She’s not qualified
It all came down to a question you might have missed
NOTICE: Taking my family on a vacation next week and I’m committing to being with them instead of working during that time. So next week there won’t be a Memo on Monday or Friday.
It wasn’t good. At least from the segments I’ve seen of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown-Jackson, the accomplished jurist didn’t have an impressive showing. Of course, neither in my estimation did many of the committee members who always seem to be preoccupied with creating mic drop moments on video that sycophants online will make “go viral.” Performative politics is killing our country.
That said, even as Cory Booker (D) was flailing his arms and overacting worse than Jim Carrey as he praised Brown-Jackson and Lindsey Graham (R) was bordering on applying a constitutionally forbidden religious litmus test for the judge before later storming out of the hearing, the majority of the attention should be placed on the nominee. On more than one occasion, she seemed utterly perplexed by the simplest of questions and surprisingly unprepared to answer others.
Start here:
This is paltry logic and unsustainable legal reasoning. For theConsider an issue that Brown-Jackson, like most progressive politicians, feel passionately about: violence committed with guns. Imagine her saying, “With one pull of the trigger, you can dramatically alter the course of someone’s life. And yet just for that one small act you are looking at 50 years to life, or even execution.” Most people – including the left’s gun control lobby – would say, “Yes, obviously.” Because the damage is real and is the basis for the punishment.
Further, evidence collected by the Washington Post found that one of the sexual predators Brown-Jackson released from prison early continued perpetrating his violence against innocent victims. A sad reality that was entirely avoidable.
Even worse than that was perhaps the most widely viewed segment of the entire hearing:
I don’t get the vibe that Judge Brown-Jackson is a left-wing culture warrior in the truest sense. I wouldn’t expect to see her participating in wild, pro-trans street marches, or find her name on the subscription list to the LGBT propaganda organization “Pink News.” It’s not that she is a trans-activist that should worry or concern the remaining 99% of the country’s population. It’s that she feels uncomfortable thwarting the movement or its dangerous ideological claims and legislative aims.
But even though an inability to define what a woman is seems more than a little ominous, the most morally and ethically appalling response from Brown-Jackson came in response to a question from Sen. Kennedy.
Now, do I expect that President Biden would ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court that wasn’t as ideologically committed to the perpetuation of legalized abortion as he is? Of course not. Republicans make that kind of mistake (5 of the justices that enacted Roe were Republican nominees, then Republican nominees Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter have all helped sustain and protect it), Democrats do not (not a single Democrat appointee since Roe has opposed it).
But this exchange reveals the lack of seriousness that our culture now allows to persist relative to human rights. Realize this isn’t just about abortion. Former President Obama notoriously opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act both as a state senator in Illinois, and as a U.S. Senator. Those laws sought to protect children like Gianna Jessen who survived the abortion attempt and were born injured, but alive.
Sworn testimony from more than a few nurses at the time confirmed the horrific reality that babies like Gianna were simply being abandoned and left for dead without pain or medical care. For a man who made the centerpiece of his presidency a commitment to providing healthcare as a “human right,” Obama’s refusal to require healthcare for infants who survived abortion made it clear that to the 44th president, “unwanted and injured infants” were not a class of humans who qualified for equal protection under the law.
Therefore, it is completely legitimate to ask a potential Supreme Court nominee her understanding of when the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause attaches itself to Americans. She said she couldn’t answer that question.
I don’t say this to be partisan, to paint myself into an ideological corner, or to be infuriatingly controversial to some – but an inability to provide any answer to that seminal question should be automatically disqualifying for a person applying to sit on a panel as significant and influential as the U.S. Supreme Court.
If seated would Brown-Jackson be the only justice to fail such a human rights litmus test? Certainly not. In fact, chances are that the man she is replacing, Justice Stephen Breyer, would be equally unable or unwilling to answer that question. While that means her confirmation wouldn’t tip the high court ideologically, it also means that our civilization lost yet another chance to strike a legitimate blow for the dignity and worth of humanity.
For my money that’s by far the most devastating thing about these entire theatrical hearings.
ICYMI…
In honor of the hearings, I made a video pointing out who should and shouldn’t be complaining about unfair treatment for judicial appointments. You might benefit from knowing this:
I also wrote a couple columns I’d love for you to check out:
Totally agree with you. Thanks for the clear and consistent application of God's Word to the ever changing politically charged life in America. Enjoy your vacation with your family!
Totally missed that one. What an idiot!