“So, is Ketanji Brown Jackson – a name that even Joe Biden has trouble pronouncing – one of the top legal minds in the entire country? We certainly hope so. Biden’s right. Appointing her is one of his gravest constitutional duties. So it might be time for Joe Biden to let us know what Ketanji Brown Jackson’s LSAT score was. How did she do on the LSATs? Why wouldn’t you tell us that? That would settle the question conclusively as to whether she’s a once-in-a-generation legal talent, the next Learned Hand. It would seem like Americans in a democracy have a right to know that and much more before giving her a lifetime appointment, but we didn’t hear that.”
Carlson goes straight for the racism — Ketanji. How dare Biden pick someone not named Sandra or Amy? God intended for women on the Supreme Court to have a ‘regular’ name. And not only is it a ‘colored’ name, but her nominator could not even pronounce it. Really? Carlson played a tape of the SOTU in which Biden pronounced her name without any seeming error. Perhaps one of her friends would spot a flub, but I guarantee Carlson is no friend of Judge Jackson’s.
More importantly, whether Biden can pronounce her name, or not, has no bearing on her qualifications. She is either qualified - or she is not. And what qualifies someone for a seat on the Supreme Court? On technical ability and judicial temperament, the ABA rates judges as ‘well qualified’, ‘qualified’ or ‘not qualified’. When President Obama nominated Jackson to the Federal District Court in DC, the ABA rated her ‘well-qualified’.
Both Trump and George W. Bush dispensed with the ABA rating as part of the nominating process. And, at least in Trump’s case, this was because he wanted judges with a distorted conservative view of the law, regardless of whether they were competent. However, Obama and Biden have accepted the ABA’s independent rating system as a guide for selecting judicial nominees.
Carlson questions Biden’s assertion that Jackson is one of the ‘top legal minds in the entire country’. Is she? The answer is in the eye of the beholder. Take the ‘right to privacy’ that the 1973 Supreme Court used to underpin a women’s constitutional right to an abortion. To supporters of choice, it is self-evident. To anti-choice activists, it is an imaginary right made from whole cloth by an activist court. So we need an objective standard. How about experience?
Jackson has been a federal judge for nine years — longer than Barrett
and Thomas. Kagan had not been a judge at all. Not that that means
much. Neither had two recent Chief Justices, William Rehnquist and Earl
Warren. And Warren is one of the towering justices in Supreme Court
history.
Carlson’s ‘objective’ standard for rating judges is now their LSAT
scores. I say ‘now’ because he has not demanded the LSAT score of any
previous nominee. Which raises the question, why now? The answer — and
considering Carlson, it is no surprise — is racism.
It is an article of faith among racists that any Blacks getting into an Ivy league school must have had their skids greased with affirmative action. And the way to prove it is to see a Black applicant's LSAT scores — which in their imagining would prove the applicant was unqualified. (Note: in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son”, Clarence Thomas railed against affirmative action because he believed law firms dismissed his Yale Law degree as a product of the program.)
Carlson's demand for an academic credential mirrors the conservative demand that Obama releases his academic transcripts. Ironically, leading the charge was Trump, who has never released evidence that he was anything but the beneficiary of the affirmative action afforded rich white people. Conservatives who deny their racist motives could but a charge of bigotry to bed by pointing out where they have asked a white person for their academic bona fides. But I wouldn't hold your breath.
Note: Learned Hand was never on the Supreme Court, so how he is relevant is hard to say. Interestingly, one reason this superb jurist was never elevated to the highest court was his clearly held progressive political positions as a youth. That was back in the days when Supreme Court Justices were supposed to be apolitical.
Wonder what Tucker would say about RBG. Here's what she would say to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment