After four long days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, we are left with more questions than answers about what kind of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would if confirmed in the Supreme Court – and the answers the Senate received were so disturbing that they were disqualified.
Judge Jackson repeatedly claimed not to do so have a philosophy of law. Instead, she suggested she use a “methodology” she developed during her time on the bench: using “the parties’ arguments, the facts in the case and the law applicable in each case” as “inputs.” help her make a decision.
The problem is that this “methodology” is totally lacking in substance, and Jackson described a functional strategy used by every judge rather than a philosophical lens through which she views the law. A philosophy of law is required to inform how the law is read and how it applies to the facts of each case.
When Jackson gave curious answers about her non-philosophy, she paid lip service to textualism and originalism, and discussed how to rely on the original public meaning of laws used in deciding cases. Maybe as Judge Elena Kagan said at her confirmation hearing, “Now we are all textualists”.
Suspicion of “methodology”
However, Professor Jennifer Mascott’s testimony before the committee explains how Judge Jackson’s “Methodology” as her judicial opinions show, would allow her to deviate from the text of the law: “The approach embedded in certain decisions of the lower court further suggests that the judge’s application of constitutional and legal methodology differed significantly from the approach of the previously engaged textualist would deviate and originalistic jurists.”
Professor Mascott noted that textualism and originalism was probably just one of many frameworks used by a Justice Jackson “along with heavy reliance on (even spurious) precedent, legislative history and general purpose.” Huh? Philosophy of law is not a fast-food menu of choices—rather, Supreme Court justices typically bring to the task an intellectual or philosophical framework that lends coherence and consistency to legal analysis. This word salad statement in favor of Judge Jackson simply begs the central question.
Democrats clearly knew that Judge Jackson’s lack of legal philosophy (or unwillingness to speak openly about his philosophy) would pose a problem. So they decided to try to make it a non-issue, with several stating that legal philosophy either doesn’t matter or isn’t useful in deciding whether someone should be confirmed to sit on the country’s highest court. This is sophistry on the part of Democrats, who cared deeply about the issue when they wanted to attack Republican candidates.
Aside from her reluctance to articulate a right-wing philosophy, Jackson indicated her willingness to bow to the radical left’s ideology in an exchange with Senator Marsha Blackburn in which Jackson refused to define what a woman was and disagreed she is “not a biologist”.
An ironic evasion
Remarkably, the candidate was specifically chosen by the Biden administration and heralded by the media because of her biological sex, is unwilling to comment definition of a woman — a evasive maneuver she certainly wouldn’t endure in her own courtroom when a recalcitrant witness is trying to prove he or she was too smart for the examining attorney.
Jackson’s extraordinary failure to answer this existential question raises serious doubts about how she would adjudicate claims arising from key federal statutes, including Title VII and Title IX, which go to court and relate to fundamental legal concepts such as gender, gender and equal protection.
dignity justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg whose historical career was founded on the fight for women’s rights under the law, recognize a radically changed landscape in which a putative Supreme Court Justice is subverting the very concept of femininity?
The wisdom of her sentencing practices has been debated, but one thing was clear from Judge Jackson’s testimony: she believed the sentencing guidelines formulated to accompany the enacted legislation were believed congress were obsolete, or too harsh, which justified her replacing her as judge at a trial with her own radically different judgment. What other laws do you think are outdated enough to ignore in the Supreme Court?
Jackson claimed to be unfamiliar critical race theory, but she has spoken positively about it in previous speeches and sits on the board of directors of an elite “progressive” school in Washington, DC, where the tenets of critical race theory are taught elementary school students. What other progressive ideologies does it refuse to publicly acknowledge while tacitly supporting them?
The incredible “What is a woman” answer, coupled with a pastiche of legal philosophy answers that seem aimed more at placating or parrying than enlightening, is misleading Critical Race Theory by a judge who has spoken so glowingly about its founders and pop culture advocates for the last two years, and the refusal to answer so many questions adds to a pile of clues that hide the real Jackson and what motivates her remains the Senate.
As a judge would say, the Senate had been confronted with it an incomplete record, but one from which certain conclusions can be drawn – and those conclusions speak against Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation.
Harmeet Dhillon is Chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/disqualifying-words-from-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson/ ‘Disqualifying’ words from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson