and interpret the law, understand what the law is. while understanding that the idea of what the law should be is left to other branches of government, not to the judiciary. in this respect, we recognize that blind justice and blind b justices, those who are blind to the things they are supposed to be blind to, or those willing to recognize that if there is a policy flaw in the law and if there is a policy change that needs to be made, it s not the role of the court to change it. that belongs to two different branches of government, primarily to congress. this of course requires judicial restraint, it requires judicial humility, and it gets back to what i was describing yesterday when i referred to justice barrett drawing on the analogy from the odyssey binding himself to the mast of the ship. we refer to this as textualism,
which alexander hamilton refers to the difference between law, between will and judgment. will is expressed by hamilton refers to what the law should be. judgment pertains to what the law is. judicial branch has the latter power but not the former, legislative branch has the former but not the latter. judge jackson, i would love to get your thoughts on this discussion about what it means, what blind justice is, why that s important. let s start with this formulation of it, though. does the law determine the outcome of a case or does the outcome of a case determine the law? thank you, senator. the law determines the outcome of case. so any time you are looking at a case and the outcomes for ordinary american, day-to-day americans, looking beyond the scope of deciding that case and
textualism. textualism is neither liberal nor conservative. it s neither republican nor democratic. it s just the approach that says what the law says matters and the job of the jurist is to look at the text and figure out what the text means. to ascertain the original public meaning of the text in question. while i doubt there are any members of this committee who would disagree with the idea that justice should be blind in this respect, and that policy changes need to be made by the political branches of government, primarily by the legislative branch and not by the courts, we did hear some statements that i think are at least a little bit at odds with that concept of justice. one of my colleagues mentioned that you should interpret the constitution in a way that works for the people of today. fair enough. certainly don t want to interpret the constitution in a way that doesn t work. again, that s not the objective. the object sieve not to
and judgment. will is expressed by hamilton refers to what the law should be. judgment pertains to what the law is. the judicial branch has the latter power but not the former. the legislative branch has the former but not the latter. judge jackson, i d love to get your thoughts on this discussion about what it means will of 46 what blind justice is, why that is important. let s start with this formulation of this though. does the law determine the outcome of a case or does the outcome of the case determine the law? thank you, senator. the law determines the outcome of the case. and so anytime that you are looking at a case, and you are looking at the outcomes for ordinary americans, for day to day americans, if you are looking beyond the scope of deciding that case and if you are looking even within that case, beyond what the law says,
between will and judgment. will is expressed by hamilton refers to what the law should be. judgment pertains to what the law is. the judicial branch has the latter power, but not the former. the legislative branch has the former, but not the latter. judge jackson, i d love it get your thoughts on this discussion about what it means what blind justice is, why that s important. let s start with this formulation of it, though. does the law determine the outcome of a case, or does the outcome of the case determine the law? thank you, senator. the law determines the outcome of the case. and so any time you are looking at a case and you are looking at the outcomes for ordinary americans, for day-to-day americans, if you are looking beyond the scope of deciding that case and if you are looking even within that