Vote Against Judge Jackson's Nomination

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Soon, we will be voting on Judge Jackson's nomination, and I would like to explain why I am voting against her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Since the White House announced Judge Jackson's nomination, I have emphasized the need for a thorough and fair process. Unfortunately, the majority party weren't concerned about the rigorous examination of her record. The White House and the majority party have shielded important information. We don't have any nonpublic document from her time at the Sentencing Commission, and the Obama White House held back more than 48,000 pages.

Judge Jackson also gave the White House confidential, nonpublic probation recommendations for some of her cases, but when we asked about a probation document filed on the Hawkins case, Judge Jackson claimed that she was not able to access records for her old cases because that was allegedly because she was no longer on the district court. And we now know that she sits on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now, if that is true, there are many unanswered questions about how information the White House thought was helpful was so easily obtained. So we should take into account that all the helpful information has already been leaked.

That brings me to the merits of Judge Jackson's nomination. For judicial nominees, their philosophy ought to decide--how to decide cases ought to be a primary consideration.

Part of having a judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Natural rights are a part of that system. Judge Jackson explained to us that she does not ``hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.''

Now, that ought to be very shocking. Natural rights are basic to our constitutional system and principles of limited government. Because we all know our country was founded on the belief that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

All men are created equal [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

And that was further nailed down in the Constitution of the United States.

Our Constitution vests the three branches of government with very limited power. All other powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and to the people thereof.

The principle of limited government is what makes America an exceptional nation and sets our Constitution apart. Judges must have a proper understanding of those basic principles; and the way Judge Jackson answered those questions, particularly the answers she gave to Senator Cruz, shows that she lacks that very necessary foundation.

Now, I want to go on to a few other examples. At the hearing, Judge Jackson testified about one of her decisions involving the First Step Act. In that case, prosecutors had rock-solid evidence against a dangerous drug kingpin, but Judge Jackson was displeased the government pursued a mandatory minimum sentence.

So she misused a motion for compassionate release to resentence that person to a sentence she thought he deserved.

As the lead author of the First Step Act, I know that is not what we wrote the statute to do. The act was supposed to allow elderly inmates and those suffering from terminal illness to petition the court for a sentence reduction. The statute also allows for a reduction if the court finds an ``extraordinary and compelling reason.''

Judges should use great discretion. Judges should weigh against the charge, the dangers to society, and the risk of recidivism.

At her hearing, Judge Jackson said that she based her ``extraordinary and compelling'' finding on the nonretroactive changes to the law. This radical interpretation is terrible and dangerous.

Congress chose which provisions the First Step Act would apply retroactively. The Senate is currently considering legislation that I cosponsored with Chairman Durbin that makes some of the First Step Act provisions retroactive, but that is Congress's role, not Judge Jackson's role.

Senator Durbin and I wouldn't have been able to broker a compromise on that legislation if Senators thought the judges would rewrite the law and insert their own views from the bench. Decisions like this will make bipartisan work, particularly on criminal justice reform, harder to do.

A case by the name of Young is just one example of Judge Jackson's lenient approach to criminal law and sentencing. She also declined to apply a number of sentencing enhancements that Congress put into the sentencing guidelines.

A case by the name of Make the Road New York v. McAleenan is another case that shows how Judge Jackson used her methodology to reach a result that contradicts the plain text of the law. Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security--and these are the words from the law-- ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to decide whether illegal immigrants should be subject to expedited removal within 2 years. Judge Jackson reviewed the Agency's decision anyway, and it seems clear why.

She went out of her lane to comment on the policy as, in her words, ``a terrible proposal.'' And she claimed that the government attorneys made an argument that ``reeks of bad faith.'' ``Reeks of bad faith'' are her words.

In fact, her decision and her rhetoric are unfounded. So that is why her decision earned a strong rebuke from the panel of liberal and conservative judges when she was reversed by the DC Circuit.

Judge Millett, an Obama appointee, explained it this way in the opinion:

[T]here could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent [than] . . . ``sole and unreviewable discretion.''

These are just a few examples of Judge Jackson's judicial activism. Because her record clearly shows she does not believe in or act within the limited and proper role of a judge, I will vote against her confirmation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source