WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans are coming out in droves against Justice Kitangi Brown-Jackson in the Supreme Court, citing a variety of reasons for their opposition to President Joe Biden’s selection ahead of a major vote on her nomination next week.
Many of these senators acknowledge Jackson is qualified for the position, but cite other reasons to justify their resistance—principally her judicial philosophy, her refusal to denounce the expansion of the Supreme Court, her record in child exploitation cases, and Democrats’ prior treatment of conservative justice. candidates.
Jackson is still in good shape to be confirmed due to the 50-vote clause and strong Democratic support. So far, one Republican has publicly supported it: Centrist Senator Susan Collins of Maine. It is not clear how much you will get.
Here’s what most Republicans say is holding them back.
Judicial philosophy
Many Republicans say Jackson’s “judicial philosophy” makes her candidacy unacceptable. This is largely because it refused to be limited to “originalism” and “text” – two connected, narrow approaches to interpreting the constitution that are popular with conservative lawyers and activists.
“I think it is appropriate to look at the original intent and the original general meaning of the words,” Jackson said during her confirmation hearings.
said Senator Ben Sassi, a Republican from Neb. Jackson “rejected the claim that originality is her judicial philosophy,” saying that the judge apparently believed that originality was “just one of the tools that judges use – and not a real limitation on judicial power.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, R.S., who voted for Jackson’s confirmation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year, said she has a “lack of consistent judicial philosophy” and “will not be deterred by the clear meaning of the ruling when it comes to liberal issues.”
The framework separates Republicans from Democrats, who believe that judges should have room to read and apply the constitutional text in a way that fits with modern realities that the original writers could not have imagined.
When Jackson was asked how First Amendment protection was applied to a world with smartphones, she said it was “a process of understanding the fundamental fundamental principles of the Constitution, as stated in the text, as originally intended, and then applying those principles to this day.”
Jackson said there is no simple label for her philosophy.
Won’t denounce ‘mobilization in court’
Many Republicans blame Jackson for refusing to speak out against “mobilization in court” – an attempt by progressives to add seats to the Supreme Court to alter its ideological balance, which has no real chance of success in Congress.
“Judge Jackson refused to follow the Ginsburg-Bryer model and denounced the mobilization in court,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said when he announced his intention to vote against Jackson. “She testified that she would be, delighted to be one of many.”
Jackson said that under the Constitution, the size of the Supreme Court is a “political matter of Congress” and that she is committed to “staying my course” as a justice. “I’m just not willing to talk about issues that are properly interrupted by this body.”
In response to a question from Senator John F. Kennedy, Republican of Los Angeles, Jackson said she did not think it would be “appropriate” to comment on a political issue. When asked if she would approve of the “28 justices” of the Supreme Court, Jackson replied, “If that is the decision of Congress, yes. Congress makes political decisions like that.”
Senator Tom Telles, R-N.C. Ms., who said he was “admired” of Biden’s candidate, also said he was “disappointed” because she was “reluctant to take a firm public stand” against “a court mobilization scheme that is a fundamental ‘threat to the independence of the federal judiciary’.”
Senator Richard Burr, RN.C, said that his “greatest interest in our meeting was to confirm Justice Jackson’s position on the Supreme Court’s radical package proposals,” and that her answers were unsatisfactory.
Democrats accused McConnell and other Republicans of hypocrisy for demanding this conviction from Jackson after they failed to hold Judge Amy Connie Barrett to the same level in their October 2020 hearings. Asked by Senator Mike Lee of Utah, if the Constitution says anything about the size of the court “It doesn’t,” Barrett said. “That’s a question for Congress.”
Judgment record in child pornography cases
Some Republicans attacked Jackson during her confirmation hearings by claiming that she handed down lighter sentences in child pornography cases as a district court judge. They pointed out a few instances in which I ordered fewer sentences than recommendations.
Sean Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has repeatedly pushed Jackson on the case and later published a report claiming that “in every case of child pornography I’ve heard; Judge Jackson sentenced defendant without sentencing guidance.”
McConnell said, “In the specific field of child exploitation offenses, the candidate was permissive to the extreme.”
Jackson defended her record during her hearing, saying she takes these issues very seriously as a mother, and considered a range of factors, including recommendations from stakeholders, evidence, victims’ stories and other details.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, part of my concern with Judge Jackson is that she hasn’t followed the prosecution’s rulings,” said Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mis.
The White House has argued that its orientation is anchored in the mainstream, pointing to judges appointed by Republican presidents who Adhere to the same sentencing practices.
“The fact is that each of the specific senators who participated in these bad faith assaults on her sentencing record regarding child pornography, voted for many of the justices Trump nominated and sentenced defendants for the same crimes in the same manner, below,” a White House spokesperson said. Andrew Bates: “Guidelines widely considered to be outdated across the judiciary and less than what plaintiffs are seeking, which is also a standard.”
Democrats opposed conservative judges
For many, it was an unspoken grudge. For some, it was outright.
During the hearings, Graham Jackson showered questions about how Democrats would deal with former conservative judicial candidates, to which she responded that she was out of her way to speak. His tip was simple: they treated our judges poorly, so don’t expect us to vote their case.
Graham, who wondered last week, said if Brown had been confirmed earlier, he would have ended up as the first black woman on the Supreme Court.
[ad_2]
