victims. senator, sentencing is a discretionary act of a judge, but it s not a numbers game. reporter: jackson also took heat for representing terrorism suspects detained at guantanamo bay. why in the world would you call secretary of defense rumsfeld and george w. bush war criminals in a filing? it seems so out of character for you? scepter, i don t remember that particular reference in i was representing my clients in making arguments. reporter: democratic chairman dick durbin later provided context noting the filing was a procedural one against u.s. officials making claim on behalf of detainees. jackson noting she had a duty to defend them. federal public defenders don t get to pick their clients. they have to represent whoever
judge i only have a limited amount of time so let me just close on one other question. forgive me for interrupting you, but there is such a thing is that judicial filibuster too. sorry house trying to get to the point. let me just ask you i don t know you well but i ve been impressed by our interaction and you ve been gracious and charming. why in the world would you call secretary of defense rumsfeld and george w. bush war criminals in a legal filing? it seems so out of character for you? senator are you talking about the heaviest petitions that i filed? i m talking about when you are representing a member of the taliban and the department of defense identified him as an intelligence officer for the taliban and you referred to the secretary of defense and the sitting president of the united states as war criminals. why would he do something like that?
quote, sufficient but not greater than necessary. to promote the purposes of punishment. reporter: those guidelines she says are out of date as they suggest tougher sentences based on the number of photographs received in the mail. and that made total sense before when we didn t have the internet. when we didn t have distribution. but the way that the guideline is now structured based on that set of circumstances is leading to extreme disparities in the system. reporter: today was the first chance lawmakers had to question jackson with a big focus on her previous representation of guantanamo bay detainees. federal public defenders don t get to pick their clients. they have to represent whoever comes in, and it s a service. why in the world would you call secretary of defense rumsfeld and george w. bush war criminals in a legal filing? well, senator, i don t
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right, and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area w
0 of marriage, correct? i am aware there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity about state marriage laws, it will inevitably set in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts i as people raise issues and so, i m limited in what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide in the future. i m asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decided something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious believes, doesn t that effec