Concerns About SCOTUS Nominee Kentanji Brown Jackson, Explained
Supreme Court justices serve as the final arbiter of the law for a lifetime. Their decisions impact Americans for generations. This is why it is so important for senators to question nominees. Today, the left claims that the right’s attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson are racist. But they are not. Here are five valid concerns:
High Reversal Rate: According to The Washington Times, the D.C. Circuit overturned Jackson’s decisions, including some for judicial overreach, 11.9% of the time. As a result, some accuse Jackson of ruling based on politics, not law, which is concerning for a Supreme Court justice whose rulings are virtually final.
Failure to Define a Woman: Despite advocating for more women on the federal bench earlier in her hearing and being explicitly appointed to represent black females, Judge Jackson was asked to provide a basic definition of a woman. She said she wasn't a biologist and couldn't answer the question. Her answer (or lack thereof) reveals her belief that gender is political.
Lenient Child Porn Record: During her time in the U.S. District Court, Jackson sentenced 7 of 7 child pornography cases well below what the federal guidelines recommended and what the prosecutors sought. Additionally, in a Harvard Law Review article, Jackson argued that sex offender registries were unconstitutional.
Defending Terrorists: During her time as a public defender, and later in private practice, Jackson represented several Guantanamo Bay detainees and signed four habeas corpus petitions which were called Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush’s treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay “war crimes.”
Embrace of CRT: Jackson has complimented CRT advocates and suggested that CRT informs her legal analysis. In her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, she wrote that actual law should “meld together” with “intellectual law,” like “critical race theory.” During her hearing, she claimed she was unfamiliar with critical race theory when asked about this.
Democrat cries of racism are meaningless
Background: The headlines are everywhere. Republicans doubt Kentanji Brown Jackson’s credentials and question her past. Democrats, who only nominated Jackson because of her race, say Republicans are the ones being racist.
The truth is Republicans block nominations of Democrats, and Democrats block nominations of Republicans. As seen by Democrats’ history of blocking “diverse” candidates, only political affiliation matters.
Clarence Thomas: America’s second black Supreme Court justice was voted against by 46 of 58 Senate Democrats. Thomas’s hearings were similar to Brett Kavanaugh’s—Clarence Thomas was smeared as a sexual predator by his associate Anita Hill.
Janice Rogers Brown: In the early 2000s, Brown was nominated to the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. by Bush. Democrats, led by Biden, fought against her nomination for two years and even used the filibuster—that Democrats call a Jim Crow relic—to prevent her confirmation. She was still eventually confirmed.
Miguel Estrada: In 2001, Democrats blocked the nomination of Miguel Estrada from serving on the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. They believed that Republicans were grooming him for the supreme court.
Ada E. Brown: She was President Trump’s nominee for district judge of the northern district of Texas. Democrats led by Chuck Schumer voted against her confirmation.
Democrat cries of racism are purely political and carry no weight.