We begin today’s roundup with analysis from John Cassidy at The New Yorker of yesterday’s opening hearing for the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court:
At the start of a weeklong hearing that was virtually sure to descend into performative politics and partisan acrimony, [Senator] Durbin stated clearly and briefly the two essentials of Jackson’s nomination: that it is a long-overdue event and that she appears to be eminently qualified. This outbreak of senatorial clarity and brevity, however, proved fleeting. After Durbin and the ranking Republican member, Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, delivered their opening remarks, Jackson was obliged to sit for several hours and listen to the committee’s other twenty members deliver their own opening statements for the cameras, many of which were predictable. On the Democratic side, which is aching for a big political victory, some of them at least seemed heartfelt. “You, Judge, are opening a door that’s long been shut,” a beaming Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, said. (She also hailed Jackson for dressing in a purple top, purple being the color of the Minnesota Vikings.) Senator Cory Booker, who himself broke a color line in becoming the first African American senator for New Jersey, was understandably emotional. “I feel this sense of overwhelming joy as I see you sitting there, as I see your family sitting behind you,” Booker said.
At The Atlantic, Yale law professor Linda Greenhouse takes a deep dive into the nominee's deep experience and the impact of her clerkship during a key era for the Supreme Court:
From a certain perspective, nothing is unique about Judge Jackson’s status as a former Supreme Court law clerk. A majority of the justices are former clerks, Breyer among them. But no two Supreme Court terms are alike. Each is shaped by the particular cases on the docket, by the tensions evoked as the justices work against the clock to resolve their disputes, by compromises reached or disagreements left to fester. Did her year at the Court shape the judge she later became? Inevitably it must have, in ways only she knows. And of course, she had an insider’s view of the events of her term that no outside observer shares. So the point of revisiting the 1999–2000 term is not to speculate or extrapolate but simply to describe the Court that she saw and experienced firsthand. Though today’s Court differs in obvious ways—the only justice besides Breyer still on the bench is Clarence Thomas—the backward look suggests that much about the current Court will be familiar to the former law clerk.
Here’s Eugene Robinson’s take at The Washington Post:
When I watch Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sitting before senators at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, I think of my mother. I think of my mother-in-law. I think of all the brilliant Black women in my life who had the talent and the qualifications — but not the opportunity — to reach the apex of American society.
That they were denied the chance to use their gifts fully is the nation’s loss. Jackson’s achievements are a source of immense pride for anyone eager to see the country make the best use of all of its citizens. But the fact that it has taken until this late date for the first African American woman to be nominated to the high court is also a reminder of how racism and sexism have robbed us of greatness.
Meanwhile, at The Week, Joel Mathis says questions about expanding the court are a trap that should be ignored:
[T]he Supreme Court can't pack itself. It's widely understood by now that the number of seats on the court can be changed — the current number of nine has been in place since 1869 — but that can only be done by Congress and the president working together. It's a political question for the political branches to settle. The only reason to press Jackson on the issue is to draw her into a political battle that isn't in the purview of the job that she's seeking. It's a trap.
Some recent justices, including Breyer and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have argued against packing the court, and that was their prerogative. Maybe Jackson will choose to weigh in sooner or later — and maybe she even has an opinion — but given how much Supreme Court nominees avoid expressing their views at confirmation hearings, there's no real reason she should feel required to do so.
She is so manifestly qualified, so perfectly embodies the American dream and is so blessed with superior judicial temperament that it is obvious why Republicans are struggling. They just can’t seem to find a way to knock down a super-qualified, charming, humble and brilliant Black woman. It seems it does not occur to them that they should stop looking for the limelight (to further their presidential ambitions), ask short and reasonable questions and then vote to confirm on her qualifications. And that tells you everything you need to know about the decline of both the Senate and the Supreme Court.
On a final note, Shahrzad Shams at The Week details why reforms are needed to modernize the Court:
Today's supermajority conservative court has repeatedly overstepped its role as a neutral arbiter "calling balls and strikes" and has instead bent over backwards to protect corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us. Examples are rife — from Citizens United v. FEC, which has led to dark money dominating our political system, to Janus v. AFSCME, which has served a blow to public sector unions and collective bargaining efforts, to Michigan v. EPA, which has, in effect, placed industry profits on equal footing with protecting the environment.
These pro-corporate decisions were not made in a vacuum. Over the past two decades, the Roberts court has handed down a whole host of other decisions that have actively served to dismantle the legal architecture of racial and economic progress — by weakening the right to vote, stripping away worker protections, thwarting efforts to protect the environment, and restricting women's rights to bodily autonomy. Taken together, these decisions are a natural extension of the conservative movement's larger efforts to rig the economy for the few, at the expense of the many. In effect, the conservative majority has used the Supreme Court as a vehicle to carry out a broader, radical, far-right agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment