>> President Biden's closest ally in the Senate, this week on "Firing Line."

>> How many opinions have you written as a judge, Your Honor?

>> At least 570 opinions.

>> He's a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a key player on foreign relations.

>> If Vladimir Putin were to use tactical nuclear weapons, we need to communicate clearly that that would have severe consequences.

>> Senator Chris Coons is known for forging relationships across the aisle, and as another Democrat from Delaware... >> I see my buddy Senator Coons is there.

>> ...he's also known as President Biden's eyes and ears in the Senate.

As war rages abroad, polarization deepens at home, and the Democrats look ahead to a challenging midterm election, what does Senator Chris Coons say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Senator Chris Coons, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks.

It's great to be on with you, Margaret.

>> You are a senator from Delaware, and you sit on the Judiciary Committee, where just this week you voted to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court.

>> The yeas are 53.

The nays are 47.

And this nomination is confirmed.

[ Cheers and applause ] >> 115 nominees have preceded her, but not one has been a Black woman.

In the Judiciary Committee hearings, you cited the iconic Normal Rockwell painting of Ruby Bridges being escorted into her public school in New Orleans by federal authorities.

What does Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation mean to you and to the country?

>> Well, first, I was hopeful that we would see a return to a normal confirmation process, a respectful, reasonable confirmation process, where she'd be asked engaging, tough questions about her approach to serving as a judge, her record, her credentials, her character, her family background.

And for much of the hearings, that mostly happened.

There were, of course, some fireworks.

There were several of my colleagues who questioned her in ways that seemed way beyond an appropriate confirmation hearing.

And so part of what brought Ruby Bridges to mind was not just the historic nature of her nomination, her being the first, but how she held herself through those assaults.

I questioned immediately following the junior senator from Texas.

And his questioning was particularly forceful and vigorous.

And I could see, you know, in the tightening of her jaw and the, you know, sort of that she was, you know, sort of doing this and maintaining.

But these are 30-minute questioning rounds, and when someone, in front of your children, is accusing you of all but aiding and abetting child pornography, being not just soft on crime, but nearly a criminal yourself, of having sent your children to a school that teaches horrific Marxist race theory to children, it's sort of hard to maintain your composure.

And I thought, as I said in my closing remarks on our week of confirmations, that she gave us a clinic in judicial temperament and in maintaining her poise, something that should not have been as necessary or challenging as it was.

So what does it mean to me that Judge Jackson is now Justice Jackson?

She has impeccable legal credentials.

She has a remarkable life of service in the law.

She will bring to the bench a sharp analytical mind and some needed new perspectives, as someone who practiced both as a trial court judge and as a federal public defender, someone who clerked at all levels.

And she will be the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I think it's important to hold both of those in our mind as we think about what she will bring to the court.

I am hopeful that we can, in the future, confirm other nominees, but as my colleague Senator Graham of South Carolina suggested, if there's a change in control in the Senate, we may not be able to confirm more nominees in the coming few years.

>> You described the treatment of her by some of your colleagues.

Your words to describe that behavior was that it was abusive.

Fortunately, there were some Republicans, like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who also criticized the confirmation process.

When they announced their intention to vote for her, Senator Collins said that the process is "broken."

Senator Murkowski said that there has been "corrosive politicization of the review process."

>> Right.

>> Do you agree with that?

>> Yes.

Look, over the last couple of years, there's a history in both parties of confirmation hearings where some of our members got well outside the lane of advice and consent.

I am grateful for the votes of those three Republican colleagues and, more importantly, their message, and I think this is a moment where we all need to look hard at where we're going, because the Senate only has a few absolutely essential constitutional roles.

I'm also an appropriator.

Our appropriations process this year was as broken as it's ever been.

So if a key part of our job is confirming nominees and this administration is more than a year into its service and there are still critical positions vacant -- ambassadors, judges, senior positions in the administration -- and we are really struggling to confirm justices and judges and we're really struggling to complete our appropriation process anything like on time, any clear-eyed review of the current Senate suggests we are at a critical point.

>> Keeping it just on the process, the confirmation process for justices, you know, this process only recently became one that looks like a party-line vote.

>> Yes.

>> Justice Breyer, whom Justice Jackson clerked for and whom she replaces, received 87 votes in the United States Senate.

How do you get the Senate back to Article II of the Constitution, advice and consent?

>> It's gonna take determined work by members of this committee from both sides.

And, frankly, it's gonna take action for us to defang or at least remove a fair amount of the power of outside groups that have emerged that really are funding and fueling an awful lot of this.

Without getting into any private conversations, there are senators of both parties who've said to me over the 12 years I've been on Judiciary, "You know, I would've voted for her or for him for this or for that, but the outside groups were just pressing so hard."

This happens with every high-profile judicial nominee.

And Senator Whitehouse in particular, of Rhode Island, speaks frequently about the corrosive impact of dark-money groups.

We have a bill called the Disclose Act that's bipartisan that would simply reduce the ability of these groups, without any attribution, to spend tens of millions of dollars on campaigning for or against nominees.

And that's had a really critical impact on undermining our effectiveness as a committee.

>> I mean, have you felt the brunt of those groups yourself?

>> Of course.

>> You know, in reflection, there were three Trump nominees, none of whom you voted for.

>> Yes.

>> Is -- What role does the activism play versus the, you know, responsibility you feel to advice and consent?

>> To be blunt, I had a primary opponent in 2020 who was principally funded by a group that was angry at me for voting for too many "Trump judges."

They were very critical of my vote for a few circuit nominees, whose judicial philosophies are more conservative than mine, who I thought were very qualified.

So this is the core question -- can you vote for a district court or a circuit court nominee, let alone a nominee to the Supreme Court, who's highly qualified, who's got a clean record, who's served well, but who leans in the opposite direction of your party?

>> Who doesn't share your judicial philosophy.

>> Who doesn't share your judicial philosophy.

We've gotten to the point where that is fraught.

If you do that, there are political consequences -- both sides, both parties, and there's well-funded, well-resourced groups prepared to make sure that if you make such a decision, you'll hear about it.

And that's part of the accelerating partisanship of the judicial confirmation process.

I would say that they started it.

That it was first done from the other side, but, you know, seriously -- >> They say the same thing.

>> They say the same thing.

>> [ Coughs ] Robert Bork.

>> Exactly.

This is a long dynamic.

It has a long history.

>> It does have a long history, but as you think about the current forces that have increasingly polarized the process and your own votes for Trump's Supreme Court nominees, do you stand by them or do you think, in a different world, you might have thought about those votes differently?

>> I've recently been talking about that with some colleagues.

So my office now was John McCain's office, and I think a lot about John.

I was in that exact office with a bipartisan group of senators as Judge Gorsuch was being nominated for the Supreme Court, and I was digging into his record and philosophy, and there was one case, the Hobby Lobby case where he'd written the circuit court, and I just was really struggling with it.

>> Yeah.

>> I would say Gorsuch was the closest, for me, where I -- I knew him, I had a sense of him, his writings -- >> But is it about judicial philosophy or advice and consent?

>> That's the point.

That was the point at which I first voted against a nominee for the Supreme Court, not based on his qualifications -- eminently qualified, great temperament, good writer, strong record of service, but I disagreed with his philosophy.

And Senator Graham and I had a very forceful exchange at that point, where he said to me, "I voted for Kagan.

I voted for Sotomayor.

If you're not willing to vote for Gorsuch, what's that mean?"

And so I will own that I am a part of this problem and recognize that with Senator Graham saying in this process, he's voting against her, he was the last one on the committee who had a history of voting for qualification, not for or against philosophy.

>> It is unusual to find a senator who is willing to recognize when they've made an incorrect vote, in hindsight, looking back.

And -- But you're willing to do it, and you're willing to say it publicly when you think that's the case.

-The thing that most -- of the many things about John McCain that impressed me, the film that was made near the end of his life, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," that film directly, head-on confronts several different instances in his life that he says, "I was wrong."

Virtually all of my colleagues who write autobiographical books tend to leave out the chapters of which they're not proud.

I think it shows enormous strength for someone, particularly of John -- of Senator McCain's record in service -- to be willing to say, "You know what?

In hindsight, this moment in this campaign, this moment on the floor, that vote, that's something that I regret, and I'm going to work on it."

Because if you read the framers and founders, they thought a virtuous -- a body politic -- a community of people who cared more about the future of the country than about their own careers was essential.

And so I'm stunned at how often my colleagues feel perfectly comfortable -- sorry, I'm being very critical today.

>> No, no, no, no, no.

But look, look, we could use more of it in our politics.

>> In common parlance, it is now widely acceptable to just say, "Well, I'm not voting for that now because I have a primary or because of my election."

That wasn't historically the case.

You wouldn't just publicly say, "Oh, the reason I'm voting this way is my own reelection."

Come on.

>> Would it help to take cameras out of the room?

>> A lot.

[ Laughs ] >> Right?

If it was just -- it was all just like the court, right?

>> I have been in many proceedings where the fact that there are cameras in the room have made a big difference.

I recently advised someone -- a friend -- he came in for advice on how his confirmation would happen in the foreign relations committee.

I said, "Oh, this is going to be awful.

