Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Gives Her Opening Statement; Sr. NATO Official: All Signs Point to a Stalemate in Ukraine. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired March 21, 2022 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I am saving a special moment in this introduction for my daughters, Talia and Leila. Girls, I know it has not been easy as I have tried to navigate the challenges of juggling my career and motherhood. And I fully admit that I did not always get the balance right. But I hope that you have seen that with hard work, determination, and love, it can be done. I am so looking forward to seeing what each of you chooses to do with your amazing lives in this incredible country. I love you so much.

There are so many others who are not here today, but whom I need to acknowledge. I have a large extended family, on both sides. They are watching from Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, and beyond. I also have incredible friends -- three of my college roommates came here today to support me -- and I have so many other boosters, from Miami Palmetto Senior High School, Harvard undergrad, Harvard Law School, and all throughout my professional and personal life.

I've also had extraordinary mentors, like my high school debate coach, Fran Berger, may she rest in peace. She invested fully in me, including taking me to Harvard -- the first I'd ever really thought of it -- to enter a speech competition. Mrs. Berger believed in me, and in turn, I believed in myself.

In the category of great mentors, it is also my good fortune to have the chance to clerk for three brilliant jurists. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. These extraordinary people were exceptional role models.

Justice Breyer, in particular, not only gave me the greatest job that any young lawyer could ever hope to have, but he also exemplifies what it means to be a Supreme Court Justice of the highest level of skill and integrity, civility and grace. It is extremely humbling to be considered for Justice Breyer's seat, and I know that I could never fill his shoes. But if confirmed, I would hope to carry on his spirit.

On the day of his Supreme Court nomination, Justice Breyer said: "What is Law supposed to do, seen as a whole? It is supposed to allow all people -- all people -- to live together in a society, where they have so many different views, so many different needs, to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better, so that they can work productively together."

I could not have said it better myself.

Members of this Committee, if I am confirmed, I commit to you that I will work productively to support and defend the Constitution and this grand experiment of American democracy that has endured over these past 246 years.

I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.

[15:35:00]

I know that my role as a judge is a limited one. That the Constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. And I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.

Now, in preparing for these hearings, you may have read some of my more than 570 written decisions and may have also noticed that my opinions tend to be on the long side. That is because I also believe in transparency. That people should know precisely what I think and the basis for my decision. And all of my professional experiences, including my work as a public defender and as a trial judge, have instilled in me the importance of having each litigant know that the judge in their case has heard them, whether or not their arguments prevail in court.

During this hearing, I hope that you will see how much I love our country and the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I stand on the shoulders of many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African American woman to be appointed to the federal bench and with whom I share a birthday. And like Judge Motley, I have dedicated my career to ensuring that the words engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building -- Equal Justice Under Law -- are a reality and not just an ideal.

Thank you for this historic chance to join the highest Court, to work with brilliant colleagues, to inspire future generations, and to ensure liberty and justice for all.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Thank you judge Jackson. Well, this is the end of first day of the first three days that are involving more personal level the Senators on the Judiciary Committee. In way it's the easiest day because ten minutes is merely a throat clearing warm up for most Senators on this committee. Starting tomorrow, it will be some serious exchange in questions. With 30 minutes and the following day 20 minutes for each Senator to participate in this.

We're looking for this opportunity to finally really give you full opportunity to many of the things that you heard and to answer direct questions. Members have until Thursday at 5:00 p.m. to submit questions for the record. We're going to reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. to be doing the 30-minute rounds of questions. We thank all of the participants and members of the audience for keeping this dignified, respectful and civilized. And we hope to continue that tradition tomorrow. With this, the committee stands adjourned.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Senator Durbin wrapping proceedings for day one of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation process. And we have now heard from her for the first time formally in this process that she's delivered opening remarks. Let's bring in now, CNN Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic. CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. CNN Senior political correspondent Abby Phillip. CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Alexis Hoag. She's a law professor at Brooklyn Law School. Abby, let me start with you. What we heard from Judge Jackson was an introduction of herself and her family and extended family. But also, at the end there just a bit of a defense of her resume -- not getting into particulars. What stood out to you?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, I think that what stood out was how closely she aligned herself with the man that she is replacing, Justice Stephen Breyer, quoting his testimony when he was being introduced to the nation during his confirmation hearings. What I took from that was she was essentially saying, I am in the mold of those that came before me. I love this country. I love the law and I am a neutral jurist.

