Seemingly Oblivious to the Obvious

There is an excellent point US Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania makes here. However, as in the tweet below, it will be lost in Lee's racial blindness.

Lee: When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was up for confirmation or when VP Harris was added to the ticket, they called them DEI hires. They want you to believe that Harvard graduate with over 20 years of experience is not qualified but Fox personality is qualified to run the DOD pic.twitter.com/Q1MTAfS1aK

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 20, 2024

Summer Lee argues

When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was up for confirmation and when Vice President Harris was added to the ticket, they called them DEI hires. They want you to believe that a Harvard graduate with over 20 years experience- who happens to be a black woman- is not qualified but a Fox News personality is qualified to run the Department of Defense and a WWE executive is qualified to run the Department of Education. 

Let's be real. There is attempt to create a direct correlation between our race, being a black person, and our qualifications so muc to say there is no way to be a black woman, there is no resume that a black person cold have that could qualify them unless that black person is a Republican. And there is a quota there.

So, let's be real.  Of course, Republicans don't believe a black female Democrat is qualified, because she is a Democrat. And as Lee seems to understand, if a black person is a Republican, he or she instantly becomes qualified because he/she is a Republican.

And also to be celebrated as being not a black male. Representative Byron Donalds, a black Floridian who reportedly was on Donald Trump's long list as a running mate, appeared on CNN on Wednesday night defending as to diversity President-elect Trump's choices for his Cabinet. He cited the nominatiosn of Suzie Wiles as Chief of Staff, Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations. There are a few other picks who also are not white males. When a black person is nominated, Republicans will own it like Donald Trump hugs the American flag or Republican honchos chant "USA! USA!" Anything that sells.

They won't admit it but the DEI game is one Republicans can play almost as well as Democrats. It's a grand old tradition for the Grand Old Party, which exploits it effectively. The primary difference is that Republicans usually pretend their quota is not a quota, as when President George HW Bush ludicrously referred to Clarence Thomas as "the best person for this position" of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. By contrast, Democrats typically do little to disabuse voters that a selection has been made for demographic reasons.

In July of 2022, making good on a campaign promise, President Biden stated

While I've been studying candidates' background and writings, I've made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraorinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity- and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme court. It's long overdue, in my view.

At the time, the percentage of federal judges both female and black was somewhere between 9.5 and 11.8, inclusive. That Biden's selection, of Judge Brown, has proven to be an excellent one is remarkable given that by his specifications, he narrowed the universe of acceptable candidates by approximately 90%.

The short list of running mates being considered by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in July of 2020 included probably five black women and possibly one white woman (Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer). Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, whose influence was influential in anointment of the nominee, had told Biden (probably months earlier) that the selection should be a black woman.

Obviously, that choice did not work out so well. Biden very likely would have won the 2020 election if his running mate were someone else. As vice-president, Harris was the simple, albeit unfortuante, choice as the party's presidential nominee in 2024. She lost an extremely winnable race, lipstick on a pig and all that. 

Of course, Pete Hegseth is not qualified to become Secretary of Defense and Ketanji Brown Jackson was well qualified to be a Supreme Cour justice. And though I had serious doubts that Kamala Harris would have been a good President, she was clearly well qualified for the position. However, both Jackson for the High Court and Harris for the presidence were DEI hires, or there is no such thing as a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness movement. 

Share |

Woke Awakened

If only:

I CAN define it. And I’ve defined it repeatedly. The definition of woke: Woke is waking up to, becoming aware of, and gaining empathy for real & systemic racism & injustices.
There. Have a nice day. https://t.co/TAfFUPOuTz

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) March 16, 2023

The genesis and evolution of the term "woke," if one is to read Wikipedia carefully, is complex and confusing.  Thus, it can mean a variety of things, one of which is:

Nope, that’s not it because M&Ms regardless of color have nothing to do with oppression; nor does kale salad; or goat milk lattes; or Silicon Valley Bank; or a bunch of other random stuff that MAGA Republicans routinely bring up.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 15, 2023

As the Democratic congressman understands, Republicans have abused the term, weaponizing it for strategic advantage. Yet, Joe Biden, though possibly the best president since mid-last century, has made it easy. Joe Biden promised a black woman as his first Supreme Court nominee, and the highly impressive Ketanji Brown Jackson was a very good selection.

Nonetheless, Pete Buttigieg, who was probably nominated so there would be an openly gay individual in the Cabinet, has been a bad Transportation Secretary, at least until recently. Karine Jean-Pierre, black and gay, is out of her element as Press Secretary, the job clearly being too big for her. 

Kamala Harris was a staunch advocate of mass incarceration as California Attorney General and- in the midst of a nationwide wave of demonstrations against (in part) mass incarceration- was deemed the perfect individual for the Democratic Party to place a heartbeat from the presidency. (Can you say "privilege"?) At times seemingly unsure of herself, Harris is strikingly unpopular, yet as V.P.  the leading candidate to succeed Biden someday as the presidential nominee of her party.

 

Republicans don't criticize President Biden or his party because of the immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexual preference) of his appointees or nominees. That would expose them to )largely unjustified) condemnation as racist, sexist, or "homophobic"  by the mainstream media for questioning the safe and easy narrative.

A portion of the mainstream media which would excoriate Republicans for suggesting that highly important federal government positions should not be made because of race, gender, or sexual preference is paradoxically loathe to challenge Republicans directly when they attribute border policies, immigration policies, or financial action (by government or corporations)  to "woke politics" or "woke."

Republican politicians, strategists, and pundits may not understand "woke" in the same way that "Dr. Science, Esq." does. They may not be able to define it.  But they believe that every time a Democrat pats himself or herself on the back for a selection based on inherited characteristics, it is in lieu of merit.  They don't like it and they vote.

 

Share |

Please Calm Down

It was an inspiring, and politically uplifting, statement when Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson stated "I am the dream and the hope of the slaves." Nonetheless, it was a speech, and only a speech. Dan Rather, an excellent journalist falsely accused of smearing George W. Bush and forced out of his job as anchorman at CBS News, is offering false hype.

Please stop whatever you are doing to listen to (and share) this historic moment. The words of Judge Jackson resonate in defiance of cynicism, they grow from the deep roots of pain and struggle, and they usher forth a vision of hope in a better and more just America. https://t.co/IFMrBxLfFB

— Dan Rather (@DanRather) April 8, 2022

Please stop whatever you are doing to listen to (and share) this historic moment. The words of Judge Jackson resonate in defiance of cynicism, they grow from the deep roots of pain and struggle, and they usher forth a vision of hope in a better and more just America.

They usher forth a vision of hope in a better and more just America. Jackson's words are meant to stir and uplift but can do little more, and are not intended to do more.

While campaigning for President in June of 2008, Senator Barack Obama in rousing political rhetoric proclaimed

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...

... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...

... this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

Barack Obama was elected and yet

Sea levels along coastlines in the United States will rise about one foot by 2050, with larger increases on the East and Gulf coasts, according to a comprehensive new report by federal climate scientists.

Oceans have already risen about one foot in the last century, as climate change melts glaciers and ice caps around the world. But the pace is accelerating, scientists warn, and the next 30 years will see the same amount of sea level rise as the previous 100.

"It's like history is repeating itself, but in fast-forward," says William Sweet, a sea level rise expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and one of the authors of the new report.

Sea levels along coastlines in the United States will rise about one foot by 2050, with larger increases on the East and Gulf coasts, according to a comprehensive new report by federal climate scientists.

A group of researchers created the Job Quality Index and in late 2019

found when crafting their measurement, there is now a growing number of low-paying jobs relative to employment with above-average pay.

"In 1990, the jobs were pretty much evenly divided" said Daniel Alpert, a founder of Westwood Capital and one of the creators of the index. In the process of running the numbers, he said, "We discovered that 63% of all jobs that were created since 1990 were low-wage, low-hour jobs. That was a pretty stunning statistic."

To be sure, the metric indicated a slight improvement during the Obama years. As of when he had left office, it had declined beyond the point it was even in early 2009. The trend is unmistakable.

It turns out that Barack Obama's message on that day represented nothing more than "a vision of hope" that went down in flames in November, 2016. No doubt he wanted the USA "restored (to) our image as the last, best hope on Earth." However, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as the next President, he would emphasize "American carnage," a major theme of his successful campaign. In the following four years, the President effectively undermined the USA as leader of the Free World, an emphatic rebuke of the words spoken by his predecessor.

Let's cool our jets. The words of Ketanji Brown Jackson did "usher forth a vision of hope in a better and more just America." However, they represented only a vision and hope.  We should recognize them for what they are and for what they're not, lest the dream fall far short of the vision. We've seen that play before.

Share |

The Three Free Votes

Credit should be given to Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah for deciding to vote to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court. The Washington Post noted that 47 Republicans had voted against confirmation

But to three Republican senators, the narrative that Jackson was a partisan extremist did not ring true. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Jackson had the “experience, qualifications, and integrity” to merit confirmation and, in backing Jackson, appealed to her colleagues to step back from the partisan brinkmanship that has increasingly dominated Supreme Court confirmations.

 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said much the same, decrying the “corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), meanwhile, declared Jackson to be “a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor.”

You can be forgiven if you believed those GOP votes were pivotal, or even significant.  Collins made her announcement on March 30, thereby, as The Post noted, "becoming the first Republican senator to publicly back President Biden’s nominee and all but guaranteeing Jackson will become the first Black female justice in history. "

The following Monday, Senator Murkowski announced that she would vote for Jackson and Senator Romney followed a couple of hours later.

That was all for show.  The real news had come five days before Collins' statement when on March 25 Senator Joe Manchin announced

that he will vote for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, clearing the way to an all-but-certain confirmation.

The West Virginia Democrat has become a pivotal vote in the evenly divided Senate, as he often sides with Republicans, and his opposition could have blocked Jackson from becoming the first Black woman to sit on the bench.

President Biden needed support from all fifty Democrats, thus ensuring approval of the nomination with the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Harris was present on Wednesday to preside over the Senate but her vote would not be needed because of support of the three GOP senators. However, their vote became moot once Joe Manchin gave his thumbs-up. It was only then that Senator Collins, followed by senators Murkowski and Romney, decided to throw in with the majority and be on the winning side.

Republicans don't suffer apostates gladly. Of the GOP House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump after January 6, 2020

in the year since the deadliest attack on the Capitol in centuries, none of the 10 lawmakers have been able to avoid the consequences of a fundamental miscalculation about the direction of their party. The former president is very much the leader of the Republicans, and it is those who stood against him whom the party has thrust into the role of pariah.

Since they cast their impeachment votes on Jan. 13, Representatives Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois have announced their retirements amid death threats from voters and hostility from colleagues. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming has gone from a star in the House Republican leadership to an exiled party gadfly and truth teller.

Representatives Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, Peter Meijer of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan have Trump-endorsed primary challengers on their heels and uncertain political futures. Four others — John Katko of New York, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Tom Rice of South Carolina and David Valadao of California — have gone to ground, silent if not silenced, in the apparent hope that the entire episode will be forgotten.

But what has been the reaction of politicians or voters of the Republican Party? Thus far, at least: crickets.  Confirmation of Judge Jackson was, as Joe Biden would have put it at a younger age, "a big f-"- well, you know the rest. For the media and much of the Democratic base, it was a big deal because Ketanji Brown Jackson thus became the first black woman on the Supreme Court.  For those less impressed by an individual's pigment or chromosomal makeup, it is because the Court has gained another liberal voice, and a highly impressive one at that.

Nonetheless, senators Collins, Murkowski, and Romney have not incurred criticism for breaking ranks with their party colleagues and the betting here is that they will face little or none. Those 47 other Republican senators and the GOP members of the House- including such luminaries as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Paul Gosar- know the score. So does Donald J. Trump, who generally tolerates no disloyalty. They knew the die was cast when Joe Manchin decided to back Jackson.

It's likely that had Manchin declared opposition to the nomination, neither of the three Republican senators who voted for the judge would have done so.  Any Republican who dared to cross the GOP leadership would have provided the Democrat's crucial 50th vote in the Senate, and none would have done so. Senator Manchin ultimately was responsible for three votes aside his own.