You know, I have several colleagues who are going to rip your face off and question your patriotism."

He said to me, "What are you talking about?

My last confirmation was perfect."

I said, "Yes, it was on the intelligence committee.

There were no cameras.

It was in no way publicized.

It was classified.

Everyone behaved themselves.

They asked good questions.

This one's televised."

And so, there are members who will be taking their clips of them grilling you and making you squirm, and they'll raise money off of it.

>> Some of your Democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee have called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself of any cases that come before the court related to the capitol attack on January 6th.

And because of his wife, Jenny Thomas, who is a conservative activist and what has become clear that were a number of communications, including text exchange, with Mark Meadows, that document that she was encouraging and supportive of an action that would have overturned the election.

Some of those colleagues of yours have actually signed a letter saying that he should recuse himself and such.

I noticed you didn't sign the letter.

Why not?

>> I think justices are responsible for their own ethical conduct.

This is an issue I am turning to look at now that we've completed the confirmation of Justice Jackson, which, frankly, was my principal focus of the last week.

A superficial reading of what I've seen in the press strongly suggests that this particular issue and episode has cleared the threshold of, a reasonable person would think that the justice should recuse himself given the forcefulness, the stridency, the relevance of the messages that are now public between his spouse and leaders in the previous administration.

So I'm going to engage with this in the next week, and I may well join in that.

All federal judges except the Justices of the Supreme Court serve under the strictures of a code of judicial ethics.

In fact, Senator Cornyn and I recently passed a bipartisan bill that will increase the requirements of transparency around financial holdings.

>> To be clear, Ruth Bader Ginsburg often ruled in which her husband had a financial interest.

And there's this question about recusal.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Ought one only recuse himself if there is a financial interest involved?

You know, the question of somebody's spouse's political activism... >> Right.

>> ...feels like it's in a somewhat different category, and one could also apply the analogy of Justice Kagan, Solicitor General in favor of Obamacare... >> Right.

>> ...but then ruled on its constitutionality from the bench.

>> Excellent mastery of the record, counsel.

>> There are a wide array of cases we can and should discuss about judicial ethics and the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, generally.

This particular case that you're asking me about goes so centrally to the heart of Democracy.

You know, typically, you don't ascribe to a judge the political opinions, the free speech activity of their spouse, of even their business activity.

But this is one that is very uncomfortable because of how closely it goes right to the very center of ordered liberty.

>> Even though it's his spouse.

>> Yes.

>> There are Democrats in the House who say that the revelation of these texts actually is grounds for impeachment.

Is that too far?

>> From what I see, yes.

>> You talked about your bill that you've sponsored with John Cornyn from Texas, Senator Cornyn from Texas.

And it would focus on making sure that Supreme Court Justices and federal judges post stock trades and financial holdings online within 90 days.

Justice Roberts wants no part of this.

>> I'm fairly certain of that.

>> As your -- To be fair, Justice Roberts believes that the court shouldn't police itself, and -- >> They should.

That would be far preferable.

And so for our Congress to prescribe ethical roles and rules for the federal judiciary is something I did approach with great hesitation.

But they have to act.

I mean, this is meant as a, "Okay, over to you."

>> Yeah, like, "If you don't, we will"?

>> You know, it would be in the best interests of everyone -- of our Democracy, of our constitutional order, of the federal judiciary, for them to act in reasonable ways to come up with an approach to transparency about their economic interests that is appropriate and timely.

>> Without some kind of reform, it is your concern that the court risks losing public trust?

>> Yes, it is clearly losing public trust.

And there are things that we can do as the advice and consent branch to reduce the ferocity and the politicization of the confirmation process.

And there are things they can do to improve the transparency and the conduct.

Look.

Compared to most judiciaries in most countries around the world, ours remains exceptional, outstanding -- globally, truly the gold standard.

>> Yeah.

Ukraine.

>> Yeah.

>> The Ukrainian military has shown extraordinary resistance to Vladimir Putin's assaults.

And this week, we saw new evidence of war crimes perpetrated by Putin's military in Bucha where many bodies of civilians were found bound and shot execution-style as Russian forces fled.

President Biden not only has doubled down on his assessment that Putin is a war criminal, but he said that Putin should face trial, which you agreed with.

How can the United States and its allies ensure that Putin is held accountable for his actions?

>> Well, first, we can ensure that Ukraine wins and that Putin doesn't.

We, as the country that likes to pride ourselves on being, you know, the principal champion of freedom and Democracy in the world, we have to sustain and support them.

This is a turning point of the 21st century.

This is as critical a moment as 1939 in European and world history.

And I'm grateful for the ways in which President Biden has pulled together NATO and EU and European partners.

