WASHINGTON (CN) — Wrapping up their marathon interview of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Republicans brought little new evidence for their attempt to denigrate the Supreme Court nominee.
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin kicked off Wednesday's hearing by rejecting criticisms Republicans levied in their last session, including warped allegations that Jackson was overly lenient when handing down sentences in child pornography cases during her time as a federal trial judge.
“For many senators, yesterday was an opportunity to showcase talking points for the November election. For example, all Democrats are soft on crime, therefore, this nominee must be soft on crime. But you've made a mess of their stereotype,” Durbin said, speaking directly to Jackson. ”The endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police just doesn't fit with their stereotype of a Harvard graduate Black woman who is aspiring to the highest court.”
If confirmed, Jackson, a 51-year-old judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, would be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court in its more than 200-year history. Public support for Jackson is higher than that for any recent high court nominee, with 58% of Americans backing her confirmation, per a recent Gallup poll.
Following Durbin's opening, Republican lawmakers continued to air grievances they had laid out Tuesday, with Senator Lindsey Graham, who previously voted to confirm Jackson to federal appointments on three separate occasions, pressing Jackson about how she made sentencing decisions as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Graham's questioning of Jackson followed in the footsteps of Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who was the first to insinuate that Jackson delivered lenient sentences in child pornography cases. Against that portrayal, however, her record is in alignment with the sentences handed down by other federal judges.
The hearing grew increasingly tense as Graham highlighted a handful of cases in which Jackson sentenced defendants to prison time below the time suggested by federal guidelines. As Jackson tried to explain the process she used to determine sentences for individuals convicted of child pornography charges, the South Carolina Republican interrupted her repeatedly.
Going back to the explanation she gave on the first day of her hearing, Jackson emphasized that federal sentencing guidelines were created prior to the age of the internet, when mass amounts of abusive material became easier to access and did not require movement through the mail. The birth of the internet has raised questions about whether federal guidelines need to change and if judges should be unilaterally adhering to standards that raise the severity of sanctions based on how much material someone possesses or has viewed.
"You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison,” Jackson said.
Graham interrupted her explanation.
“Good, good. Absolutely good, I hope you are. I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation.” Graham said, as Durbin called for Graham to let Jackson speak. “See, you don’t think that’s a bad thing? I think that’s a horrible thing.”
Jackson said child pornography cases are egregious, but judges have a legal duty to consider the details of a case and dole out punishments that take into account several factors, including recommendations by probationary offices.
"I am trying to explain that our sentencing system that Congress created, the system the sentencing commission is a steward of, is a rational one. It is designed to help judges do justice in the terrible circumstances by eliminating unwarranted disparities, by ensuring that the most serious defendants get the longest periods of time," Jackson said.