During a presidency, few appointments are as important as the selection of a Supreme Court justice. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life, and such a term comes with enormous generational influence on how the laws are interpreted.
There is no reason for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Senate nomination hearing, which is due to begin today, to become a blood sport, despite both sides having long and ignominious histories of confusing constitutional accountability. to provide “advice and consent” with a bitterly partisan performance. theater of the absurd. A chair should have their choice confirmed unless the candidate has ethical issues or intractable conflicts of interest. At this point, we don’t see any issues with Jackson’s background, or any indication that his criminal record and reasoning violates legal principles or is out of the mainstream.
Jackson’s resume is also outstanding and checks the traditional boxes for high court candidates. A Harvard law graduate, Jackson, 51, would be the eighth judge with a Harvard or Yale law degree on the current court. She was confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last summer and prior to that served approximately eight years as a federal district judge. Jackson also served as clerk for three federal judges, including Judge Breyer, whom she is appointed to replace, and has been hailed as a hardworking and impartial law student.
Nonetheless, Jackson’s nomination comes at a time when the Senate is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Polls show a majority of Americans perceive the High Court – now made up of six conservatives and three liberals – as overtly political. Although Jackson could be confirmed in a direct party-line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris playing the tiebreaker, a bipartisan vote to confirm her would not change the ideological balance of the court and could help. to restore confidence in the court as a non-partisan institution.
Jackson and the nation deserve a thoughtful, respectful, principled, and engaging discussion of his judicial philosophy, which will likely touch on immigration, abortion, employee rights, criminal justice, affirmative action as well as the obscure nuances of interpreting the text of the Constitution. We are confident that she will continue to display the character, even-temperedness and respect for the rule of law worthy of a Supreme Court justice.
– The Dallas Morning News