It’s hard to imagine that merely questioning a Supreme Court nominee on her record would be so controversial, yet, according to New York Times chief Washington correspondent Carl Hulse, Republicans treated Ketanji Brown Jackson worse than Clarence Thomas back in 1991.
Hulse noted that Sens. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski gave Biden “at least a modicum of the bipartisan backing he had hoped for ahead of a confirmation vote now expected as early as Thursday,” calling it a “counterpoint to the bitterly partisan debate over Judge Jackson, in which Republicans on the judiciary panel attacked her as a liberal partisan with a questionable record, glossing over her qualifications and experience in hearings that featured the airing of conservative grievances, accusations of leniency toward child sexual abusers and divisive questions, including how she would define the word ‘woman.'”
Because apparently, the record of a Supreme Court nominee is off the table in confirmations? Let’s not forget that Amy Coney Barret was given the American Bar Association’s highest rating of “well qualified” yet got zero Democrat votes.
“While they did not dispute the import of Judge Jackson’s nomination nor her legal qualifications,” (read: she’s a black woman) “committee Republicans continued to rail against her on a variety of fronts, even as some prominent conservatives called their criticisms baseless.”
Prominent conservatives such as?
Hulse continued, “They criticized the sentences she handed down in child sex abuse cases, her refusal to state a personal judicial philosophy, her past representation of terrorism detainees as a public defender, and her deep support among progressive advocacy groups.”
Oh, were they not supposed to do that? Were they supposed to say, “Black woman here, let’s not dare question her record! Her pattern of leniency for child porn offenders doesn’t matter because she’s a black woman, and the court, which has minorities and women already on it, must have a black woman at all costs”?
Did I mention that Jackson is a black woman?
Hulse lamented that Republicans questioning Jackson’s record “was a mark of how bitterly divided the chamber has grown over approving Supreme Court nominees, once regarded by members of both parties as a matter of allowing the president his chosen candidate to serve on the court.”
Yeah, too bad things aren’t like they were in the good days, like in 2020, with Amy Coney Barrett; in 2018, with Brett Kavanaugh; in 1991, with Clarence Thomas; or in 1987, with Robert Bork. Remember how easily a president’s qualified nominees were given such bipartisan approval?
Ironically, Hulse does seem to recall the Thomas confirmation hearings … just a tad differently than the rest of us do. Hulse noted that Republicans “complained” about how Democrats treated past Republican nominees yet argued that Clarence Thomas was somehow treated better than Jackson.
“At the time, rather than uniting against him en masse, Democrats agreed to send his nomination to the floor without a recommendation, despite their deep misgivings amid allegations of sexual harassment against the nominee,” explained Hulse. “On Monday, Republicans refused to take a similar step, citing their view that Judge Jackson was too liberal.”
Too liberal? If supporting lenient sentences for child sex offenders is a liberal position, I suppose the left can own it if they want to. Still, the reality is that Republicans had misgivings about her record, her lack of honesty about her judicial philosophy, and her apparent support of the blatantly racist critical race theory.
And, you know, being unable to define what a woman is.
That’s nothing like Democrats legitimizing decades-old, weak, and unsubstantiated allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, boycotting the committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett, or filibustering Neil Gorsuch. Democrats also considered filibustering John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This means that Democrats considered scuttling or attempted to thwart every Republican-nominated member sitting on the Supreme Court today.
But, you know, Republicans are the problem.
