Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson pledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday that she would weigh cases before the Supreme Court “without fear or favor” as her four-day long confirmation hearing kicked off with opening statements from lawmakers and the nominee herself.

“I decide cases from a neutral posture,” Jackson said. “I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.”

Jackson, now a judge on the DC federal appeals court, addressed concerns from GOP senators that she will try to inject a progressive agenda into her decisions.

“If I am confirmed, I commit to you that I will work productively to support and defend the Constitution and this grand experiment of American democracy that has endured over these past 246 years,” she told the panel, later adding: “I have been a judge for nearly a decade now. And I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously.”

Before Jackson spoke for the record, she was forced to sit through nearly four hours of soliloquies from the committee’s 22 members, with 11 Democrats lauding her accomplishments as the first black woman nominated for America’s highest court and 11 Republicans foreshadowing tough questions about Jackson’s record on the bench and her past work as a public defender.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the top GOPer on the Judiciary Committee, accused Jackson of having been put forward by progressive Democratic “dark money” groups to pursue their left-wing objectives from the bench.

“They’re running ad campaigns attacking the independence of the judiciary,” he said. “They strongly supported the so-called progressive prosecutors who are soft on violent crime in the face of rising crime waves in cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and Los Angeles.”

But committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) defended Jackson’s record on crime and insisted she would remain independent if confirmed.

“We’ve heard claims that you’re, quote, ‘soft on crime.’ These baseless charges are unfair. …They fly in the face of pledges my colleagues made that they would approach your nomination with civility and respect,” Durbin said.

“There may be some who claim, without a shred of evidence, that you’ll be a rubber stamp for this president. For these would-be critics, I have four words: Look at the record,” he added. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — who publicly campaigned for Biden to nominate South Carolina federal judge J. Michelle Childs — echoed Grassley’s accusation that far-left elements of the Democratic Party had pushed Biden to nominate Jackson, calling it “a new game for the Supreme Court.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) insisted in his opening statement that Jackson “is not anti-law enforcement,” and is not “soft on crime,” noting that members of Jackson’s family have worked in law enforcement and that she has support from some national police organizations. 

”Judge Jackson is no judicial activist,” Leahy added.

“This game is particularly disturbing to me, because there’s been a wholesale effort of the left to take down a nominee for my state, and I don’t like it very much,” said Graham, who claimed that Childs would have gotten 60 votes in the 50-50 Senate. 

“There have been people in my caucus that would have voted for her [Childs] even though we knew she would be a reliable liberal vote,” he went on. “Now, we’re facing a choice, sponsored by the most radical elements of the Democratic Party when it comes to how to be a judge. They have the most radical view of what a judge should do. And you were their choice.”

Graham also assured Jackson that her confirmation hearing would not devolve into the battle royale-style hearings that Democrats waged against Supreme Court nominations during the Trump administration — most notably the controversy surrounding now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“It won’t be a circus, we’re off to a good start,” he said.

“Chairman Grassley couldn’t get the first word out of his mouth before they shut down the place [last time]. So that’s off to a good start. Most of us couldn’t go back to our offices without getting spit on. I hope that doesn’t happen.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told Jackson that he wanted the hearing to focus on “issues and substance,” while ripping Democrats for their past contentious questioning of Kavanaugh, as well as current Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“I can assure you that your hearing will feature none of that disgraceful behavior. No one is going to inquire into your teenage dating habits. No one is going to ask you with mock severity: Do you like beer?” Cruz said.

“We will see Democrats in the media suggest that any senator that is skeptical of your nomination, who questions you vigorously or that dares to vote against you must somehow harbor racial animus,” added Cruz before noting that Senate Democrats had filibustered former President George W. Bush’s nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who is black, to the DC appeals court between 2003 and 2005.

“They did so precisely because they wanted to prevent Judge Brown from becoming Justice Brown,” Cruz went on, noting that then-Sen. Joe Biden was among the Democrats who opposed Brown’s nomination.

Cruz also raised the Democratic filibuster of another Bush nominee, Miguel Estrada, who was also denied a spot on the DC circuit.

“If you are Hispanic or African-American and you dare depart from Democrats’ political orthodoxy, they will crush you, they will attack you, they will slander you, they will filibuster you,” he charged. “So this is not about race. It is, however, about issues and substance.”

Some observers had suggested that Republicans would not be overly aggressive in their scrutiny of Jackson, given her likely confirmation won’t alter the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.

But some committee members signaled they would grill Jackson closely over her work before the bar — in which she represented clients including Guantanamo Bay terror detainees — and examine whether she was too lenient on sex offenders while on the bench.

In his opening statement, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) laid out seven cases involving child pornography in which he said Jackson sentenced convicted offenders to “below what the federal guidelines recommended and below what prosecutors requested.”

“I think there’s a lot to talk about there and I look forward to talking about it,” Hawley said. “Now I will note that some have said that the federal sentencing guidelines are too harsh on child sex crimes, especially child pornography. I’ve heard that argument a lot in recent days … I’ll just be honest, I can’t say that I agree with that.”

Hawley previewed his line of questioning last week in a Twitter thread that was echoed by the Republican National Committee and slammed by the White House as “toxic and weakly presented misinformation.”

Some senators also could question Jackson on racial issues, abortion and a push by some Democrats to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) claimed that Jackson had told her when they met earlier this month that “you really didn’t have a judicial philosophy.”

“The American people deserve a Supreme Court justice with a documented commitment to the text of the Constitution and the rule of law, not a judicial activist who will attempt to make policy from the bench,” Blackburn said. “Without a judicial philosophy, a judge is legally adrift and will be inclined to consider policy rather than law.”

The senator then raised a quote attributed to Jackson stating that every judge has “personal hidden agendas.”

“So I can only wonder: What’s your hidden agenda? Is it to let violent criminals, cop-killers and child predators back to the streets? Is it to restrict parental rights and expand government’s reach into our schools and our private family decisions?” Blackburn asked. “Is it to support the radical left’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court? … Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system? These are answers that the American people need to know.”

The Senate has confirmed Jackson to three federal posts — once to the US Sentencing Commission in 2010, again as a DC district judge in 2013, and a third time last year, after President Biden nominated her to the DC Court of Appeals.

Graham, one of three Republicans to support Jackson’s confirmation to the appellate court, left open the question of whether he would vote to confirm Jackson to the high court Monday — telling reporters it was “a new game” as he left the hearing. 

Biden nominated Jackson to the Supreme Court last month, fulfilling a campaign promise to nominate the first black woman to the nation’s highest bench. Jackson would take the seat of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, for whom she once clerked.

“I know that I could never fill his shoes,” Jackson told senators of Breyer Monday. “But if confirmed, I would hope to carry on his spirit.”

Democrats have said they hope to wrap up the confirmation process before the Senate recesses for Easter in the middle of next month. Jackson would then join the court for the start of its next term in October.

With Post wires