[J]ackson regularly spoke about "the greatness of this nation" being evident in how much progress the United States has made in numerous ways in just a generation or two, rather than asserting that the country is irredeemably flawed. She repeatedly spoke of "adherence to the text" of the Constitution and laws as a proper "restraint on my own authority as a judge." Rather than saying legal texts have meanings that "evolve" with the times, she said that a text should be interpreted according to "what it meant to those who drafted it."

(Actually, conservatives believe slightly differently, namely that the original, publicly understood meaning of the text, not the drafters' 'intent,' should guide judges. But Jackson's answer is very much in the right ballpark.)

Unlike a number of Democratic judicial nominees in the past two decades, Jackson also sounded conservative when speaking very definitively against the use of international law to adjudicate U.S. domestic cases. She said she agreed with a questioner that international law should not be used "for interpreting enumerated or unenumerated" constitutional rights. "The use of international law is very limited in our law, and in our judging, is very limited," she said, adding that it is applicable only "if Congress directs" as much or if the case "involves a treaty."

Finally, again and again, Jackson spoke of how important it is for her as a judge to "stay in my lane," not to assume that judges should exert executive or legislative functions. Of course, that's what nominees are supposed to say when pressed, but she volunteered it again and again as if she meant it. She is showing an important amount of respect for our system's "separation of powers" -- the structural restraints, not just the Bill of Rights, that protect American freedoms.