Having cast their irrelevant votes, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney will return to voting as right-wing party loyalists.  Joe Manchin will continue to be Joe Manchin, who is no prize. But in the matter of filling out the Court with someone so worthy, the West Virginia senator did come up big as the 50th Senator Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden, and the country needed.

Share |

"It's great. I'm Against It."

I thought this was over and done. I thought we, specifically the people inflicted with this disease, had overcome it. But I was mistaken.

On Sundays "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the host asked Republican senator Roy Blunt of Missouri  whether he had decided how he'd vote on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court. Blunt responded

Well, I have, George. And good to be with you this morning.

You know, I've thought -- initially, my sense is that the president certainly had every good intention and every right in the campaign to talk about putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen. I was hoping that I could be part of that. I had a great conversation with her.

"Putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen" means "it's not time for that to happen." He was "hoping that I could be part of that," suggesting that he would have been just fine with a right-wing black woman. Blunt continues

Really, there are two criterias, I said immediately. One is, is the person qualified for the job? And two is, what's her judicial philosophy?

She's certainly qualified. I think she's got a great personality, I think will be a good colleague on the court. But the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and the Constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to try to look at the Constitution as a more flexible document, and even the law. And there are cases that show that that’s her view.

I think she's got a great personality.  For men of Blunt's age (71), in their youth "she's got a good personality" meant "although she is ugly."

Blunt continued

I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court but I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the Court.

I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court.  You know what's coming next.

It's such a "high point" that the Senator added "I won't be supporting her but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment."

Roy Blunt on ABC says Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirming to SCOTUS will be "a high point for the country," but he won't support her. Asked why by Stephanopoulos, he offers a word salad. pic.twitter.com/QLjE4sDcMR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 3, 2022

The term "moment" is curious. If the moment is most important, it was the moment candidate Biden promised he'd nominate a black woman for the Court or the moment the President actually did so. No Republican had anything to do with that. It was all Joe Biden.

But the moment itself itself is of no significance unless it's tied to placement of a black woman on the Court. Roy Blunt wants no part of that and will not be part of that, given that he will cast his vote against Jackson.

Roy Blunt admits he will vote against someone he maintains "will be a good colleague on the Court" and whose confirmation by the Senate "will be a high point for the Court." He also applauds her "unique perspective" while asserting opposition to Jackson's judicial philosophy.

This makes no sense except in the context of the election of Barack Obama in 2008, which was followed by unaffiliated voters and Republicans expressing pride that a black man they had voted against was elected President. They had hoped (for whatever reason) he would not become President, they did their small part to block his election, and then claimed the country had triumphed over racism.  Of course, having made their point about the wonderfulness of America, they proceeded to vote against Obama's re-election, and four years later there was Donald Trump.

Roy Blunt, and very likely some of his colleagues, are viewing this upside-down, with a harmful "perspective."  If the confirmation of a judge or election of a president for whatever reason is "a time for that to happen" or speaks well of a nation, the individual should be confirmed or elected. Helping the nation always is better than hurting the nation.

It's not as if Roy Blunt, or most GOP senators, will be voting against Ketanji Brown Jackson because she is black. And the least of reasons to vote for, and the least of reasons to have nominated, her should be her race. 

For Democrats, it should be the opportunity to support a Democrat, and one whose approach to the law is one that will serve the country well. For Republicans, it could be that the Court needs a ninth member and if the nominee is of a Democratic president, it may as well be one highly qualified and personally impressive.

 

Share |

Some Are Sisters, Some Not

President Joe Biden's nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the US Supreme Court was an exceptional one. That's especially the case because Biden was fulfilling his promise to select a black woman, a demographic group comprising in 2019 only 5% of active district and circuit court judges. Although the percentage undoubtedly has grown in the past three years, the universe of lawyers the President could seriously consider (selections typically come from the federal bench) would be under 10%.

