WAPO Editorial : Republican excuses for rejecting Ketanji Brown Jackson are absurd
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Republican excuses for rejecting Ketanji Brown Jackson are absurd
Editorial Board 4-5 minutes 4/3/2022
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, seems to be getting rave reviews from Republicans. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said that she is “a person of exceptionally good character, respected by her peers and someone who has worked hard to achieve her current position.” Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) declared that she “has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law.” Obviously, Judge Jackson exceeds the standard that should apply to Supreme Court nominees: that they be well-qualified, possess an even temperament and sit within the judicial mainstream. Yet Mr. Graham, Mr. Sasse and other Judiciary Committee Republicans are vowing to oppose advancing her nomination when the panel meets on Monday.
The reasons they have concocted are not credible. Mr. Graham voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second-most powerful court in the country, less than a year ago . Yet Mr. Graham has suddenly concluded that she has a “record of judicial activism.”
Mr. Sasse complained that Judge Jackson “refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy.” In fact, the extent to which she embraced originalism made many liberals uncomfortable. “I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,” Judge Jackson said in her confirmation hearings. “I believe that it’s appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning, of the words when one is trying to assess because, again, that’s a limitation on my authority to import my own policy.” If that is not good enough for Mr. Sasse, he is committing to reject any Supreme Court nominee selected by a Democratic president. Perhaps that is the point.
Senators should not impose an originalism test or a living constitutionalism test or any other crude philosophical standard on judicial nominees. The correct way to interpret the Constitution is open to legitimate debate, each judge — even each originalist judge — is different, and presidents should generally get high-quality picks confirmed. Otherwise the federal judiciary would become more political and less effective.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced he would vote against confirming Judge Jackson because she refused to answer questions about expanding the Supreme Court. Yet he rammed through Justice Amy Coney Barrett even though she also avoided answering the question during her confirmation hearings.
Republican senators’ hypocrisy peaks when they complain that Democrats mistreated past GOP nominees, such as Justice Barrett and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. It was Republicans who obliterated the last shreds of goodwill in the judicial confirmation process when they blocked then-Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated in 2016 to replace the late Antonin Scalia, based on scant principle whatsoever.
There is one notable exception: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she would vote to confirm Judge Jackson, a lonely stand that would not have been considered brave in the past — but is now. Other Republicans still have the chance to follow her lead; they can do themselves, their party and the country a service if they do.
For now, by heaping praise on Judge Jackson while opposing her nomination, Republicans seek to obscure the unattractive image of their almost entirely White caucus rejecting the first Black woman ever nominated to the high court. Kind words cannot disguise the fact that they are grasping for pretexts, each more preposterous than the last, to oppose this historic nominee. Their actions will speak louder now — and in the history books.
Tags
Who is online
458 visitors
Republicans have given up trying to hide their hypocrisy, and republican voters have shown that they don't care.
You think it started with Garland?
Get Borked you idiot!
Remember him? He even received a saying for the metaphorical political lynching the Democrats gave him.
Have another one for you.
Clarence Thomas.
So that is what 4 to 1?
Democrats are getting so bad with political lynchings of Republican nominees for Supreme Court that they can't remember two of the worst.
A rather convenient memory they seem to possess!
I believed Anita Hill should have been too steep for Clarence, I Doubt Thomas,. was Lying, in wait time used to lose, and what a fabulous partner picker, with Revolutionary Tactics on her mind...
Whitewashing her awful decisions?
So they should just roll over, play dead, and ignore her softer than even the most lenient sentencing guidelines for pedophiles?
Democrats do love their criminals; sometimes they even expect children to as well.
After the disgusting displays put on by Democrats during the confirmation hearings for the previous two Justices, Democrats have no room to criticize Republicans for not voting for their choice.
Democrats have the votes, so what the hell are they bitching about anyways?
You know they have to play themselves as the victim. They'll fabricate an issue if they have to.
“Democrats have the votes…”
All that matters.
An a fait accompli…so what the hell are you bitching about…other than to bitch about?
You really need to learn what bitching is. Get back to me when someone teaches you.
[removed]
[Deleted]
SSDD
It is so cute when one party tries to demonize the other party for doing the same thing that they do. Watching them (and their minions) try and twist and turn the narrative to rationalize why it is OK when they do it or why it is different when they do it always brings a smile to my face. Please, carry on!
Your usual projection.
Massive cleanup on aisle 4.1. Stop with the jabs. Next time tickets will be issued. Only warning.
Is the WAPO insane? The party of Dick Durbin, who blocked a nominee because he was Latino, wants to complain about "absurd" reasons for opposing nominees to the federal bench? The party who has called nominees leaders of high school rape gangs? Who've variously filibustered and opposed nominees on a party line basis? How is anyone whose paid the slightest bit of attention the confirmation process the last 40 years brain dead enough to fall for such partisan tripe?
Insanity.
The Republicans asked her to defend her record and explain her philosophy. . That's the entire point of these hearings. They didn't pour through 40 year old yearbooks looking to find hidden clues.
Nope, just biased.
She seems eminently qualified, well regarded by her peers, and is clearly very smart. I see no reason not to vote for her.
The whole SCOTUS nomination process seems to be irretrievably partisan anymore, with most objections rooted in nonsense. I am hopeful that the full Senate will be a little less ridiculous, but I’m not holding my breath.
I would vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was smart enough to avoid the trick request to define woman. Marsha Blackburn was hoping that Jackson would fall for it with an answer something like, 'their the people without a Y chromosome' or other such nonsense. I'm sorry though that Jackson didn't supply the correct answer, 'I know one when she self identifies as one'.
Her answer was exactly what Blackburn wanted. It's gold for Republicans.
The very fact that it's supposedly a "trick question" is exactly the point Republicans want to drive home how crazy progressives have become.
I figured the Republicans were counting on the racists' votes in November. All those who are outspoken racists, and those who would never admit their personal feelings publicly.
I'm sure that they are counting on at least the white racist votes, but they probably won't get many Black, Brown or Asian racists votes.
Why did you leave out the orange, blue, green, red and purple racists? Are you trying to hurt their feelings?
I never want to hurt feelings, life is too short. Thanks for including them.
Read my reply again - you misinterpreted what I wrote.