Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, and the protection of the white mother

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://jill.substack.com/p/isnt-she-a-mother?s=r


First, the good news: Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, despite days of offensive and stunningly racist questioning from Republican senators. They did their worst and in the long sweep of history, it’s not going to matter.

But watching the conservative attacks on Judge Jackson and, Cory Booker aside, the general failure of Senate Democrats to come to her defense, I was struck by how differently Judge Jackson was treated compared to Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett was granted significant deference, even by those who opposed her confirmation — particularly when it came to her role as a mother.

Judge Barrett’s status as a mother was used to justify her confirmation and shield her from criticism. Judge Jackson, by contrast, wasn’t afforded that presumption of maternal virtue and feminine vulnerability; her children afforded her no status at all as she was made to answer for other peoples’ actions and ideas, simply because they share the same skin tone.

Barrett, along with her Republican supporters, emphasized her position as “a tireless mother of seven” and placed it at the center of her confirmation process. “As the president noted, when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the court,” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the first day of her confirmation hearings. Her “beautiful family” and “wonderful children” came up dozens of times during the rushed process to confirm her to replace feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett’s motherhood was evidence of her “impeccable” character (Chuck Grassley), of her success “establishing leadership roles” (Mike Lee), of her “compassionate” bona fides (Joni Ernst), and of her being “an amazing role model for little girls” (Why? Because “[her] children have been wonderfully well behaved,” gushed Ted Cruz).

*snip*

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. K&R

[Raven123]

2. I agree, the Dems were insufficiently supportive.

Could have prepared a better response to attacks on her and her record. Info on conservative judges was readily available for comparison, and they should have cited specific parallels.

[RobinA]

6. Why Did She Need Defending?

She did a bang up job and didn't need the help.

[Raven123]

8. 1) To call out the GOP hypocrisy. 2) Never let an attack go unanswered

Identify the conservative judges that the GOP supported who have similar sentencing records. It is not just about KBJ. It is about the BS the GOP shoveled. Get it on record, get a few sound bites to play over and over.

[Demsrule86]

9. They wanted to get it done...

And she needed no defending. She was great.

[Casady1]

3. They see her as the help

just like people treated Obama as a waiter.

[onecaliberal]

4. Durbin should give up the gavel. This is why we fucking lose.

We let those apes fling shit at KBJ for two days and didn’t shut them down for half of it. Someone give Dems parliamentary training. He could have gaveled recess or cut the mic. There is ZERO chance they would have let COVID Barrett be treated like that.
I am still enraged by it.

[RobinA]

5. Freakin', Seriously?

"presumption of maternal virtue and feminine vulnerability" This is being suggested as a way of viewing two women's suitability for the Supreme Court?

Jackson was treated abominably and handled it with grace and intelligence. She should not have been treated better because she is a female or a mother, she should have been treated better because she is a human being. And, if we want to drag rank into it, because she is a highly successful and well-educated candidate for a prestigious job. The proverbial big fish in a large pond.

[lagomorph777]

7. Not the mother. Not the baby. Just the fetus.

Specifically, the Y chromosome.