By Nic Woods
The Senate vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson April 7 to the Supreme Court of the United States should have been 70-30, or at least matched Neil Gorsuch’s 54-45, but because we seem to live in one of the most blindly partisan and disingenuous political timelines ever, it was 53-47.
While that’s one more than Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas (both 52-48) and three more than Brett Kavanaugh (50-48), Brown Jackson was far less controversial than any of them. Could anyone in the Senate say with a straight face that she lacked qualifications? Unlike Barrett, Jackson knew that what was legal and what wasn’t and what was under her purview as a judge and what sounded like it should be a senator’s problem.
And unlike Thomas and Kavanaugh, she didn’t have to worry about past, er, discrepancies potentially derailing her nomination.
The 53-47 vote was the same number that supported her rise to her current judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia Circuit but, instead of Mitt Romney (R-UT) casting a vote her way that time, it was … Lindsay Graham, the same South Carolina Republican who suddenly had a bit of a temper tantrum because President Joe Biden picked her over his choice, J. Michelle Childs, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
He should have known this was going to happen — while Childs is highly qualified, if she had been chosen, she would have been equally impressive and likely more qualified that those who made it to the court before her — Jackson was just a smidge more qualified and Biden was taking no chances.
Better luck next time, Lindsey. If you allow a next time.
This brings me to what was irritating about her confirmation process. It was a dog and pony show that was beneath her.
Since Robert H. Bork was rejected in 1987 — the last rejection of a SCOTUS nominee, for better or worse — his ghost has been haunting the proceedings for everyone who has been luckier than he and didn’t have a role to play in one of the most memorable fiascos of the Nixon administration, the Saturday Night Massacre. He also had a candid streak that revealed too much of his judicial philosophy for those senators who were willing to otherwise forgive him for following sketchy presidential orders.
None of this was Jackson’s fault. It isn’t her fault that her credentials were impeccable and unassailable and so she had to answer to nonsense from Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri. It also isn’t her fault that they don’t seem to know that, if they aren’t satisfied with the minimum sentences of child predators as they currently stand, it’s their job to pass a tougher law. These two, like most Republicans, have been on record for disliking “activist judges,” so why were they asking a judge to be tougher than the law Congress passed?
Which brings us to a serious question and probably the biggest one from the hearings: Why do voters continue to find lawmakers who don’t seem to know what their jobs are?
John Kennedy of Louisiana’s obligatory impression that a Harvard-educated Black woman is “articulate” and Ted Cruz’s performance are not really worthy of mention.
Someone, I guess, had to say that a Black person was articulate and it might as well be the junior senator of a Southern state. Lindsay Graham was mid-temper tantrum so he was otherwise occupied.
And, perhaps, if Ted Cruz wants to ask serious questions about Antiracist Baby, he should ask the author, Ibram X. Kendi. I have had several conversations with Kendi and can say such a meeting of the minds would be a technical knockout if Cruz were to allow Kendi to get a word in edgewise.
The pinnacle of disingenuousness was Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said the right things but acted as if none of that mattered because he couldn’t get a feel if Judge Jackson was, or was not, an originalist.
Originalism, in short, is interpreting the Constitution based on the original understanding at the time it was adopted and, if there are any changes, it would be done through the process laid out in Article V. Now, the original understanding of “people” when the Constitution was adopted did not apply to six people who have sat on the Supreme Court, in addition to incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
What do you think, Ben Sasse – is she an originalist? And what really was your point in trying to come off as the rational Republican on the Judiciary committee for the length of your speech, then not voting for her because you knew she couldn’t possibly be an originalist? https://wapo.st/3EkNUu4