Democrats Block Cruz From Getting Jackson’s Answer; Cruz Asks “Why Are You Afraid of Her?”; Jackson Won’t Define “Woman” for Standing

On 3/24/2022, a heated exchange erupted at the Jackson confirmation hearing when Democrats repeatedly cut off Senator Cruz as he pressed the nominee on her sentencing record. Cruz asked “why are you afraid of her answering?” when Chairman Durbin and Senator Coons blocked Jackson from responding to his questions. Jackson said she “regretted” that the hearing focused on her sentencing cases rather than her qualifications, and Cruz also pressed her on how she would determine Article 3 standing on gender-based cases after she said she couldn’t define “woman."

"Why Are You Afraid of Her Answering?”

The most contentious exchange occurred when Cruz asked Jackson about a specific sentencing case. As she began to respond, Chairman Durbin called time and recognized the next senator.

“Will you allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin?” Cruz demanded. “I’m not asking another question — allow her to answer the question.”

Durbin refused, gaveling the exchange shut. Cruz escalated. “Why are you not allowing her to answer the question? I’ve never seen a chairman refuse to allow a witness to answer a question,” Cruz said.

“You can bang it as loud as you want,” Durbin replied. “At some point you have to follow the rules.”

“Will you let her answer the question?” Cruz repeated. When Senator Coons moved to claim the time instead, Cruz pressed again. “Senator Coons, will you let her answer? Why are you afraid of her answering?”

The exchange highlighted a pattern where Democratic senators used procedural maneuvers to prevent Jackson from having to answer uncomfortable questions about her sentencing record on camera.

Jackson “Regrets” GOP Questions

Jackson revealed what she actually regretted about the hearing. “What I regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences,” Jackson said.

Cruz responded sharply. “You regret that we’re focusing on your cases? I don’t understand.”

“No, no — I’m talking about the fact that you’re talking about—” Jackson began before Cruz cut in. “You have taken over a minute of my time, Mr. Chairman.”

Article 3 Standing Without Defining “Woman”

Cruz built on Jackson’s “I’m not a biologist” moment from the previous day. “You told Senator Blackburn that you couldn’t define what a woman is — that you are not a biologist, which I think you’re the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question ‘what is a woman,’” Cruz said.

“Let me ask you as a judge — how would you determine if a plaintiff had Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based rule, regulation, or policy without being able to determine what a woman was?”

“Senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman. And the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today — my mother,” Jackson said.

Cruz pressed the logical implications. “If I decide right now that I’m a woman, then apparently I’m a woman. Does that mean that I would have Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based restriction?” Cruz asked.

“Senator, to the extent that you are asking me about who has the ability to bring lawsuits based on gender, those kinds of issues are working their way through the courts, and I’m not able to comment on them,” Jackson said.

“Does that same principle apply to other protected characteristics?” Cruz continued. “Could I decide I was an Asian man? Would I have the ability to be an Asian man and challenge Harvard’s discrimination because I made that decision?”

“Senator, I’m not able to answer your question. You’re asking me about hypotheticals,” Jackson said.

”Do You Regret This Sentence?”

Cruz pressed Jackson on whether she regretted specific lenient sentences in child exploitation cases. Jackson refused. “I followed what Congress authorized me to do in looking to the best of my ability at all of the various factors that apply,” Jackson said.

“Do you regret it?” Cruz asked.

“No one case, Senator, can stand in for—” Jackson began.

“I’m not asking you that. I’m asking if you regret this sentence in this case, and it sounds like the answer is no,” Cruz said.

Key Takeaways

• Democrats used procedural maneuvers to prevent Jackson from answering Cruz’s questions about her sentencing record; Cruz asked: “Why are you afraid of her answering?”
• Jackson said she “regretted” that the hearing focused on her sentencing cases rather than her qualifications — essentially regretting the questions rather than her record.
• Cruz asked how Jackson would determine Article 3 standing on gender cases after she said she couldn’t define “woman”; Jackson said such issues were “working their way through the courts.”
• Cruz posed the logical extension: if he could declare himself a woman or an Asian man, would he have standing to bring discrimination claims? Jackson declined to answer.
• Jackson would not say she regretted any specific lenient sentence.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

• Will you allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin? Why are you afraid of her answering?
• What I regret is that we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences. You regret that we’re focusing on your cases?
• How would you determine Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based restriction without being able to determine what a woman is?
• If I decide I’m a woman, do I have Article 3 standing? Could I decide I was an Asian man and challenge Harvard’s discrimination?
• Do you regret this sentence? No one case can stand in for it. It sounds like the answer is no.
• I’ve never seen the chairman refuse to allow a witness to answer a question.

Full transcript: 1135 words transcribed via Whisper AI.