanted to talk about this case because there's really nothing unusual or special about it from your perspective. >> that is correct. >> for those of us up here there was a lot special and important about it. it was a highly charged partisan and political issue. but you looked at the statute, you found persuasive precedent, you applied it, you went on to the next case. let me ask about another decision. in a case addressing another very politically charged issue. and specifically this involves the e-mails of former secretary of state hillary clinton. now, the republican national committee, or the rnc, is opposing your nomination, publicly accusing you of being a partisan, of a partisan democrat. they argue you could not possibly be an impartial justice. but ironically, back in 2016 you presided over a case brought by the rnc against u.s.a.i.d. related to then presidential candidate clinton and you ruled in favor of the rnc. both the substance and the timing of the case are really quite striking. >> i did. >> the rnc made freedom of information act requests for certain e-mails involving the former secretary. and despite what the rnc would have us now believe, in this case you reinforced your deserved reputation for following the law, not a partisan agenda, because you ordered u.s.a.i.d. to produce thousands of pages of documents related to secretary clinton. do you recall when you issued that decision, that order? >> i actually don't. >> well, i'll tell you, it was just before the presidential conventions. so if there was a moment when the rnc had a political objective, it was right before the convention. and you actually issued a ruling that they were entitled to e-mail production from the u.s.a.i.d. on the basis of legal arguments presented to you, the statute at issue, and the evidence. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> well, your honor, i'm frankly really struck at the fact that for all the back and forth in senate hearings and academic circles about the judicial philosophy of supreme court nominees you've shown what the experience of nearly a decade overwhelmingly spent on the district court has produced. a methodology, an approach that looks at the constitution, the statute, the facts, the arguments of the parties and reaches a result. without fear of favor, without taking into account the partisan issue at stake. now, i don't believe that a judicial philosophy is always all that meaningful. the judge for whom i clerked on the 3rd circuit had spent years as a district court judge, and when i asked her, you know, what's your judicial philosophy, she looked at me and said, "i just call balls and strikes. i'm a judge who rules on the case before me in exactly the same frame that you offered." a judicial philosophy does not in and of itself constrain a judge. what constrains a judge is a judge who is willing to be constrained, who understands that the role of the federal judiciary is a limited one. so the real question i think a president should consider when they make a nomination, the question that we as senators need the answer to in order to perform our function of advice and consent, and the question that i think resonates best with the american people who are concerned about this hearing and this nomination and how it will impact the country and their lives is sort of what kind of justice will you be. we want to know if you'll be fair. we want to know if you'll be faithful to the constitution and to the rule of law. you've been a judge almost ten years and you've written more than 570 opinions. i'd say your record as a judge is the best answer to the question what kind of justice you will be. how would you say, your honor, that your approach to judging on the district court relates to the way you are now judging on the circuit court, and what approach do you think you will bring with you if confirmed to the supreme court? >> thank you, senator. my approach all the way through is one i believe is required by my duties, by my oath as a judge. re rule without fear or favor. we are independent as judges m our responsibilities. we understand at the district court level, at the court of appeals level, and at the supreme court that judges are restrained, are constrained in the exercise of our power under our constitutional scheme. my methodology is designed to help me to make decisions within those confines at every level. it's no different now that i'm on the court of appeals than when i was on the district court with respect to my understanding of the constraints on my authority and my responsibility to be impartial in my rulings. and i think it would be no different at the supreme court. >> well, your honor, i know we've walked through just a few cases today now. in some ways we've only scratched the surface of your decade and the more than 570 opinions you've written. but it's clear to me from what i've reviewed and from just this sample that as we also heard from colleagues, from conservative lawyers, from judges who wrote to the committee, that you are judicious and evenhanded, that you have a demonstrated record of excellence, that you adjudicate based on the facts and the law and not as an advocate activist or partisan. and i encourage my colleagues who want to know what kind of a justice you'll be to take a fair and evenhanded look at your record, at your impartiality and at your methodology. your experience is extensive and broad. your commitment to follow the law impartially and without the influence of politics is evident in your record. your keen legal mind, judicial temperament and impeccable character are plain to all. as judge griffith told this committee and a review of your record makes clear, you've demonstrated that the way you approach cases is based on the law and not on some political agenda. you understand the reason why the robes of our federal judges are black, not red or blue. the american justice system, as many have said, is rooted in the impartiality, the independence and the reliability of our federal judicial system. it is one of the most critical bulwarks of our system of ordered liberty. no wonder that when you came before this body to be confirmed for the district court and the circuit court you earned and received bipartisan support. i know president biden counts nominating a supreme court justice among the most significant decisions of his presidency, and our role here in the senate in confirming a justice to our highest court is among our most solemn obligations and greatest privileges. so in nominating you i believe our president has met his mission and it will be my honor to join i hope the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in supporting your confirmation as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, senator coons. last week the committee received a letter, judge, from the national coalition against domestic violence, representing survivors of domestic violence, urging the senate to swiftly confirm you to the supreme court. the committee also received a letter about your nomination from nine separate organizations representing both survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. the letter said, and i quote, "judge jackson's highly qualified for the position as her career and record demonstrate. her historic confirmation as the supreme court's first black woman and the sixth woman overall will represent monumental progress toward a nation that is charged to serve and that values all of its citizens equally." the organizations also noted, "judge jackson's rulings reflect the judicial consensus. i move to enter these letters into the record. without objection they will be. senator sasse, you're next up, but we're on the cusp of a vote. so i want to be fair to you. we're going to take a break at this point. i'm going to hope -- >> i thought we were taking a break and going to go vote. but if you want me to go first, i'm good. >> no, i think we ought to go over there and pray it comes along and can return quickly. so why don't we declare this break time for 20 minutes? 4:05 back in the room. >> you've been watching msnbc's special coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing for ketanji brown jackson, who has now faced nearly seven hours of questions and they're only halfway through the 22 senators on the judiciary committee. we're going to continue that coverage in just a moment. but first, let's go to hallie jackson for the latest on ukraine. hi, hallie. >> hi, chris. thank you etch. in just a couple minutes we xwp to hear from pentagon press secretary john kirby, who will be giving reporters an update on the crisis in ukraine. it comes as nbc news is reporting president biden could announce plans soon to permanently keep u.s. troops in nato countries near ukraine. that's according to four people familiar with the talks. it's expected that that announcement could come possibly this week as president biden heads overseas. a senior u.s. defense official is telling us the ukrainian military is trying to take back territory that is under russian control now and that russia's combat power is falling, dipping below 90% of the troops they initially amassed at the border. we're also told some russian soldiers are getting frostbite because they don't have the right kind of cold weather gear. i want to bring in jacob soboroff who's in lviv, ukraine. jacob, i know you've been hearing air raid sirens even in the last couple hours. tell us more. >> reporter: just a couple minutes ago we got the all clear signal for the fifth air raid siren over the course of the day today from the last 14 hours. there were five yesterday as well. that's ten over the course of the last two days. and things are relatively calm here, actually, believe it or not in the western part of ukraine. but it is just a sign and president zelenskyy says it himself, of things to come. earlier today or last night he held up his phone and said we're going to hear more air raid sirens like this in the time to come. president biden warned of tough times ahead given the stalled russian offensive here saying there could be chemical or biological weapons. it's something i heard myself from one of the young people that developed the app to alert people of potential incoming air fair here. he said they're going to update that app to warn not just of incoing air raids but chemical or biological attacks as well. >> jacob soboroff, live in lviv, ukraine for us. jacob, thank you so much. appreciate you being with us. i want to take it back now to chris jansing who's got the latest on what we have just heard, we've been listening to all day on msnbc, and that is of course the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. chris? >> it up, hallie. yes. since 9:00 this morning 11 senators