President Joe Biden honored his promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. On February 25, 2022, the President formally announced his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Not surprisingly, but nevertheless interesting, is the fact that, if confirmed, Jackson will be the first justice to serve on the Court with work experience as a public defender, as opposed to a prosecutor. Former Justice Thurgood Marshall, long retired, was the last judge to bring any significant amount of criminal defense experience to the Court. This perhaps comments on a larger gap in representation within the nation’s highest court. In her work on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jackson “took ‘extra care’” to extend necessary knowledge to the accused, about the legal process, that they so often lacked. For these reasons, along with the rest of her work history and esteemed education, it's hard to not classify Judge Jackson as uniquely qualified for the job and a justice with a complete understanding of the law. Despite this, her nomination hearing turned into an attack on her identity and validity as a legal professional.
Though supposedly, according to Ted Cruz, Judge Jackson’s hearing was far less malicious than that of Robert Bork or Brett Kavanaugh. The experience of Judge Bork, who failed to be appointed to the Court largely as a result of controversy over his problematic past and future regarding civil rights and political scandals, and Kavanaugh, who got nominated despite sexual assault allegations, were used to downplay the attacks on Judge Jackson. Cruz and his peers seemed to flaunt the ‘favor’ that they were doing Jackson in not questioning her irrationally as the democrats had supposedly done to nominees he favored in the past. Thus, creating the false narrative that Jackson has moral deficiencies comparable to Bork or Kavanaugh.
The poignancy of Cruz’s comparison between the hearings of Bork and Kavanaugh and Judge Jackson is significant in pointing out the politicization of the legal system. It's undeniable that all three judges experienced politicized nominations, but Judge Jackson’s identity was weaponized against her, whereas Bork and Kavanaugh were just faced with the consequences of their actions.
What's ahead for Ketanji Brown Jackson? Here's what Recent History Suggests.
The Respectful Supreme Court Hearing That Wasn't - The New York Times
A Public Defender on the High Court
Questions:
2. Given the shockingly informal questioning of Ketanji Jackson, do you see a path to reconstruction of respectable debate between differing ideology?
1 comment:
I think that partisanship heavily affects the way the U.S. justice system operates. The first things to think about are presidential appointments which are innately biased as they want a Judges to reflect their views and leave an impact on the U.S. government as a whole. In addition, a series of questions regarding a possible Justice’s beliefs are almost a right of passage when being considered for the position. Questions about past cases as well as current ideology that the candidate holds is determined to show the public and also for senators to determine whether they like the candidate. While I do think it is important to know who will be representing the public on the Supreme Court, I think that the questions should be at least having to do the position and not outrageous questions. A question about Jackson’s thesis paper she wrote as a Harvard undergraduate was brought up and then she was asked whether she had a hidden agenda or if other judges had a hidden agenda. Another example, in Article 3 of the constitution, it states that no religious test is required as a qualification for any position in office or public trust. However, Jackson was asked what faith she was. I think that questions over the years have significantly veered away from what they are supposed to be doing and it is heavily due to partisanship.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ketanji-brown-jackson-questions-ridiculous-b2051678.html
Post a Comment