Some on the right were concerned when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated a potential willingness to support the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Republicans indeed have shown more openness to support the nominees of Democrat presidents compared to vice versa, and given that Jackson’s confirmation wouldn’t change the balance of the court, it seemed possible that McConnell might ultimately join with Democrats and support her confirmation.
But, Jackson has squandered that goodwill with her evasive answers during her confirmation hearings, and McConnell has since expressed concern that Jackson has been “evasive and unclear.”
“She’s declined to address critically important questions and ameliorate real concerns. First and foremost is the simple question of court-packing. The far-left fringe groups that promoted Judge Jackson for this vacancy want Democrats to destroy the court’s legitimacy through partisan court-packing,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “She was literally the court-packers pick for the seat, and she has repeatedly refused to reject their position.”
But, more concerning than her lack of response on the issue of court-packing has been her “remarkable lack of candor”—to use Senator McConnell’s words—and evasive responses regarding her judicial philosophy.
One of the more disturbing of Jackson’s evasive answers was her response to questions from Sen. Marsha Blackburn about radical gender theory. She refused to take a position about whether schools should teach little kids that they can choose their gender and flat out refused to define what a woman is.
“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’” Blackburn asked her.
“Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t,” Jackson responded.
“You can’t?” Blackburn replied, clearly stunned.
“Not in this context,” Jackson said. “I’m not a biologist.”
What was Jackson trying to hide? Did she really think that only a biologist knows the difference between men and women? Of course not. But, the liberal interests that support her and are expecting her to deliver for their agenda while on the bench wouldn’t like her to tell the truth, so she has to obfuscate and hide behind bogus explanations.
And it’s that kind of evasiveness that McConnell expressed concern over. She’s been deliberately unforthcoming about her beliefs and judicial philosophy, unwilling to go on record with anything controversial—likely because she knows her views do not align with the mainstream of America.
Jackson predictably insisted that she would rule objectively. “Over the course of my almost decade on the bench, I have developed a methodology that I use in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that I am adhering to the limits of my judicial authority.”
However, despite citing her years on the bench as vital experience that contributes to her alleged impartiality, she also claimed to lack experience when it suited her.
“Judge Jackson tried to dodge questions about constitutional interpretation by claiming that she does not have enough experience,” McConnell noted. “If Judge Jackson fully, truly feels she lacks sufficient experience with constitutional interpretation, then the Senate certainly should not confirm her.”
He’s absolutely right. On the issues that matter–the issues that inform the Senate about what kind of justice she will be–she hasn’t been as forthcoming as someone with nothing to hide would be.