have now questioned the judge. let's talk about it. joining us now msnbc chief legal correspondent and anchor of "the beat," ari melber. joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and current university of alabama law professor. she's also an msnbc legal analyst. georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor paul butler, who is also an msnbc legal analyst. and msnbc host symone sanders, former chief spokesperson for vice president kamala harris. welcome all of you. so paul, the overarching theme from ted cruz was critical race theory. he questioned judge jackson's daughter's school, its curriculum, including books that she said she hadn't even seen. let me play part of that exchange. >> are you comfortable with these ideas being taught to children as young as 4 and in respect to the first book, as young as 8 and 9 in respect to the second book? >> senator, i have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas. they don't come up in my work as a judge, which i am respectfully here to address. >> but paul, outside groups were already on this theme. the rnc had texted out the judge's initials, kbj, crossed them out and replaced them with crt, of course critical race theory. what do you see is the point here, paul? >> i see the point as the midterm elections. this is a campaign issue to help republicans win, scaring people about critical race theory has been a powerful way for right-wing conservatives to raise money. but critical race theory has nothing to do with judge jackson's work on the bench. senator cruz brought up the 1619 project, which is a prize-winning project by the "new york times" about the ways that race has been left out of too many discussions of american history. but chris, judges don't decide cases based on newspaper articles. judge jackson said her judicial rulings are based on the facts of the case, the arguments both sides present, and what the law says. and that's why she has an excellent record as a judge and why her decisions have rarely been overturned. and especially when you look at her decisions that uphold the power of prosecutors and police or the case senator coons mentioned where she decided in favor of the republican national convention, when you look at her actual record, the claim that judge jackson is a critical race theorist is nothing more than a right-wing fantasy. >> and ari, senator cruz followed up with what has been another theme today. cruz saying judge jackson has a record as an activist and for advocacy where it concerns sexual predators. she quickly responded. and this was regarding a law school note that he -- she said he took it out of context. but this is part of this larger theme of trying to make the case that she and democrats are soft on crime. has it been working today? >> well, i don't think it's worked in terms of moving a vote here in the hearing room. but if this has been a slow burn, we saw the fireworks finally hit with senator cruz. you know, he began his entire presentation by saying oh, they were actually only a year apart at harvard law school, a great school for both of entire presn saying they were a year apart and he said they've always been cordial then proceeded to grill her on all these things. it is a confirmation hearing. he can pose tough questions. i don't think he landed a glove because the market he was making is that somehow her legal analysis in that written form or speech she gave or other things that were really outside the courtroom somehow biases her. the problem with that is well, that can be a piece of evidence, you would want to land it with a sitting judge. a word about this issue with the sentencing which we may hear more from in the coming senators because senator holly's promised it. many other judges including republican appointees, have similar sentencing histories and have gotten votes from these same republicans. whatever the merits of this issue and people can debate individual case sentencing for sure, there's never been a record of this being a disqualification. on the educational stuff, i think it sounds more like midterm campaign strategy than something that would go to the courts. anytime you have a senator, i don't care what party they're in. bringing up children's book drawings and talking about whether babies are racist or not, you might have lost the thread of a substantive review of the judge's record. so it felt like senator cruz was knowingly reaching beyond the judicial record, beyond the room we're watching here, and kind of out to messaging around the country. whether that is annoying or not is up to individual observers. whether it's good news for judge jackson as a legal reporter, i would say yes because the more he reaches beyond the room, the less he's trying to move votes in the room. >> and she was able to respond with the facts. she was able to respond with what she actually did and why. but i want to ask you, joyce, about the value of being for lack of a better word, real. of a nominee, not just showing intellectual prowess, disposition, command of the law all important, but humanity. it to play what judge jackson said about accusations that she's soft on sex predators. >> as a mother, these cases involving sex crimes against children are harrowing, but i think it's important to understand is that trial judges who have to deal with these cases are presented with the evidence. or descriptions, graphic descriptions. these are the cases that wake you up at night because you're seeing the worst of humanity. these crimes are horrible. and so i take them very seriously just as i did all of the crimes, but especially crimes against children. >> joyce, your thoughts. >> i think she hits absolutely the sweet spot for having this conversation about child pornography sentencing law, which i'll tell you as a prosecutor who has both handled these cases, prosecuting them in the district court and handling them in courts of appeal, these are difficult. they're not made for television. easy sorts of conversations. this is a problem that's been brewing in the federal judiciary for at least ten or 15 years because what's happened in reality here is that laws that were written at a point in time where child pornography was proliferated or trafficked through the mails in print media like magazines, it's now being applied in the context of the internet where anybody who can download something is in possession of child pornography where many judges think, where as a former prosecutor, i disagree, but many judging believe that the sentencing is too strong for people who are in possession without trafficking it in the sense that trafficking or production was meant at the time the laws were written. so she's got the difficulty of making this very nuanced argument in a limited period of time. but she does it very effectively by expressing how profoundly these cases impacted her. every prosecutor knows they're impactful, troubling, they stay with you for years and decades afterwards and a big part of her job today is to not lose any democratic votes. to not do anything that might cause a democratic senator to have second, to take a second look. what she did here was drill and hit that sweet spot of convincing people that she is a jurist who decides cases, who calls the balls and the strikes and who is worthy of that seat on the supreme court. >> to the point of getting votes and she's expected to get all the democrats, studies show that women face a higher bar. the studies don't even take into consideration women of color because there have been so few. obviously none at this level. so today, black women leaders, groups like black women's round table, she will rise, they're hosting virtual watch parties because yes, this is an historic moment, but judge jackson also faces a time that is at the intersection of racism and sexism and intense political divisions. talk about that. in the context of today's questioning and what you heard. >> well, chris, i think the most, the thing i've taken away a lot from this testimony today, but i think the visual image of judge jackson sitting there answering questions, defending her record. her calm and in control demeanor really speaks volumes. i've seen online today screen shots from the hearing, folks saying everyone knows this face. that she has made throughout the hearing. but i think the reality is this. that judge jackson is probably the most qualified person to have ever been nominated to sit on the supreme court. and unfortunately, what we are seeing today is not the norm. i say that in in that a black woman, a woman of color sitting before the united states senate judiciary committee answering questions about her record to sit on the highest court of the land. she is the first. hopefully not the last. the advocacy you've seen from folks across the country from she will rise to the black women's round table, the national women's law center has been engaged on this as well. all kinds of groups. union groups have organized around this as well. is key, i think, to sering into the mind of people across the country that that is not just a fleeting moment. i think folks have been keen to elevate this amidst everything that is happening. a war in ukraine. domestic strife on a number of things from inflation to gas prices. this is a historic moment and this moment is not fleeting and it needs the attention and i think we're giving it that today. >> paul, we only have maybe 30 seconds left, but i want to look ahead and ask you what you're watching for particularly given the fact that two senators have gotten a lot of attention. josh holly, tom cotton are still to question the judge later today. >> i'm listening for her to say not a whole lot substantively, but to not to say a whole lot very eloquently. she's going by the nominee playbook, which means she's trying to sound like she's answering the question, but not saying anything really substantive. there was a great moment when she gave a great non-answer and klobuchar said that's how amy coney barrett answered that question. that's how you get to be confirmed to be a supreme court justice. >> we're going to take a quick break here and the hearing will return shortly. deadline white house picks up our coverage of the confirmation hearing for kandji brown jackson right after this. hearing for kandji brown jackson right after this throughout history i've observed markets shaped by the intentional and unforeseeable. for investors who can navigate this landscape, leveraging gold, a strategic and sustainable asset... the path is gilded with the potential for rich returns. it is 4:00 in new york. i'm alex wagner. we have been following the confirmation hearing for ketanji brown jackson. the hearing is currently in a short break and we'll be back in