Last week, Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first African American woman to be confirmed into the Supreme Court. It was a momentous occasion filled with relief and excitement for the Democratic Party. However, the ugly confirmation process that she was forced to go through was a sign of the partisan politics of this era. Republicans interrogated her, accusing her of giving “light sentences to child pornographers, supporting teaching critical race theory in secondary school, and trying to let dangerous criminals out of prison”. They wanted to paint a picture of Jackson as a “dangerous” judge that would “undermine public safety” if on the court.
I believe these claims on Jackson are quite outrageous, considering the lack of evidence that they have. For example, the Republicans claim that Jackson is a supporter of pedophiles due to her sentences that were below the child pornography guideline. However, through fact checking by ABC News, judges typically sentence below guidelines in around “2 out of 3 cases”. This shows that sentencing below the child pornography guideline is quite mainstream and normal within the US because the guideline is quite harsh. The harsh remarks made by the Republicans signal how polarized politics has really become. Only 3 Republicans, with one being a surprise (Mitt Romney), voted to confirm Jackson. The others latched onto conspiracy theories or false claims to fight against Jackson and her confirmation when she clearly deserved it under her qualifications. Even with little to lose (there will still be liberal minority in SCOTUS), Republicans used the opportunity to promote their own self-interests and demonstrate how polarized they just are. If anything, I believe they ruined their image even more by attacking Jackson so heavily.
This latest confirmation process is a signal of how the Supreme Court has become another tool for parties to use in order to win the “culture wars”. The Court, under the power of judicial review, has become a battleground to create pivotal policy on many social issues. The Court was designed to not have politics influence it but inevitably it has become deeply embedded within the fight between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives want to keep out liberals like Jackson (a sure liberal vote), who could stop them from overturning abortion rules, gender identity, same-sex marriage, and more. Jackson’s confirmation is only the beginning of a continued fight over the courts with many ugly claims, some if not many of which will be false, in order to gain control. There are not many solutions which is definitely worrying. The last thing we want is for something similar to cancel culture reaching Supreme Court nominations.
Questions:
Do you agree with Jackson’s confirmation?
Do you think the Republicans should’ve attacked Jackson the way they did?
Are there any solutions to avoiding a political war on the Supreme Court? Should the Court’s power be restrained?
Sources:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/18/the-ketanji-brown-jackson-hearings-may-be-only-the-beginning
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/opinion/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn/story?id=83565833
2 comments:
I think the response to Ketanji Brown has been ridiculous. Much of the treatment that she faced was racist, and although contentious nominations seem to be a norm now, I think the amount of disrespect and questions as to her quality as a judge made no sense. Additionally, the amount of pushback from conservatives really doesn't make much sense. It doesn't change the balance of the court, and Biden is going to be in office for a while-- obviously he's going to nominate a liberal judge. That said, it is a nice change to see more diversity in the Supreme Court, and I think that the representation on its own as well as her perspective will mean a lot going forward.
This connects to a phenomenon we learned in the SCOTUS chapter. Judges are not attacked by dissidents to their nomination according to their ideology because that is not seen as a valid reason to reject their appointment. This belief is especially held among Republicans. This means that Republicans need to critique the judges based on other criteria. In this case, Republicans have found previous cases that supposedly indicate a lack of certain aspects of moral character. It is pretty clear that these accusations are senseless and the ones making them do not actually believe it. But, they are made anyways because it is the best way Republicans have found to critique Brown, to convey their disagreement with her nomination, which is in reality motivated by ideology. Therefore, I think that the argument that Republicans are making themselves look silly by criticizing her based on this is not viable because it is clear it is just a charade to justify voting based on ideology. They vote by ideology because it fits their self-interest, as Bryan said in his post, to have less liberal justices on the supreme court and to attack the reputation of those on the court. It is the result of polarization that they focus on their own self-interest and try so hard to attack a Democratic SCOTUS nominee that is almost sure of passing because of their majority in the court, and filling politics with negativity instead of cooperation.
Post a Comment