That's a unified response that is really important for us to sustain.

>> Is it sustainable?

>> It's going to be very difficult.

And I've been having conversations with a number of colleagues about the role that energy will play.

Energy is Putin's greatest weapon because, frankly, in democracies, your average voter across Europe and North America cares more about paying another euro, another dollar for a gallon of gas or having their home heating bills go through the roof than necessarily day-to-day they do about the fight for democracy in Europe.

And leadership here by members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, and our president is going to consist of having that common goal of advancing freedom in Europe and fighting for democracy.

If the Ukrainians are willing to literally fight and die for it, can't we sustain six months of slightly higher energy prices?

Can't we come together and do something to reduce?

>> Maybe six months, but maybe not longer.

>> That's the challenge is we may have a shrinking window.

>> When Joe Biden first ran for president in 1987, he attended a Democratic forum that was hosted by William F. Buckley Jr. for the original "Firing Line" where he and the other candidates discussed the United States' policy towards the Soviet Union.

Take a look at this.

>> We have an anti-Soviet imperative that leads this administration in almost all instances to put everything in the contact of a superpower conflict.

And then when that conflict ensues, in their mind, to take the only arrow out of the foreign policy quiver that the Soviets can compete with us on -- and that's the military arrow -- and take the other three out, which are economic, political and diplomatic, and sort of break them over our knee and say, "We will use them," I just think we're incredibly shortsighted in our foreign policy.

>> In seeing your old friend then running for president, he finally was elected president, and you were on the short list to be his Secretary of State.

He reportedly told you that he needed you in the Senate.

>> He did tell me that he needed me in the Senate, not just reportedly.

>> You know, there he is talking about sort of the three arrows in the quiver, the economic arrow, the political arrow, the diplomatic arrow, that you have in order to to force some kind of deterrence.

And in our current circumstances with Ukraine and with Russia, deterrence has failed, or it did fail.

If you were Secretary of State, is there anything that you would pursue?

>> First, Secretary Blinken's doing an incredible job.

President Biden has the Secretary of State he needed, he wanted, he deserved.

The clip there from then-Senator Biden about the other tools, other than military, our major tools are diplomacy, development, and economic engagement.

And I'll simply agree with the point that we today are underfunding those resources.

>> Yeah.

>> We're not doing what we can and should in the world from a development and a public health perspective.

I'll give you one quick example.

In the vote in the UN to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there were about two dozen countries that abstained -- African countries... >> Mm.

>> ...that have noticed that during this pandemic, we now have hundreds of millions of surplus vaccine doses that we are not distributing.

They had to rely on Chinese generosity and Russian generosity.

The Russians and Chinese sent their vaccines to dozens and dozens of countries that couldn't get ours.

Their vaccines don't work against Omicron.

Ours do.

And despite throwing myself at the wall, trying to get Republican votes for an international supplemental just this past week, we didn't.

The other thing that's about to happen -- Ukraine is the breadbasket that provides the grain that feeds countries from Jordan to Pakistan, from Egypt to Sudan to Yemen.

There are already food riots in several countries.

I was talking to senior leaders in the Department of Defense who said, yes, they're concerned about the national security consequences of hunger.

Your great-grandfather knew something about the importance of food aid in the midst of war.

The invasion of Ukraine and the destruction of their ability to export grain from their Black Sea ports is creating already a wave of hunger and instability.

What should we be doing?

Senator Graham and I are already working on a hearing next month, and we're gonna be saying to our colleagues, "This is a moment for us to come together and show the world we've got the resources, we've got the values.

We are coming to your aid."

>> How are you going to persuade Americans that they should care about coming food shortages halfway around the world?

>> I think it's a three-part argument.

One is just our own selfish concerns that where there is disorder and disease and difficulty, and eventually, it has consequences for us.

Secretary Mattis famously said, "If you don't provide more funding for food aid, development, diplomacy, then you're gonna have to buy more ammunition for the DoD because we're gonna end up in more wars in more places."

Second, it is this contest.

People care less about democracy versus autocracy when their children are starving.

And they'll accept oppression if they can have stability.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And right now, around the world, China is telling countries they have a better model than we do.

January 6th left a stain, a shadow.

I went to 15 countries last year on behalf of our country.

Every single foreign minister, defense minister, head of state asked me about January 6th and whether our democracy will survive.

Trust me.

>> What did you tell them?

>> Yes, that it was gravely concerning, but that they should remember that we held, that the Senate returned to the chamber, that we confirmed the election.

Our real test is gonna be '22 and '24 and whether we can sustain a peaceful Democratic transition.

>> Senator Chris Coons, thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you, Margaret.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... ...and by.. Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