Booker: Thank you very much, judge. After me, only 5 to go. But sit back for a second, ‘cause I don’t have questions right away. I actually have a number of things I just want to say, because this has been not a surprise given the history that we all know – not a surprise, but perhaps a little bit of a disappointment, some of the things that’ve been said in this hearing. The way you have dealt with some of these things, that’s why you are a judge and I am a politician because you have sat with grit and grace and have shown us just extraordinary demeanor during the times where people were saying things to you that are actually out of the norm. I had to go up dais to ask some of my more senior colleagues about what I feel like is a dangerous precedent. People are taking a thousand cases you’ve been over – is that right? I’m sorry I said I wouldn’t ask you questions but just give me …
Jackson: Something like that.
Booker: Something like that. And from what I understand, these cases sometimes take days, weeks, sometimes months, right?
Jackson: To decide in a case? Yes.
Booker: There’s a trial sometimes, and folks are taking any of those cases and just trying to pick pieces out. And so my my colleague Senator Hawley has been doing this all into the lead up, and saying things, tweeting things that I think that a lot of us, when I was just trying to get some advice here, is this is what the new standard’s going to be: that any judge coming before us that has ever chosen outside of the sentencing guidelines, below the sentencing guidelines. We’re creating this environment now where I can make myself the hero of people who have been victims of some horrible crime and suddenly put whatever judge I want on the defensive by trying to drag out little bits when they have no context to the case – none of the facts. They’re seeking to exploit the complexities of a criminal justice system, the reason why we have a third branch of government. I feel bad that there was a judge mentioned by name in this hearing that’s from Senator Hawley’s state. What is that judge going to think next time that they have a complicated sexual abuse case that comes before them? And they know that they could possibly be called out if they go below the sentencing guidelines, which I showed you yesterday in my lack of chart – if you remember, I was uncharted – but that you are deciding completely in the norm. Seventy-plus percent in many states are people doing just like you did.
But I’m a Democratic senator. I’ve never quoted from this very well-respected conservative periodical – this is the National Review, very well-respected and not something I agree with all the time. But here’s what the National Review – this is the title: “Senator Hawley’s disingenuous attack against Judge Jackson’s record on child pornography.” I’ll just read the first paragraph:
“I would oppose Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson because of her judicial philosophy for the reasons I outlined last week. I addressed that in a separate post. For now, I wanted to discuss the claim by Senator Josh Hawley that Judge Jackson is appallingly soft on child pornography offenders. The allegations appear meritless to the point of demagoguery.”
I got letters from leaders of victims’ rights groups, survivors of assault. All saying sort of the same thing as the National Review. Feel proud about yourself; you brought together right and left in this calling out of people that will sit up here and try to pull out from cases, and try to put themselves in a position where they’re the defenders of our children to a person who has children, to a person whose family goes out in the streets and defends children. I mean, this is a new low. And what’s especially surprising about this is it didn’t happen last year. You were put on a court that I’m told is considered, like, the second most powerful court in our land, and you were passed with bipartisan support. Nobody brought it up then. Did they not do their homework? Were they lax? Did they make a mistake? I wonder – as they ask you the question, ‘Do you regret?’ – I wonder if they regret that, that they didn’t bring that out. No, why? Because it was an allegation that is ‘meritless to the point of demagoguery.’
You are – I don’t mean this in any way, ‘cause if anybody called me average I would be upset – but you are a mainstream judge. Your sentencing, I’ve looked at the data, falls in the mainstream on everything from child sexual assault to all the other issues that people are trying to bring up. Some of these things that are being cast at you, that you called George Bush a war criminal? Come on, that is painful, especially ‘cause as you said, the brief changed. These are names that you have to put in. And we’re talking about a real issue that goes to the core of our values: torture. Barack Obama was named once he, once Bush left office. There is an absurdity to this that is, it is almost comical if it was not so dangerous. Because the next time a judge comes before us on the right or the left that has a body of work like you do, gosh, one of … some performance artists on our side could pull out one of the cases where they were below the sentencing guidelines. Say, for example, it was on something as horrific as rape, that we all agree is horrific, and they could suddenly put themselves at the defend – “How dare we put someone who’s soft on crime …” Well, are you soft on crime? God Bless America.
I got this great text. I’ve become really good friends with folks at the FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] for my negotiations, and this was my favorite text. You all gotta get this. I think my brother Kennedy might get a kick out of this. He goes, “Things that are uncountable: Stars in the sky, grains of sand on the beach, and the number of times Democrats will mention that the FOP endorsed Judge Jackson in this hearing.” [laughter] But let me mention it again, just in case my people say you’re-rough-on-crime folks really want to try to make that stick. You were endorsed by the largest organization of rank-and-file police officers. You were endorsed by the bosses, the largest organization of chiefs of police. And you were endorsed by NOBLE, who I hope people find out more about that organization. You got uncles that are officers. You got a brother, not just an officer, who went to serve after 9/11. Your family’s not soft on terrorism; he went out there to capture and kill and defend this country from terrorists. I’m actually sitting back here and finding this astonishing, but then I do my homework.
