Ketanji Brown Jackson Rose Above the Muck on Day One

[marmar]

(Slate) Despite the history-making nature of her nomination, there is some big Back to the Future energy at work during this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Republicans who command a 6-3 supermajority on the current Supreme Court, a ratio that will be wholly unaffected by this week’s proceedings, chose to spend much of Monday’s opening day of hearings howling in outrage about all the ways they have suffered at the hands of Democrats. As a result, they spent the morning relitigating the insults heaped upon Miguel Estrada, Judges Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, Amy Coney Barrett, and of course Brett Kavanaugh. Many of the GOP senators’ opening statements were focused specifically on Kavanaugh, whose alleged misconduct was depicted by Sen. Ted Cruz this morning in terms of “teenage dating habits”—as if his most egregious alleged high school sin lay in asking Jennifer to the prom instead of Susie. It should go without saying that Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault, which has nothing to do with “dating,” but nobody on either side seemed to even tacitly acknowledge that distinction on Monday.

But it’s not just that Republicans largely spent the morning meandering aimlessly through the fog of outrages past. The most outrageous points of attack on Judge Jackson included Sen. Josh Hawley’s insinuation that she is soft on child sex abusers—a charge that has now been roundly debunked, even on the right, as wrongheaded and “meritless to the point of demagoguery.” So for obvious reasons, these Republican senators find themselves back sipping at the ancient well of “judicial philosophy.” And as though nothing has changed since Robert Bork left the building, this line of criticism gets rooted, again, in tired speeches about things like “originalism versus living constitutionalism.” It’s not just that this “debate” insofar as it was briefly interesting in the 1980 is now analytically useless—like announcing whether you’re a Monica or a Rachel on the set of Ted Lasso—but also there are no “originalists” left on the court, not really, and the last “living constitutionalist” has been gone for decades.

The conservative legal movement has hopscotched joyously of late, toggling between originalism and textualism as it suits their ends, but also toward complete abandonment of both, with a new interest in “common good constitutionalism” joining the party. When members of the Judiciary Committee browbeat Judge Jackson for refusing to state her “judicial philosophy” or for her inability to reduce it to a four second tiktok video, what they are attempting to do is lay claim to a debate that has long outlived its descriptive utility, and a debate which covers up the hypocrisy of a court that is more purposefully ends-oriented than any in modern history.

Which leads us to the Democrats, who on Monday did an able job of noting that Jackson’s nomination is historic and that her family should be proud, but a dismal job of defining anything akin to a progressive legal philosophy. (Protip: “recognizing regular people” is no more a coherent judicial philosophy than is “originalism”). Democrats seem to have all but given up on the larger project of using these confirmation hearings to make any salient argument about the importance of the court, even in a midterm election year, and even in a midterm election year in which Democrats stand poised to lose the Senate, and even, somehow, in a midterm election year in which the Supreme Court looks ready to reverse Roe v Wade, has already reversed it in Texas, stands ready to allow guns in New York subways, and to dismantle the EPA. ..............(more)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-day-one-muck.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I can't wait to

1. hear her line of questioning during Arguments, and
2. read her responsive Dissents to the Majority and Concurring Opinions.

Not to mention the anticipated quality of her writing and organization of her opinions.

[abqtommy]

2. Thanks for exposing me/us to this well-written article from Slate. The only line in the article

that I find offensive is "...Democrats stand poised to lose the Senate..." but I did go to
the link so I could bookmark The Slate site and I still gave you a rec, by heck!

[KS Toronado]

3. My crystal ball says we gain seats in both houses,

because of 6 years of R shenanigans. Jan 6th committee will see to that. Rs yesterday reminded me of FQX noise,
attack Democrats at every turn however untrue.

[niyad]

4. KNR and bookmarking.

[DLevine]

6. And unlike Boofer Boy, she never cried, whined, threw a tantrum,

or talked about how much she likes beer.