Let me say first of all, I published an earlier post and tweets, while disagreeing with her judicial approach, feel that the confirmation process should not be partisan; I primarily look at aspects of qualifications (legal background) and experience. Judge Jackson graduated from an elite law school, clerked under the very SCOTUS justice she will replace; she has public defender exposure and has served as a federal district and circuit court judge. I wouldn't have nominated her, but I would have voted to confirm her. I was pleased to see Murkowski, Collins, and Romney join in confirming Jackson. I was unhappy with Lindsey Graham who had confirmed her for a lower court.
I had the misfortune of watching CN.N coverage. There were multiple talking points which I found annoying but first there is legal analyst Laura Coates. This is one of those rare occasions where I hear something so unbelievably stupid, I have to identify who the idiot is. The last time I had to do this, it was Stephen Miller, Trump's anti-imimigrant adviser. She went ballistic over Rand Paul's delayed vote. For some unexplained reason, Paul wasn't in chamber for the vote and the Senate kept the vote open as a matter of courtesy. (KBJ had already clinched confirmation 53-46 unofficially.) Coates went on this raging personal attack on Rand Paul "holding up the confirmation". Seriously, dude: what the hell is wrong with you? Justice Breyer doesn't leave the court until the end of the SCOTUS term in early summer. As of the time of this post, I've seen no explanation of Paul's delay. There has been some speculation about Thursday being a travel day; reportedly both Paul and Gtaham showed up in casual clothes, not the usual business suit. [Thank God I didn't hear Coates go on about that, but maybe she did after I turned off CNN.] He apparently showed up and cast his vote [nay] in the cloakroom, not on the floor.I remember the initial roll call and they seemed to stutter-step for Rand Paul. I didn't hear the vote and I was confused after they finished the vote, they didn't report the vote (and CNN didn't subtotal the vote during the recall)
I don't have a transcript of all the other Coates and other analyst discussions. I Googled her image to make sure I had the right name, and I didn't even realize she was a woman of color (maybe the lighting or her complexion) until I saw other photos, which might explain why she seemed to be taking this nomination so personally. But a few points:
"No one ever had to put up with what KBJ went through in hearings". I didn't see all the hearings on CNN. I thought she got some odd questions ("how do you define a woman?"), and there were some predictable "law and order" questions and attempts to get her to explain her judicial philosophy, of the nature involving a living Constitution, legislating from the bench. From my viewpoint, a lot of this was very predictable; from a GOP perspective: she had to know they would be trying to probe whether she was soft on crime. A lot of this was little more than political grandstanding and posturing. Coates seemed to be impressed by her explaining her methodology to judicial decision making. I was less impressed: it came across as abstract, vague, and evasive. That's not necessarily unusual since the Bork nomination, candidates have often evaded questions which may come up in SCOTUS cases. She came across to me as bright but not brilliant and not particularly articulate or quick on her feet. Some of that reflects her awkward response to Sen. Blackburn's "what is a woman" question. Having to defer the question to "experts" was ill-considered and I myself have tweeted jokes. I might have given a generic response of XX chromosomes, potentially capable during her fertile history of bearing offspring, and challenged Blackburn to be more specific; is she asking about women's rights under the constitution? Is she asking about trans women issues which may come up before the court?
What would I have asked if I was on the committee? I would have been interested in knowing if her decisions, say as a district judge, had ever been reversed. I would have asked about the nature of enumerated rights of the Congress and President. I would have questioned her on stare decisis on decisions like Dred Scott, Japanese-American detention, etc. Maybe, list the 3 most important SCOTUS decisions from your experience, what did you learn as Breyer's clerk that prepares you for serving as a justice. I'm not a lawyer, but I would have probed basic working knowledge about our federal court system, judicial ethics, etc.
I think the hearing was more of a proxy for a political clash between parties; Booker's tearful defense of KBJ was emotionally manipulative. Personally, I don't get a lot from the hearings, where the opposition party comes to the hearing already committed against the nominee and the hearing is more of a gotcha game, exploiting the publicity for scoring political soundbites. I heard absolutely nothing from the hearing from KBJ or anything from the senators that changed my mind. Like the State of the Union address, I think we should go back to Jefferson's long-standing tradition (until Wilson) of sending a written version to Congress. As an academic and former journal reviewer, I would probably learn more from reading her prepared responses to submitted questions than from her testimony before the committee.
But let's get back to this trite politically correct rubbish about KBJ having to work twice as hard as any man to get nominated and getting put through the wringer from a hostile committee.
Let's be clear: if you want to talk about adversity, arguably one of the most brilliant jurists ever nominated, Robert Bork, went through hell. Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were personally and relentlessly attacked over dubious unreported, unsupported sexual misconduct charges. Gorsuch took a seat "stolen" from Merrick Garland. Amy Barrett "stole" RBG's seat that belonged to Biden to fill. Nearly every Trump nominee was nearly universally rejected by Dems for purely political reasons, despite high, competitive qualifications.
Yes, there was stupid stuff like the LSAT score kerfuffle. I suspect the game was to argue that KBJ got preferential treatment in getting admitted to prestigious Harvard Law School. The fact is she earned respectable grades and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard (undergraduate) and cum laude from the law school. That means she got good grades at a highly rated university. No, she made it because of her intelligence and hard work.
But going back to the talking point: Biden had just gotten her confirmed to the circuit court less than a year ago under a very similar vote (53 yeas) under the same Senate. Biden had made a commitment to nominate a black woman to SCOTUS. There weren't that many judges as well-qualified as KBJ in the category. Technically all Biden needed was for Senate Dems to hold their side with Harris a tie-breaking vote. I wouldn't call the confirmation a gimme, but given their earlier vote on KBJ, it would be difficult to explain a vote flip. (Graham did flip from last year's yea, but Romney reversed his vote).
I'm still not thrilled with Biden's affirmative action criterion; I think government discrimination at any level is fundamentally unconstitutional and politicizes the judiciary. I 6hink Biden would have better served by a broader candidate pool, even if it led to the same decision.
Finally, I'm unimpressed by the "historic first" hype. I don't care about the racial/ethnic representation of SCOTUS. I recently clipped a FreedomTunes cartoon in my daily post which parodied "First...First...First". All of us have incidental individual differences. I am a Franco-American; my first language was French. I was born in Texas, am left-handed, and hold degrees from 3 different universities. I have also struggled with weight issues my adult life. I don't particularly care if any justice shares these characteristics. (It reminds me of when my Brazilian girlfriend gushed about how my eyes were so blue; none of my American dates ever mentioned my eye color.) KBJ also wears glasses. I also don't get this progressive obsession with SCOTUS "looking more like America". Black women constitute about 7% of Americans.
Perhaps a Justice Jackson will inspire urban youth to careers beyond entertainers and professional athletes. But we've already had a two-term black POTUS. I will be far more impressed if and when Justice Jackson pens an impressive, well-cited opinion/dissent, when her skin color is no longer referenced..