And so much of her remarks were really about who she is as a person. It leaned heavily on her family. She thanked God, she thanked her kid, her husband. And I don't think she -- I think she intentionally did not spend a whole lot of time on the legal stuff which we will hear a lot more of in the next few days.

[15:40:00]

Because this was her opportunity to say, frankly, to the American people, I am like you in many ways. And letting that kind of lead. And I think a lot of people who are her boosters will say, as one her introducers, Thomas Griffith said it is her personality, her collegiality that they believe makes her one of the top and supremely qualified people for this particular position. That's what I think she led with today.

BLACKWELL: Yes, the defense of a record today came from Democratic Senators who in their opening remarks offered some support.

Jeffrey, first thoughts.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, with all due respect to these hearings, they are usually quickly forgotten. What matters is the fact of this nomination. Supreme Court nominations are sign posts of our history. You know, the first Catholic appointed to the Supreme Court was before the Civil War -- Chief Justice Taney. The first African-American, Thurgood Marshal in 1967. The first woman Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. The first Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.

Whatever else Joe Biden does as president, this is one of the things he is going to be remembered for. And Ketanji Brown Jackson -- assuming she's confirmed and it looks like she's going to be confirmed -- is going to be remembered as the first black woman on the Supreme Court. And that's what matters today. And you know, she is that story, she told about, you know, doing her coloring books while her father studied law at the kitchen table. You know, that is the story that Americans want to believe is the American story. And I think, you know, that is what we are all probably going to remember rather than the political back and forth that goes on in these nominations.

Speaking of political back-and-forth, Gloria, that brings me to you. In the selection of those who introduced her. You had Judge Thomas Griffith -- who's retired -- is an appointee Bush. You also had a very close friend. As some tried to create this narrative of a radical choice that was led by the left. You had Griffith saying that, yes, we did not have agree but you have this long list of Republican who is think that she is an excellent choice.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, and then you have the friend who says the first-person knocking at your door when you get some bad news about family member with cancer. So, they are, you know, they are trying to say this is the personal side of Ketanji Brown Jackson that you don't know.

Because in the coming days, she is going to be portrayed as somebody else. As somebody who likes to give life sentences to people who traffic in child porn, for example. And what we saw today was Republicans kind of buttering her up on the day today saying how much they respect her and how much they like her but oh, by the way, you of course, if they are serious questions and they are not just political questions about Joe Biden and how he is allegedly soft on crime then ask those questions by all means.

But I do think -- without being too cynical -- that every Supreme Court hearing now becomes about the person who nominates the Supreme Court Justice and becomes usually political. The Democrats are still angry about Merrick Garland not getting a hearing. And the Republicans are still angry about Justice Kavanaugh and the way he was treated. So, there's a great undercurrent here that I think you're going to see in the next coming days.

Judge Jackson said if I'm confirmed, I commit to you that I will work productively to support and defend the Constitution and the grand experiment of American democracy that has endured over the past 246 years.

Alexis Hoag, to you. There has been attacks on her record as a public defender. She said that she is quite proud of that work. What did you hear from Judge Brown Jackson?

ALEXIS HOAG, LAW PROFESSOR, BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL: Great. Thank you for that. I may be a little biased. I'm a former appellate federal defender as well. And I just want to underscore how centrally important and critical that is for the court to have the experience that Judge Jackson brings to it.

Obviously, she's a historic nominee given the fact that she's a black woman. But I also want to focus the fact that she would be the very first public defender to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know that Thurgood Marshall accepted numerous appointments on behalf of indigent people accused of crimes. But Judge Jackson as a former federal public defender would receive any case that came before her that she was appointed to. Evidence will be of the federal judiciary when you are an appellate defender.

[15:45:00]

The other thing I wanted to underscore is the fact that she served nearly a decade as a federal trial judge. The only other person with that experience is Justice Sotomayor. And the U.S. Supreme Court when they decide matters, they are often giving guidance and direction to trial judges. Not just at the federal level but also at the state level.

So, we must have a judge on that court that understands intimately how these proceedings work. And I'm looking forward to these next two days. I was a little taken aback -- maybe I shouldn't be -- by some of the Senators questions, rather their opening statements regarding her experience as a trial judge and her sentencing decisions. I think Senator Hawley forgot the fact when all federal judges when they are determining sentencing, they can consider the history and the characteristics of the all the criminal defendants that come before them. And as he recited the various crimes of child pornography, he was silent on the history and character of those federal defendants.

And so, I hope that Judge Jackson can provide some clarity and nuance. This is a public education experience for Americans. And I'm just thrilled that she's a nominee in that we get to learn more from her these next two days.

BLACKWELL: Joan, on that point is there a singular major narrative? Are Republicans coalescing around one point or is a scattershot at this point?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It's a couple different points. Although they're hitting the quote him, soft on crime issue hardest here. What I just want to say about how Judge Jackson for the last 10, 12 minutes they were all her own. We're going to have all this pushing and shoving over the next two days.

But I do just want to take a moment and say how she placed herself in the American story. It was a very human tale she was telling. Her husband was tearing up as she referred to him. But the other thing she did here that I think ask really important for audience is the way she located herself in the American story of civil rights. Born in September of 1970 and she referred to the fact in the 60s' there were these landmark civil rights acts -- you know, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both of which her parents, you know, were empowered by.

And I think what we're seeing -- what we'll see throughout these hearings is this just one judge in America about to send to the Supreme Court -- which I do believe she will -- but kind of the whole arc of all these judges and justices who is move up and what they represent. And she wanted to tell kind of a bigger story about American constitutional rights. And I think she was very effective.

And now to answer your question about the Republican push back. The main theme they hit was definitely the criminal defendant issue. And I think we'll see a lot of that. They also signaled that they really want to pin her down on her judicial philosophy. So many of the Republicans said you have to reveal that to us. And what she has tried to do is say that she bases her rulings on facts and law which is, frankly, what plenty of Republican appointees before her have said. Chief justice Roberts said exactly that. And I think they will try but I think she'll probably be very careful on that front.

BLACKWELL: Jeffrey let's talk about judicial philosophy since Joan brought it up. Strom Thurmond voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ted Kennedy voted to confirm Antonin Scalia, right. Those Senators likely did not agree with the judicial philosophies of those respective nominees. But both parties, not just Republicans, Republicans and Democrats now have included that in if these nominees are qualified. Bigger picture, that seems to color every one of these processes as we move forward.

TOOBIN: Well Victor, you've put your finger on just how much the Senate and the country has changed. I mean, it used to be that these Supreme Court nominations, by in large, were about qualifications and if the person was honorable and experienced and intelligent like Antonin Scalia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they would get confirmed overwhelmingly.

Frankly now, I think it's a more realistic assessment of what Supreme Court justices do. You know, all these judges say, well, all I do is apply the law. All I do is apply the Constitution. Well, it's not a self-executing document. It does not say, in the Constitution whether the right to have an abortion is protected or not. You have to interpret the Constitution. You have to interpret Constitution to decide whether parochial schools can receive government money for scholarships.

These are difficult questions that involve an approach to the Constitution.

[15:50:00]

It doesn't mean that one side is right and one side is wrong and one side is smart or one side is dumb. These questions involve judicial philosophy. And t him here is a difference between what the conservatives believe. They called in textualists. They say, well, if it's not in the text of the Constitution we don't support it. Well, it's not that simple.

