#310 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday March 28)
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON AND THE BRUTAL, OFTEN IRRATIONAL, ATTACKS ON HER
History soon will be made when, barring any shenanigans, the nation will have its first Black female Supreme Court Justice. Regardless of one’s view of her philosophical or political leanings, it is hard not to be impressed with Judge Jackson’s resume and her responses before the rabid dogs of the Senate Judiciary Committee. For sure, there have been some interactions between Senate questioners and Judge Jackson on substantive issues. But the vast majority of the “questioning” is little more than political performance art.
I feel as if the hearings should be subtitled, “The Invasion of the Red Herrings.” Most of the “questioning” is little more than scripted sound bites that the Republican Senators can retweet to their more ardent supporters and include in campaign commercials and mailers. The balance of the hearings, if one can call them that, consists of the making of political points and, when the Judge answers, she is talked over and interrupted.
Among the points made by some of the Senators are (a) an alleged adherence to, and proselytizing of critical race theory (untrue), (b) an apparent soft spot for child pornographers (untrue), (c) her love for defendants when she was a public defender and a judge (untrue), (d) her choice of defendants when a PD (she took the cases she was assigned), (e) the definition of a man and a woman, and (f) her unwillingness to state an opinion regarding court-packing proposals.
These insincere political opportunists, chief among them the would-be president, Josh Hawley, the first Republican Senator to state he wouldn’t vote to certify the election, the proud man who gave a raised fist salute to the insurrectionists, are not attempting to evaluate Mr. Jackson’s fitness. In their attacks on her career as a public defender, these graduates of the best law schools in America conveniently seem to forget that everyone deserves a defense and lawyers cannot be judged on whom they represent. Would it be so wrong to have one person experienced with criminal defense on a court of nine Justices?
They have attacked Ms. Jackson because she sits on the board of trustees of the Georgetown Day School, a school founded by Jews and Blacks when neither were welcome in other elite prep schools, because of a class syllabus. Has anyone reminded them that the board of trustees doesn’t opine regarding each class syllabus? This school apparently has the temerity to teach about the existence of critical race theory. To remain silent about this theory would be tantamount to suggesting that educating students about Marxism or fascism is equally heinous and creates Marxists and fascists. Under Mr. Hawley’s or Mr. Graham’s view if one ignores learning about a political movement or philosophical construct, it will just go away.
Judge Jackson should be confirmed post haste. She is learned; she has the temperament; she has the experience; she has a proven record; she is smart; and she didn’t let these dissemblers get to her in this kangaroo court that never considered fitness for office—merely fitness for tweets to the right wing base.
DID IT ALL HAPPEN BEFORE?
Lindsey Graham, he of fluid moral principles, grandstanded that he was going to treat Judge Jackson better than his Democratic colleagues treated Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett. But he misses a few key points. Ms. Jackson had nothing particularly noteworthy in her background to challenge her fitness. Justice Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was questioned based upon allegations of bad behaviors—behaviors that may have included rape. This was a legitimate line of inquiry. His history demanded detailed review and analysis. Justice Barrett is a member of a fringe group of the Catholic Church, one not generally accepted by the Catholic mainstream, the dogma of which was not known to many at the time and warranted at least a tiny bit of analysis. I’d also note that Ms. Barrett’s confirmation came as the apotheosis of the “McConnell Plan” to pack the court.
COURT PACKING AND PR
I continue to maintain that people who care about our Constitution should be very concerned not only with its letter but also its intent and how it is being obfuscated. Mitch McConnell engaged in the first court packing scheme since FDR attempted it (unsuccessfully). That this hasn’t been labeled as what it is boggles my mind.
Among the many missteps of the Democrats, one of their first orders of business should have been to impanel a committee to review the “Legislative Court Packing Scheme.” McConnell packed the court by denying a hearing for Barack Obama’s nominee for the court on a ridiculous concept that a President should not be entitled to a nomination in their last year in office and then he turned around, violated his new “rule” and rushed through the nomination of Amy Comey Barrett. As a result, instead of a 5-4 split on the Court, there is a 6-3 conservative majority.
The injustice caused by the McConnell Court Packing Plan should have been repeated in every possible medium. The Republican Court-packing scheme deserved an action in response. Moving to respond to this travesty falls under Newton’s Third Law, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” an action to expand the Court—if only temporarily—should have been couched as a surgical action to right this single injustice. Expanding by two seats would resolve the prior Court packing of Mr. McConnell. When the rules of the game are violated it is incumbent on people of principle to right that wrong. Somehow, the Republicans have defined the response to their own “court packing” as problematic, while the Democrats are playing defense.
ARE ALL PARTIES TO BLAME?
The fundamental Republican argument is that they are doing no worse in their ad hominem attacks on Judge Jackson than the Democrats were doing against Republican nominees over the years, beginning with Robert Bork. There is a germ of truth in this but it doesn’t justify the Republican committee members’ behavior. Robert Bork was “borked” from the Court because of his political positions—not trumped up QAnon conspiracies. No longer do we judge judges on their experience, scholarship, impartiality or commitment to justice (the standards Antonin Scalia said were the only important ones). Instead, it’s all about trying to tear them apart and mug for the cameras. Who’s to blame? Everybody. It has been taken to its extreme in denying a hearing to Merrick Garland and packing the court as a result, as well as the floating of absurd and unfounded assertions in the pursuit of red meat for the next election cycle. Some parties are better at this than others.
Then there’s Cory Booker:
AND FINALLY
The Republican Senators repeatedly brought up the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, complaining about how he was treated. Bill Maher said, “If you had a drink every time Brett Kavanaugh’s name was mentioned, you would be…Brett Kavanaugh…”
IT’S ALL ABOUT INFLATION
It’s of course silly to believe a President is responsible for the economy, including today’s significant inflation. COVID, supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine, increased consumer demand, rampant government spending, and so many other things factor in. But people think with their pocketbooks and, as long prices are high and eating into the average American’s ability to stay above water, President Biden will bear much of the blame. Indeed, his approval, surprisingly and somewhat alarmingly, is now in “Trump territory,” with an NBC poll showing him at only 40% approval (the same poll showed that 71% of Americans don’t have confidence in his handling of Ukraine). Regardless of responsibility, without some reduction in inflation (some of which should come regardless of government action), the Democrats will be held responsible in November.
Have a great day,
Glenn