That's an awfully large number of extremely well-qualified non-black women considered off-limits, and an unusually large number of hyphens for one sentence.  Understandably if unfortunately, there was nothing cable news, and even to a lesser extent print media, considered as important as the nominee's race and gender. And so we had:

President Biden on Friday said he would nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, elevating a well-regarded federal appeals court judge who, if confirmed, would make history by becoming the first Black woman to serve as a justice. (The New York Times)

President Biden on Friday announced his historic pick of federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court, following through on a campaign pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court in its 223-year history. (The Washington Post)

In Jackson, Biden delivers on a campaign promise to make the historic appointment and to further diversify a court that was made up entirely of white men for almost two centuries.... (PBS)

President Biden on Friday nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court in a historic choice that could make her the first Black woman to ascend to the nation’s highest court. (Los Angeles Times)

When the news media accurately characterized the nomination as "historic" and the President stated "for too long, our government and our courts haven't looked like America," neither was referring to her height or hair style. More starkly, Democratic senator Cory Booker theatrically- at 2:06 of the video below- told Judge Jackson during the third day of her hearing before the Judiciary Committee

It's not going to stop. They're going to accuse you of this and that and heck, in honor of the person who shares your birthday, you might be called a communist. But don't worry, my sister, don't worry, God has got you. And how do I know that? Because you're here.

In the same video (beginning at 3:08), Chris Hayes had remarked

Even by those standards, the hearings for Judge Ketanji Jackson, the first black woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court and over 200 years in this country's history, has been stomach-churning.

We knew going in that because her race and gender would be an issue for some Republicans but I have to say, I have been taken aback by the facially racist nature of much of the questioning that Judge Jackson faced. I say "racist" because there is no other way to accurately describe it, if you want to call it "racially tinged" or whatever.

Yesterday, Jackson repeatedly faced a line of questioning that assumed she was soft on crime or sympathetic to criminals or maybe even likes crime. And the only reason I can determine is that it plays into the assumption that a black person is inherently associated with criminality, which is of course, racist.

Hold on a second there, buckaroo. Hayes perceives a "facially racist nature of much of the questioning."  He did so barely more than one minute after favorably showing Cory Booker addressing Judge Jackson as "my sister," a designation the Senator does not appear to have applied to any white woman.

Hayes' description of the line of questioning as "facially racist" is not the issue, though I'd much prefer the "racially tinged" and would undoubtedly disagree with him on specific criticism. And Booker certainly is entitled to refer in whatever respectful manner he wishes, even to imply that he identifies with "my sister." Jackson was no doubt pleased.

Chis Hayes and Cory Booker are on the same team, whether the Democratic, liberal, anti-Trump, anti-racist, or whatever.  However, fairness and accuracy don't allow one to accuse the enemy of racist questioning by showing a black Senator addressing as "my sister"  a woman he would not so address were she born of a different color.. Many people like jelly and many people like steak; jelly with steak, not so much.

Call it hypocrisy, tone deafness, or whatever. But Democrats or liberals aren't going to convince most of the country that Republicans or conservatives are "racist" while they themselves are making it clear that they believe someone can be judged (in this case, as a sister) because of their race.

Republicans will continue to quote Martin Luther King's admonition to judge people on the content of their character and not race if some Democrats continue proudly to make their racial preferences clear.. If Democrats want to alienate even further large swaths of the country, they are doing an effective job.

 

Share |

The Actual Bork Lesson

The Republican Party (Lindsey Graham in particular) would like you to believe that the Democratic Party is responsible for the attacks upon Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of how Democrats treated poor ol' Robert Bork in the 1980s. Predictably, mainstream media- even supposedly liberal CNN and MSNBC- have done little to push back on this myth. Fortunately, we now have John Heilemann imposing reality (at 24:41 of the video below) when on Friday evening's Real Time with Bill Maher he explained

This is the thing. This is the thing about the lessons of the Bork experience, Like, if you go back and watch the Bork hearing, you'll find it was like a constitutional law seminar. I mean, you had Larry Tribe down from Harvard and you had Ted Kennedy and you had at that time Joe Biden, who was leading that charge. they were dissecting Robert Bork's constitutional views and trying to say if this became a prevailing view of the Constitution, America would go backwards.

