Ketanji Brown Jackson's Senate Hearings
Image: MSNBC
đď¸âď¸ Yesterday was Day 2 of confirmation hearings for President Bidenâs Supreme Court nominee, Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson, following opening statements from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.
It was the first day senators were allowed to ask Jackson direct questions. They covered a wide range of topics including her qualifications, her record as a judge and public defender, and her overall judicial philosophy.
đ Republicans questioned if Jackson could remain impartial on the Supreme Court, or whether her liberal tendencies would result in more of what they portrayed as legislating from the judicial bench â acting more like a lawmaker than a jurist.
- Some lawmakers also inquired about Jacksonâs religion (Protestant) as a reminder that Dems did the same when questioning now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, before saying they think her faith wouldnât interfere with her ability to be fair.
đ´ Democrats preemptively asked Jackson about a series of criminal sentences against child-pornography offenders that several GOP lawmakers described as lenient in their statements on Monday.
- Jackson said she properly applied the relevant statute in each case, which âsays to impose a sentence that is, quote, sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment.â
đ Looking ahead⌠The confirmation hearings continue today and tomorrow, after which the Judiciary Committee will meet to vote on whether to recommend Jackson to the full Senate.
She only needs a simple majority to be confirmed by the 50-50 legislative body, with VP Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote.
- If confirmed, Jackson would be the first Black woman and third Black Justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
See the 360° View
From the Left
- 3 in 4 Democrats (75%) believe Ketanji Brown Jackson should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a recent poll from Politico/Morning Consult; 4% disagreed and 21% said they âdonât knowâ or had âno opinionâ on the matter.
đâ° Ready, Set, Go: These opinions take 1.79 minutes to read.
âAfter day one of the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge (likely soon-to-be Justice) Ketanji Brown Jackson, this much is clear: Jackson is eminently qualified, she's unflappable and she's virtually certain to be confirmedâŚ
While it's still not entirely clear how opponents might meaningfully attack Jackson, two general lines of argument emerged during the first day of confirmation hearings. One argument boils down to, essentially, We don't like some of the people who support herâŚ
That's an attenuated hook, a bank shot, insufficient to overcome the powerful case for confirmation. The argument itself reeks of desperation. Opponents don't see a strong argument against Jackson herself, so instead they go after others who support herâŚ
The second primary thread of opposition to Jackson is that, primarily because of her experience as a public defender, she will be somehow soft on crime -- or, as McConnell put it, she might have "special empathy for criminal defendants." As a longtime former prosecutor, I have no hesitation saying: What's wrong with that? Typically, we want our judges to have empathy for the parties appearing before them; it's a core judicial virtue, along with temperance, impartiality and wisdomâŚ
It's unfair to attack Jackson, or any person, for previous criminal defense work. Defense lawyers⌠serve a vital and necessary role in our constitutional democracy by ensuring due process and protecting the rights of the accusedâŚ
We'll see, when the hearings resume Tuesday, how Jackson responds directly to potentially hostile questioning. I don't expect her to take on much damage; if anything, be prepared for the case for confirmation to be even stronger after she has a chance to address her detractors directly.â
âMuch of the first day of the confirmation hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Bidenâs nominee for the Supreme Court, was not about Jackson at all. Instead, Senate Republicans whined about the treatment of past nominees, going all the way back to Robert H. Borkâs hearing nearly 35 years agoâŚ
Their histrionics was a sign of how little Republicans have to work with in opposing Jackson. Their accusations were as diverse as they were flimsy: Jackson is a zealot, they said. She is a pick of the radical left. She was a public defender who â gasp! â represented criminals. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) repeated his already debunked claims that she is a softy on child porn defendants. Perhaps the lowest point came from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who ranted about everything from masks to transgender children.
The day served as a reminder of how unpleasant, partisan and unenlightening these hearings have become â and of the low quality of senators in attendance compared to their predecessors. It is unimaginable that a Howard Baker of Tennessee or an Alan Simpson of Wyoming would behave like thisâŚ
[Jackson] is so manifestly qualified, so perfectly embodies the American dream and is so blessed with superior judicial temperament that it is obvious why Republicans are struggling. They just canât seem to find a way to knock down a super-qualified, charming, humble and brilliant Black woman.â
From the Right
- Nearly 1 in 4 Republicans (23%) believe Ketanji Brown Jackson should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a recent poll from Politico/Morning Consult; 36% disagreed and 41% said they âdonât knowâ or had âno opinionâ on the matter.
đâ° Ready, Set, Go: These opinions take 1.75 minutes to read.
âAs the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearings to consider Ketanji Brown Jacksonâs nomination to the Supreme Court, itâs clear that virtually all Republicans will oppose her. They are right to do so, just as Democrats were right to oppose the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.
Itâs simply a matter of fact that the Supreme Court is a political football. Thatâs a result of the courtâs own volition. Over the past century, it has extended its jurisdiction into a wide panoply of predominantly political issues. On many crucial matters, the final word rests with the court, not with Congress or the White House. So itâs entirely reasonable for elected officials to move heaven and earth to ensure their allies control the crucial bodyâŚ
Thus, conservatives ought not support Jacksonâs nomination, despite her legal accomplishments. Indeed, no conceivable appointee by a Democratic president could merit conservative support in the current environment. Itâs impossible to imagine a vetting process that would allow a Democratic nominee to break with their partyâs reigning judicial philosophy. The same can be said of Republican appointees. As a result, any senator who votes for the opposing partyâs nominee would be backing a philosophy they have vowed to opposeâŚ
It should be clear that this politicization is bad for the court and the country. But this is simply another fault line in our divisive and corrosive political wars. Ultimate victory will come only when one party transcends our current divisions to create a lasting new political majority. Until then, Republicans should not unilaterally disarm and support their judicial foes.â
âThe Article III Project has compiled an opposition report on Ketanji Brown Jacksonâs views on how the criminal-justice system handles pedophiles and child pornography⌠Not all of the punches land. Some of A3Pâs citations are to things only tenuously connected to Jackson. Moreover, Andy McCarthy argues, in criticizing Josh Hawley for raising this line of attack, that there are some aspects of our current sentencing regime that should be questioned.
All of that being said, the A3P does raise one item of Judge Jacksonâs written views that is genuinely controversial. Her Harvard Law Review note in 1996 chose to focus on statutes that impose registration and community-notification requirements for sex offenders. Jackson argued for âdeeming the laws âpunitiveâ to the extent that they operate to deprive sex criminals of a legal rightâ â rather than treating those laws as protective of communities... Jackson complained that âstate legislators these days have little tolerance for sex convictsâ...
In short: Jackson took a particular interest in arguing that sex-offender-registry statutes were unconstitutional. Her view was roundly rejected by the courts. It may well be that she no longer believes in the position she took in 1996, but it is completely fair to ask her about it and criticize her for giving too little weight to the public interest in protecting children from sexual predators.â
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
  | March 21, 2022Should Trans Athletes Compete in Womenâs Sports?
đ UPenn swimmer Lia Thomas became the first trans athlete to win a D1 national championship in any sport after placing first in the women's individual 500-yard freestyle on Thursday.
Discussion
  | March 18, 2022What's the Endgame in Ukraine?
đşđŚ A theater in Mariupol holding an estimated 1,300 Ukrainian civilians partially collapsed under Russian shelling. Roughly 130 people had been rescued from the theater as of Thursday evening, per reports.
Discussion
  | March 16, 2022What Exactly is the Role of The Federal Reserve?
đ°đŚ What gives the Federal Reserve the power to determine how fast prices can increase? And what are the main goals the central bank is trying to achieve?
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no đ or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.đ
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete