0 whether or not they still present a threat to the united states or the world at large and i think it's six months, maybe a year. but that goes on at least on an annual basis, and if there is a determination that this person still represents a threat to the united states, they are continued to be confined. that's the way the system works. are you okay with that? >> as a policy matter, senator, i'm not speaking to my views. my understanding is the periodic review system is an executive branch determination of whether or not they are going to continue to hold people. >> does that make sense to you as a way to deal with these detainees? >> senator, i'm not in a position to speak to the policy or discretion of the executive branch regarding how they are going to handle detainees. >> the reason i mention is because in one of the briefs you argued the executive branch doesn't have that option. if you had had your way, the executive branch could not do periodic reviews about the danger the detainee presents to the united states and they would have to make a decision of trying them or releasing them. is that not accurate? >> respectfully, senator, it was not my argument. i was filing an amicus brief on behalf of clients, including the rutherford institute, the cato institute, and the constitution project who -- >> when you sign onto a brief does it not become your argument? >> it does not, senator. if you are an attorney and you are representing a client in amicus practice. >> is that your position when you were in private practice? you sign onto this brief making this argument that you say is not your position. i mean, why would you do that if it's not your position? why would you take a client that has a position like that? this a voluntary. nobody is making you do this. >> senator, i would refer you to the same sort of statements that chief justice roberts made when he came before the committee, which is that lawyers represent clients. >> i get that. i'm not holding the clients' views against you like the people you are representing at gitmo. they deserve representation. but this is an amicus brief where you and other people try to persuade the court to change policy. the policy i described is a periodic review. if the court had taken the position argued in the brief that you signed upon, would have to release these people or try them and some of them the evidence we can't disclose because it is classified you are putting america in an untenable position. it is not the way you fight a war. if you tried to do in the world war ii they are run you out of town. there is no magic passage of time you have to let them go if they are a threat. so my question is very simple. do you support the idea -- did you support then the idea that indefinite detention of an enemy combatant is unlawful? >> respectfully, senator, when you are an attorney and you have clients who come to you, whether they pay or not, you represent their positions before the court. >> i'm sure everybody at gitmo wants out. i got that. this is an amicus brief and i just don't understand what you are saying quite frankly. i'm not holding it against you because you represented a legal position i disagree with. i mean, that happens all the time. i'm just trying to understand what made you join this cause? and you say somebody hired you, but did you feel okay in adopting that cause? when you signed onto the brief were you not advocating that position to the court? >> senator, as a judge now, in order to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any particular issue, i need to receive briefs and information making positions on all sides. >> i got what a judge is all about. listen, i'm not asking you to decide the case in front of me right here but to explain a position you took as a lawyer regarding the law of war. and i am beyond confused. i know what you said in your brief. whether i agree with it or not is not the point. i just want you to understand that it is important for all of us no know where you were coming from. if that brief had been accepted by the court, it would be impossible for us to fight this war because there are some people going to die if jail in gitmo and never go to trial for a lot of good reasons. the evidence against them is so sensitive we can't disclose it to the public. we're not charging them with a crime. what we're doing is saying that you engaged in hostile activities against the united states, that you are an enemy combatant under our law and never be released as long as you are a danger until the war is over or you are no longer a danger. that's the difference between fighting a crime and a war. did you ever accuse in one of your habeas petitions the government of acting as war criminals for holding of the detainees by our government, that we were acting as war criminals? >> senator, i don't remember that accusation but i will say that -- >> do you believe that's true, that america was acting as war criminals in holding these detainees? >> senator, the supreme court held that the executive branch has the authority to detain people who are designated as enemy combatants for the duration of the hostilities. and what i was doing in the context of the habeas petitions at this very early stage in the process, was making allegations to preserve issues on behalf of my clients. a habeas petition is like a complaint that lawyers make allegations. >> i've been a lawyer, too. but i don't think it's necessary to call the government a war criminal in pursuing charges against a terrorist. i just think it's too far. i don't know why you chose those words. that's just too far but we are where we are. so let's talk about the nomination process. have you ever had any interactions with a group called demand justice? >> no. >> have you ever had any interaction with a group called american prospect? >> no. >> do you know anything about arbilla, is that a right term? every heard of a group by that name? >> i have heard of a group that i think is arabella or something like that. >> do you know anything about them? have you had any contact with them? >> no. >> okay. your nomination says people from the left were cheering you on. >> a lot of people were cheering me on, senator. >> that's true. did you know there are a lot of people from the left trying to destroy michelle childs? did you notice that? >> senator, a lot of people were supporting various people for this nomination. >> so you are saying you didn't know there was concerted effort to disqualify judge childs from south carolina because she was an unreliable republican in disguise? >> senator, i was -- i am a sitting judge. i was focused on my cases. no, i didn't know that. >> would it bother you if that happened? >> senator, it is troublesome that people are or were doing things related to the nomination. >> people have a right to speak out and pick the person of their choice but all i can say is that if you missed the fact that there was an organized effort -- here president biden has only a certain amount of political capital for keeping his party united. if he needlessly angers progressives on the scotus pick it could create problems for him. revolving door project. let's see. i just got so many quotes it's difficult to imagine someone with a record like judge childs winning votes from criminal justice advocates like senator cory booker and even dick durbin. childs's experience is nothing like the diversity experience the biden administration has championed. let's see. picking her, childs, would demore allize the base, side with corporate america. the fact that lindsey graham is vouching for her should give the white house pause. bernie sanders pac director. you didn't know that all these people were declaring war on judge childs? >> senator, i did not. >> i'm not saying you did. you said you didn't know, i will take you at your word. but i am saying what is your judicial philosophy? >> i have a methodology that i use in my cases in order to insure that i am ruling impartially and that -- >> your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially. >> to rule impartially, no, and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge. and so my methodology actually helps me to do that in every case. >> you wouldn't say that you are an activist judge. >> i would not say that. >> okay. so we'll have a 20 minutes more later on. here is what i would say. that every group that wants to pack the court that believes this court is a bunch of right wing nuts who are going to destroy america, that consider the constitution trash, all wanted you picked. and this is all i can say is the fact that so many of these left wing radical groups that would destroy the law as we know it declared war on michelle childs and supported you is problematic for me. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. let me mention a few points here. congressman jim clyburn was a strong supporter of michelle childs and now i believe he has publicly supporting your nomination and michelle childs has been nominated by president biden to be a circuit judge and she will be considered by this committee as quickly as possible. on the issue of guantanamo, 39 detainees remaining. it's $450 million per year. each of these detainees is being held at the expense of 12 or 13 million dollars per year. if they would be incarcerated in florence, colorado, the federal prison the amount would be dramatically less. since 9/11 -- since 2009 with the beginning of the obama administration the repeat rate of guantanamo detainees is 5%. >> according to the director of national intelligence it's 31%. somebody is wrong here. if you want to talk about what i've said i'll respond to what you said. if we close gitmo and move them to colorado do you support indefinite detention under the world war for these detainees? >> i'm giving the facts and make sure it's clear that 31% you referred to goes back to the year 2003. >> what does it matter what it goes back to? we had them, they got loose and they started killing people. if you are one of the people killed in 2005 does it matter to you when we released them? >> i suggest the president of your own party released them. >> i'm saying they failed miserably and advocates to change the system like she was advocating would destroy our ability to protect this country. we're at war, not fighting a crime. this is not some passage of time event. as long as they are dangerous. i hope they all die in jail if they go back to kill americans. it won't matter if 39 die in prison a better outcome from letting them go. keep them in jail because of the fight. afghan government is made up of former detainees at gitmo. this whole thing by the left about this war ain't working. >> let me also note that larry thompson who served as deputy attorney general under president george w. bush or incur special counsel, who served as assistant attorney general for legal policy in the george w. bush administration, john bellinger and former d.c. circuit judge ken starr will also prominent conservative lawyers signing letters defending attorneys who represented guantanamo bay detainees. i don't believe we should associate that activity as being inconsistent with our constitutional values. we're going to represent -- we're going to at this point recognize senator feinstein and then take a break after she completed her questioning. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. i just would like to compliment the witness. i think you are doing very well. and as you can see this is a bit of a tough place. so judge, one of the issues that i often discuss with nominees, particularly to the supreme court, is the issue of abortion. i have asked the three most recent supreme court nominees about this issues and i would like to discuss it with you today. in 2017 i asked justice gorsuch about this during his confirmation hearing. i asked him to expand on a comment he had made about his belief that precedent is important because it adds stability to the law. in response, justice gorsuch reiterated his belief that precedent is important because, and i quote, once a case is settled, that adds to the -- he also stated that roe has been reaffirmed many times. i also spoke with judge kavanaugh about this issue in 2018. i asked him whether he believes that roe was settled law and if so, whether it was correctly settled. justice kavanaugh said that roe, quote, is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, end quote. he said that roe, quote, has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parent hood versus casey, end quote. and he describes casey as having the value of a precedent on precedent, end quote. i most recently spoke about this issue with justice barrett in 2020. i asked her whether she agreed with justice scalia's view that roe was wrongly decided. she committed to, quote, obey all the rules of -- she said she had no eye gend to try to overrule casey, end quote. so here is the question. do you agree with justice kavanaugh that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent and will you like justice barrett commit to obey all the rules of stare decisis in issues related to abortion, end quote. >> thank you, senator. i do agree with both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett on this issue. roe and casey are the settled law of the supreme court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy. they have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed and in order to revisit, as justice barrett said, the supreme court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle. it provides and establishes predictability, stability and reserves as a restraint in the exercise of judicial authority because the court looks at whether or not precedents are relied upon, whether they are workable, in addition to whether or not they are wrong. and other factors as well. so i agree with both of the statements that you've read. >> let me add one to that and then we'll move on. i'm particularly interested in the case of roe v. wade. roe was decided by nearly 50 years ago and reaffirmed over a dozen times since then. so my question is this. does roe v. wade have the status of being a case that is a super precedent? and what other supreme court cases do you believe have that status? >> well, senator, all supreme court cases are precedent, binding and they are principles and their rulings have to be followed. roe and casey, as you say, have been reaffirmed by the court and have been relied upon. reliance is one of the factors that the court considers when it seeks to revisit or when it is asked to revisit a precedent. and in all cases, those precedents of the supreme court would have to be reviewed pursuant to those factors because stare decisis is very important. if you are confirmed you would be one of only two justices who has also served on a federal district court. the other being justice sotomayor. in your eight years as a trial judge on the d.c. district court you wrote nearly 600 opinions and presided over nine jury trials and three bench trials. as you know from your service on the district court it is important for appeals courts and episcopal tli supreme court, to be clear in their decisions. the clarity is necessary as you well know, for trial judges to effectively do their job and properly apply legal precedents that are fair and consistent. as a district judge, you were responsible for applying precedent from the supreme court and the courts of appeal to your case, and now as a judge in the d.c. circuit, you are drafting those precedents. your experience as a trial judge is one of your most significant assets, and i just want to add a personal comment. this is a tough place and you are handling it very well. and i appreciate your directness and think that's important. here is a question. i have two related questions. how did you make sure that you were properly applying the relevant precedents as a district court judge? and if you are confirmed to the supreme court, what would you do to make sure your opinions are clear so they could be applied correctly by district courts? >> thank you, senator. as you noted, in my time as a district court judge, i had the opportunity to apply precedents that were handed down by the court of appeals and the supreme court. the district court is bound by the law as stated by those other tribunals and i was very focused on making sure that i found the right precedents and applied them faithfully. as i mentioned with respect to my methodology, part of the process is receiving information from the parties in a case, and the parties write briefs and in most cases they identify the precedents that they at least believe are applicable and then the court does its own legal research as well to determine whether all of the relevant cases have been identified. and then you look to see whether there is anything that directly controls, and if it does that's your answer. in many cases, the precedent might be a little bit different in certain ways and you are assessing the parties' arguments and determining within your proper role whether what the appellate courts have said provides the law of decision for the case. but what is important, as you've mentioned, is the clarity by which courts of appeals and the supreme court need to operate so that the lower courts can actually follow the precedent. i'm very conscious of that, as you said, as someone who has had to follow precedent and i would think carefully about that and use my communication skills to insure that the precedents are clear so that lower courts can follow them. >> thank you. i would like to discuss quickly a letter this committee received in support of your nomination from the international association of chiefs of police. and as you know, this is the world's largest professional association of law enforcement leaders. and the letter states judge jackson has several family members in law enforcement. and we believe this has given her a deep understanding of and an appreciation for the challenges and complexities confronting the policing profession. during her time as a judge, she has displayed her dedication to insuring that our communities are safe and that the interests of justice are served. and so mr. chairman i would like to put this letter in the record, if i may. >> without objection. >> thank you. i understand that your brother served with the baltimore police department for several years. so here is the question. how, if at all, is having several family members in law enforcement impacted your understanding of the law or your approach to your judicial service? >> thank you, senator. some of my earliest memories, in addition to my father at the kitchen table with his law books, were of my uncles. two of my uncles were career law enforcement and one was a detective, unformed detective. one was a city of miami police department officer, patrol officer for a long time before he became a chief. and i remember very well we would go to my grandmother's house on sundays and she would make a big dinner for our family and my uncles would sometimes come off of their shifts. so i see in my mind their uniforms coming in and they would always be carrying their weapons and take them off and put them way up high on the china cabinet so the kids couldn't get to them. i remember feeling very proud of them and the service that they provided. and i think it's probably what led my brother, who is 10 years younger than i am to decide after he graduated from college he would want to also be in law enforcement. so i am very familiar with law enforcement, the important service that they provide. the perils of being out on the street protecting and serving and having a family that cares about you and worries about your safety. and so this is not something that is unfamiliar and i am very gratified by the