It was substantive. It definitely had an ideological edge. But it was substantive- not what we see now. And I think you have people who say, well, it's become a partisan circus because of Bork. That's not what happened because of Bork.

What happened because of Bork was people decided they couldn't ever- justices*- one good thing about Bork was that he always said what he was for and what he was against and that's why he lost- because he told the truth, that he was retrograde, he did want to take America back in time,

Now you have justices who are coached, do not say anything. And so in a constant- where justice is like if I speak my mind I could get voted down, they- alright, it's all performance for them. It becomes Kabuki.

That's the unfortunate legacy of Bork is that we now have substance-less hearings in a time when a televised hearing could be a great lesson.

Heilemann then started talking about Merrick Garland, but you get the point. There was never any interest on either side in anything substantive. Democratic senators and Mrs. Jackson were confident that without any flubs or gaffes, the Judge would end up being approved in the Senate, with or without a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President.

Republicans also understood approval was virtually assured unless they could get a juicy soundbite from Jackson. They knew they could not get that by boring down on issues with the relentless questioning, which a witness on the jury stand might face.

At 6:53 of the video below, Republican senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee can be seen asking the nominee 'can you provide a definition for the word 'woman'"? Jackson replied "I can't" and when asked again stated "not in this context. I'm not a biologist."

That should bring to mind the stock answer given by Republicans when a few years ago they were asked whether climate change is real. "I'm not a scientist" they would often respond, to the justified derision of everyone unafraid to acknowledge the obvious.

Thomas' refusal to get nailed down as to whether there is a difference between men and women is analogous to the refusal of another post-Bork Supreme Court nominee to answer another simple question.   As reported at the time of his Judiciary Committee hearing, Clarence Thomas "told Mr. Leahy that he had never debated the Roe decision with any acquaintance, did not remember discussing it as a law student and had no present position at all on it."

The controversial C.T. was clearly lying (by a long shot, not his most famous lie) and because of- not despite- his deception, he was confirmed.

That less is lost on no one, as Heilemann was saying. Nonetheless, Judge Jackson inadvertently offered  to Senator Blackburn an opening upon stating "I am not a biologist." Were Blackburn intent on exposing a nominee she already had made up her mind to vote against, she would have noted that physical scientists (i.e., biologists)  generally agree with Blackburn's view of a biological distinction. It is social scientists, dreaded by many conservatives such as Blackburn, who question the traditional, dichotomous view of men and women.

But the Tennessean didn't go there, instead remarking

The fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is  underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about. Just last week an entire generation of young girls watched as our taxpayer-funded institutions permitted a biological male to compete and beat a biological woman in the NCAA's swimming championships. What message do you think this sends to girls who aspire to compete and win in sports at the highest levels?

But Jackson had given "a straight answer" (or a gay one, whatever) and a potentially revealing one by throwing the question back to biologists, which gave Blackburn a chance to nail her down. However, making a point about gender in sports and berating the public school systems "("taxpayer-funded institutions") was a higher priority.

Dissecting Ketanji Brown Jackson's constitutional views was of little interest to Blackburn or any of her colleagues, even to Ted Cruz, who has argued in front of the US Supreme Court. Since Bork, every nominee is coached to avoid answering questions and in this case, the opposition changes the subject even when the nominee slips up and says something interesting.

 

Share |

Jackson Was Right

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once declared ""The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The phrase long ago was bastardized, and popularized, as "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater." 

The concept has been contradicted more than once by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, it still is oft-cited by individuals arguing that government can, when facts of a matter indicate, establish a limit to free expression.

However, it turns out that in some circumstances, you can be hostile, noisy, and threatening with virtual impunity.. Upon questioning of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., pressed Jackson on her views about abortion, arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

She quoted from a filing Jackson made in a case that referred to a group of anti-abortion rights activists as "noisy" and "hostile." She then asked Jackson whether, when she saw anti-abortion rights women at her church, she viewed them the way the women in the filing were described.

"Do you look at them thinking of them in that way, that they're noisy, hostile, in your face? Do you think of them? Do you think of pro-life women like me that way?" Blackburn asked.