And liberals who sometimes say they believe in a living Constitution, that doesn't mean they just make up whatever comes along. But the idea that you can simply apply the Constitution and get the answer to all these incredibly difficult questions, that's basically telling the United States a fairytale. It doesn't work that way.

BLACKWELL: All right, it is -- go ahead, quickly Abby. PHILLIP: The person, the judge who introduced her, Thomas Griffith,

from a different political philosophy, appointed by a Republican, underscored that this idea that though we have strayed from all of this bipartisanship when it comes to the Supreme Court, he really believes that in another era, she would have been overwhelmingly confirmed in a bipartisan fashion. And he also said that he believes that it is her ability to work with other people with different judicial philosophies, perhaps, that makes her qualified for the court.

BLACKWELL: him All right. I just say quickly because we're up against the clock. We all know what that pressure is. Abby Phillip, Joan Biskupic, Alex Hoag, Gloria Borger, Jeffrey Toobin, and Chairman Durbin said, this is the throat clearing portion of all of this, questions and answers coming up in the next few days.

All right, we're following breaking news out of the White House. President Biden is warning Americans that Russia could hit the U.S. with a cyberattack. We've got more on that next.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: President Biden is warning of evolving intelligence that Russia could conduct malicious cyber activity against the U.S. And in a statement to private sector partners, he urged companies to tighten their cyber defenses immediately. The president also pledged to use every tool to deter, disrupt and if necessary, respond to cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. But he acknowledged the federal government cannot defend against this threat alone.

Now Russia has launched more than 1,100 missiles since the beginning of their invasion of Ukraine. That's according to a senior U.S. defense official.

Let's discuss with retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack. General, welcome back. We also know from a senior NATO official that this is approaching or could soon be a stalemate. So, if we look at the map of where Russian troops are, there have been few advances around Kyiv for more than a week now. What does a stalemate look like? What does that portend for the next phase of this war?

BRIG. GEN. PETER ZWACK, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, Victor, I think stalemate is not the right word. There may be stalemate meaning Russian forces that have stopped and dug in, consolidated, in the places where they are amassed. But everywhere else in Ukraine, those long supply convoys, all the things that need to be done to keep those forward troops, if you will, supplied and fed is not stalemate. If the Ukrainians, whether military, territorial forces or private well-armed civilians are wreaking havoc on these long vulnerable lines we talked about, that's not stalemate. That is eroding and whittling their combat power and making them up front, including all the shells and artillery and rockets they're firing at risk. So that would be my view. BLACKWELL: So, let's talk about the hardware then, and the use of this

hypersonic missile traveling at five times the speed of sound. Should the presence now of this weapon change or influence in any way the type of support that the West gives Ukraine?

ZWACK: It is -- I would -- it is an added capability but not a decisive add. And it shows that the Russians may be running out of precision weapons. They've had to, if you will, up the ante. It is not a game changer. It is a very fast, lethal, if you will, missile that can be fired from 1,000 miles out off a MIG-31. But it's not going to change the equation on the ground that I just talked about. All those groups of Ukrainians that are raising hell with Russian columns.

BLACKWELL: General, I got 30 seconds for you here. The U.S. has not been able to determine if Russia has designated a commander to lead the war strategy in Ukraine. Is it conceivable that Russia is waging this war without having designated that person?

ZWACK: Well, there is certainly, seems to be command chaos. Very quickly, it should be the Western military district headquartered in St. Petersburg and the southern military district headquartered near the Black Sea in Rostov. However, you've got forces from the eastern military, Siberia and central military district. They've come in. I get the sense they're coming in pretty ad hoc now.

[16:00:00]

Command and control sorting it out, the communications lines. And now you have the general staff in Moscow, the General Grachev, trying to manage it all. It's a mess.

BLACKWELL: All right. Brigadier General Peter Zwack, we always appreciate your insight, sir, thank you. And "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.