rumsfeld and george w. bush war criminals in a legal filing? it seems so out of character for you. well, senator, i don t remember that particular reference, and i was representing my client and making arguments. reporter: in the case in question, jackson did not, in fact, call the american government war criminals. she wrote that the alleged torture and other inhumane treatment in guantanamo bay constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. senator cruz? reporter: republican senator ted cruz then grilling jackson, the first black woman nominated to the high court, about critical race theory. it views every conflict as a racial conflict. do you think that s an accurate way of viewing society in the world the we live in? senator, i don t think so, but i ve never studied critical race theory and i ve never used it. reporter: cruz then reading from a children s book called
representing my clients and making arguments. i d have to take a look at what you meant. i did not intend to disparage the president or the secretary of defense. well, being a war criminal has huge ramifications. you could be subject to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court and hauled before that international tribunal and tried for war crimes. so it s not a casual comment, i would suggest. thank you. thank you, senator cornyn. senator whitehouse. thank you, chairman. judge jackson. good to be with you again. good to be with you. i know that a great many people are extremely proud that you are here today. i don t know that there are a great many who are prouder than bruce sellia.
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
well, senator, i don t remember that particular reference. i was representing my clients and making arguments i would have to take a look at what you meant. i did not intend to disparage the president door the secretary of defense. while being a war criminal has huge ramifications. you can be subject to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court and hauled before that international tribunal and tried for war crimes. it s not a casual comment. i would suggest. thank you. senator whitehouse. thank you, chairman, judge jackson, good to be with you again. i know that a great many people are extremely proud that you are here today. i don t know that there are a great many who are more proud
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