The confirmation process of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court is an opportunity for the GOP
Last month, Joe Biden pledged to nominate "the first Black woman ever to the United States Supreme Court."
This followed Justice Stephen Breyer's announcement that he was retiring at the end of the current term, 28 years after being appointed by President Clinton.
This could be construed as an insult to the candidate because the implication is that she wasn't necessarily the best choice, merely the best among a double-restricted group (Blacks, women) that amounts to a little over 9 percent of the entire male and female population of all races, and half that number subtracting the under-18 component. In other words, 4.5%.
Ideally, any self-respecting candidate should have rejected the offer because of the inherent condescension of the criteria.
However, last week Joe Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the federal appeals court to replace Justice Breyer.
The Biden administration probably sees this as a win-win situation.
Those in the administration think a confirmation may be an antidote to Biden's rapidly declining popularity among blacks. If the nominee is rejected, for example, the Republicans can be branded as racist, which can rile up their base for the midterms. They can push the narrative of white supremacist Republicans preventing the first black woman from becoming a Supreme Court justice. In their minds, this would help them during the midterms, perhaps with their black voters.
With the Senate divided 50-50 between the parties, Democrats have just the votes to confirm Jackson, if they back her unanimously. Vice President Harris still has the deciding vote should there be a tie.
But the Republicans now have two valid reasons to oppose Judge Jackson's confirmation.
The first is that the selection criteria for the nomination are unconstitutional, and the second is Jackson's mixed record.
We plunge deeper.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
In 1978, in the Regents of University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of racial "quotas" for its selection process is unconstitutional.
Biden's public declaration to restrict his nomination to a specific demographic group only — i.e., non-white women — violates above the tenets of the Constitution, and it is also an act of discrimination against all those who are not non-white women, hence it is immoral.
They can assert that a constitutional appointment cannot occur by violating the Constitution.
One could argue that this alone should be enough to disqualify Jackson.
Now for Jackson's record.
Breitbart reported that Jackson has a mixed record on immigration — twice striking down President Donald Trump's border controls but also upholding that federal agencies have broad authority to build a wall along the United States–Mexico border and ruling in favor of regulations to tighten up asylum rules.
Vox reported that Jackson supported a left-wing judicial activist organization, Demand Justice, and issued several narrow rulings against the Trump administration, including its immigration policies.
Jackson also ruled in 2019 that former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn had to testify as part of the House's inquiry into Russian election interference, declaring in her ruling that "presidents are not kings."
Jackson may be part of the woke cults while handling immigration-related cases. Jackson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, used the term "noncitizen" or "undocumented non-citizens" rather than the terms "alien" and "illegal aliens" that are regularly used in court and in federal statutes.
Jackson served as vice chairperson of the United States Sentencing Commission, where she was involved in reducing sentences for drug offenders.
The commission retroactively reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses back in 2011, causing reduced sentences for 12,000 incarcerated individuals and making an estimated 1,800 inmates eligible for immediate release. The commission also cut sentences for most federal drug offenders during her last year as a commissioner.
Should Jackson be first questioned about her acceptance of the nomination as a diversity hire and asked to condemn Biden's act of discrimination? The risk is that she may flip it over and use it to lecture the questioner about the history of racism and make it a defining moment.
Based on her past record, the GOP must, while asking questions, cite the perils of illegal immigration, particularly to Black Americans on the lowest rungs of the job ladder, and the crimes that are committed by unvetted illegal border-crossers. She must be asked about Biden secretly transporting illegals to various parts of the country in the dead of night. It would be a real triumph to find victims who suffered due to crimes of illegal aliens. Many, of course, are Black.
Also, based on her record, the GOP must cite the opioid epidemic and expound in detail the catastrophic consequences that drug intake has had on families and especially the very young. She must then be asked about her work on the sentencing commission that led to the sentence reduction and release of drug offenders. Perhaps they should find victims who suffered due to this release program and interview them or present a video of them during the hearings.
The real opportunity for the GOP is grilling Jackson on her position on key issues such as guns, immigration, drug offenses, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, abortion, BLM, censorship, Big Tech, and many more burning issues.
We all remember the sub-human disgraceful display of the Democrats during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But the Republicans will never stoop to those levels, and some see that as their weakness — i.e., their lacking the killer instinct to give as much as they get. Others see this morality as the only thing that distinguishes them from the Democrats.
Jackson, if confirmed, will not alter the Supreme Court's general trajectory. Her political and ideological proclivities seem identical to those of outgoing justice Stephen Breyer.
Unless something out of the ordinary occurs, Jackson's confirmation seems certain. Even if Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin or any other Democrat does not vote for her, Republican senators such as Mitt Romney along with Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Lindsey Graham, who previously broke Republican ranks to vote for Jackson's confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, are most likely to vote for her.
If nothing else, the GOP should see this as a great campaign opportunity for the midterms. They will have the national stage to demonstrate their commitment to issues such as border security, immigration control, freedom of expression, protecting the vulnerable from drug abuse, freedom of choice and expression, anti-wokeness, anti–vax mandates, and so much more.
Let's hope the opportunity is seized.
Addendum: Here's a fun fact: Ketan happens to be a male Indian name, and the word "ji" is added as a matter of respect. Hence, Ketanji is what a shop owner who hails from the same state as India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi may be affectionately called.
Also available on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment