Share
Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Ketanji Brown Jackson's Outrageous Nomination Process Makes Her Uniquely Unfit for SCOTUS

Share

The issue with Ketanji Brown Jackson, the federal appellate judge who is our senile president’s Supreme Court nominee, is not necessarily her on-paper qualifications.

By most traditional metrics, she is “qualified”: She has served as both a district court and appellate court judge, sat on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, formerly clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer (the man she has been nominated to replace) and is a double Harvard alum. In terms of objective criteria, this is an impressive resume.

Instead, the issue with Jackson is that she is a left-wing ideologue who, if confirmed by the Senate, will spend the next few decades endeavoring to move the Supreme Court far to the left. All relevant indications are that she will approach her job not like her (slightly) more pragmatic former boss, but like a leftist activist — in the mode of her possible future colleague, the midwit partisan Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Worse, Jackson, due to the outrageous race- and sex-conscious nominating process by which President Joe Biden selected her, is uniquely unfit to render equal justice under the law in legal issues involving race and sex. Even worse, despite being nominated solely due to her XX chromosomal structure, she appears ignorant as to how to differentiate men and women. Worst of all, she has shown a peculiar juridical soft spot for some of society’s very worst criminal offenders — pedophiles and child pornographers.

In a just world, Jackson’s nomination to replace Breyer would be soundly defeated. At a bare minimum, every Republican senator should vote against her.

Trending:
Federal Judge Has Bad News for Hunter Biden, Says There's Zero Evidence His Charges Are Politically Motivated

In her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Jackson has sometimes adopted conservative-sounding language, speaking of a judge’s putative umpire-like role and even paying nominal fealty to the idea that legal provisions ought to be interpreted in accordance with their meanings at the time of enactment. One is reminded of Justice Elena Kagan, who famously said at her Obama-era Supreme Court confirmation hearing that “we are all originalists now.”

But such hollow language has obviously not prevented Kagan, post-confirmation, from ruling in farcical fashion in any number of crucial cases, such as the religious liberty case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges and the immigration case of Trump v. Hawaii. No one should expect a hypothetical Justice Jackson to be any different.

In fact, Jackson would be even worse. Kagan, like Breyer, has at least occasionally been somewhat sensible on issues of religious liberty. But Jackson, when asked this week by Sen. John Cornyn about how she views religious liberty concerns in the context of same-sex marriage, flippantly scoffed that the repeated occurrence of such conflicts is simply “the nature of a [constitutional] right.”

Translation: Deal with it and bow before the rainbow flag.

During the brief nomination sweepstakes, before Biden formally tapped Jackson, the D.C. Circuit judge emerged as the clear-cut favorite of many of the left’s foremost lobby groups — among them the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the George Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center. It is no secret why.

Is Jackson fit to serve on the Supreme Court?

In a 2020 speech, Jackson referred to Nikole Hannah-Jones, the pseudo-academic fraud behind the civilizational arson that is The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” as an “acclaimed journalist.” In that same speech, Jackson — who, again, formerly served on the Sentencing Commission — favorably alluded to the role that critical race theory purportedly plays in sentencing decisions. Such a suggestion would merely be laughable were it not so insidious.

Speaking of sentencing, Jackson’s track record as a district court judge is, unsurprisingly, very bad. As brought to light by Sen. Josh Hawley, Jackson seems to have an unusual soft spot for — of all people — child pornographers. She has consistently treated those caught up in the unspeakably vile business of child pornography more leniently than sentencing guidelines recommended. Just this week, The Washington Post reported that one scumbag Jackson sentenced to just three months in prison — instead of the recommended eight to 10 years — has since reoffended. Surprise!

Curiously, the White House has responded to Senate Republicans’ entirely reasonable requests for full documentation of her work at the Sentencing Commission by withholding a whopping 48,000 pages of documents. What is the White House trying to hide? There is not much worse than a Supreme Court justice with a penchant for mollycoddling pedophiles — which Jackson has actually had since law school, when she first questioned the wisdom of making child porn convicts register as sex offenders.

Most fundamental, the very fact that Jackson was expressly nominated due to her genitalia and skin color necessarily calls into doubt her ability to rule impartially in cases pertaining to sex and race. How can someone who literally would not have been selected if she were white, for example, be expected to rule in an affirmative action case? (Whatever the case may be, Jackson will likely recuse herself from the court’s affirmative action case next term because of her long-standing professional involvement with the defendant, Harvard University.)

Related:
Op-Ed: The Thought Process That Ended Affirmative Action Could Strengthen Our Nation and Faith

And when it comes to sex, amidst the horror that is Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming events, Jackson wouldn’t even define the word “woman” when pressed — on the grounds that she is “not a biologist.” Under this logic, it is impossible to see how Jackson could adjudicate Title VII or Title IX cases, which directly concern sex-related discrimination. One also wonders whether Jackson believes someone must be an oceanographer to render a verdict as to the color of the sea. How pathetic.

Reject Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court.

© 2022 CREATORS.COM

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
,
Share
Josh Hammer is the opinion editor of Newsweek, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, counsel and policy advisor for the Internet Accountability Project ad a contributing writer for American Compass.




Conversation