thank you very much. we now recognize senator lee. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you judge jackson for being here. i want to talk today about some things that you heard about yesterday. there was a lot of talk from members of this committee about judicial philosophy. i want to talk a little bit about what that means and why it is important. we ll start with what it means at least to me. one the this inks that you heard from a lot of members of the committee, whether they couched it in terms of judicial philosophy or not, relates to the idea that justice should be blind, that justice properly administered within our system is blind. and that therefore individual justices and judges serving in article 3 courts should be blind in the sense that they are able to see and understand and interpret the law, understand what the law is, while
her general answer is that she doesn t have a philosophy, she has a methodology. that she is careful. that her opinions are very often long winded, that she wants people to know what her thought process was as she went through the process of coming to a conclusion. but people who want to be justices these days do not give a philosophy. judge bjork gave a philosophy and did not get confirmed. didn t work out so well. it is a very, very dang russ proposition for her to do that. she s been confirmed multiple times, she knows the dangers of that. and they know that they re not going to get an answer. at some point, poppy this just becomes kind of a kabuki dance here. they ask her the questions, they know she s not going to answer them, they cherry pick the writings at marsha blackburn did yesterday, she s going to
statement, we heard a lot about the importance of judicial philosophy. in your own words you have described that so you don t have to go through that again with me. but if congress writes a law that does not explicitly allow private parties to sue, do you believe that the federal courts have the authority to create implied causes of action? i would like to have you elaborate if you say yes to that. i would say that as a general matter, no, senator. i mean, our obligation as judges is not to create policy. and if congress has enacted a statute that establishes a cause of action or restricts causes of action, then as a general matter i don t think that courts can impose one.
criminal. thank you, that was correct. thank you very much. we now recognize senator lee. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, judge jackson for being here. i want to talked to about some things you heard about yesterday. there was a lot of talk from members of this committee about judicial philosophy. i want to talk a little about what that means and why it s important. we ll start with what it means, at least to me. one of the things that you heard from a lot of members of the committee whether they couched it in terms of judicial philosophy or not relates to the idea that justice should be blind, that justice properly administered within our system is blind and that therefore individual justices and judges serving in article 3 courts to be blind in the sense that they are able to see and understand
have heard so far from judge jackson and her methodology, a bit of what she said on that, listen. over the course of my almost decade on the bench i have developed a methodology that i use in order to ensure that i am ruling impartially and that i am adhering to the limits on my judicial authority. when i get a case i ensure that i am proceeding from a position of neutrality. it s very important that judges rule without fear or favor. sandra: certainly a defining moment in all of this on her methodology. what we just heard from jonathan turley toward the end of the last hour on outnumbered, said a lot about her methodology but not her judicial philosophy. really the point of these hearings, do you expect, that we