Jackson said the line Blackburn quoted was part of a brief filed on behalf of a client, not a statement of her own opinion.

"That was a statement made in a brief I made on behalf of my client," Jackson said.

But Blackburn found the response insufficient.

"I think even zealous advocacy doesn’t allow that kind of rhetoric on a free speech issue," Blackburn said.

Shame on anyone, a judge or a layman, to call a conservative "noisy" or "hostile."  It seems it's not only the left which is appalled at "microaggressions." 

An Associated Press fact-checker explains

Asked about the brief on Tuesday and Wednesday, Jackson said she worked on the case after joining a private law firm that represented a group advocating for a buffer zone. She said the Massachusetts law was not directed at abortion rights opponents but rather women and men protesting on both sides. The Supreme Court in later years struck down the law after the buffer zone was widened to 35 feet.

The law was struck down in 2014 by a unanimous, 9-0 vote. Yet as PBS legal consultant Nina Totenberg noted upon reporting the ruling, in Massachusetts "two people were shot and killed and five others were wounded at abortion clinics in 1994. After first trying a moving, 'no approach' buffer zone, the state in 2007 adopted a fixed, stationary 35-foot buffer zone outside clinics."

At the time, there were five conservative, and four liberal,  judges on the Court. A majority opinion and three concurring opinions were issued by the Justices because their reasons for deciding against Massachusetts varied.

The scoreboard now stands not at 5-4 but at 6-3. Whether Roe v. Wade is completely overturned- as is widely speculated- soon, we now can turn Oliver Wendell Holmes' wisdom on its head: when it obstructing women's reproductive health freedom, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater.

 

Share |

Taboo

On February 25, 2022 U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

praised President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it “a Jackie Robinson moment.”

“He clearly found the best person for the job,” said the New Jersey Democrat, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on the nomination.

“This is a Jackie Robinson moment for our nation,” Booker said, referring to the Brooklyn Dodger who integrated Major League Baseball in 1947. “For generations, America has been blessed with extraordinary legal talent in people of all backgrounds, but for the first time in our history an extraordinarily talented Black woman will serve on the Supreme Court. I’m profoundly moved by this; my heart aches with joy.”

Well, O.K. Maintaining that theme, during the Judiciary Committee hearing on March 23,

Enthusiastically describing his “joy” at Jackson’s nomination, Booker said that, while jogging earlier that day, he was “practically tackled” by an African American woman who enthusiastically told Booker that Jackson’s nomination meant a lot to her.

Booker wasn't flying solo. In introducing Jackson, Judiciary Committee chairperson Dick Durbin proclaimed "In its more than 230 years, the Supreme Court has had 115 justices — 108 have been white men, just two justices have been men of color, only five women have served on the court and just one a woman of color.”

Judge Jackson should have been nominated because of her experience, judicial temperament, and her apparent ideological inclinations (and because Joe Biden promised a black woman). However, your mileage may vary, and Booker, Durbin, and their colleagues are entitled to their own priorities.

For them and others, factors other than experience temperament, ideology, and judicial rulings are important. Race and gender, both inherited characteristics for which no one can claim credit or assume blame, are critical.

It's in that context that we need to consider the exchange between the nominee and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who on the day before Booker's eloquent remarks

drew widespread criticism for opening his questions to US Supreme Court justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson by asking about her faith, including whether she can “fairly judge a Catholic” and requesting her to rate the importance of her faith “on a scale of one to 10”.

His remarks, which often cut off Judge Jackson from responding, appeared to suggest that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated to the high court by Donald Trump, was unfairly treated by his political opponents during her confirmation hearings.

“What faith are you, by the way?” he asked on 22 March. “Could you fairly judge a Catholic? … I’m just asking this question because – how important is your faith to you?”

“Senator, personally, my faith is very important, but as you know, there’s no religious test in the Constitution,” Judge Jackson responded.

He continued to interrupt her responses while the senator asked more probing questions, including whether she attends church regularly and “on a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are, in terms of religion...."

A statement from Interfaith Alliance president Rabbi Jack Moline slammed the senator’s line of questioning, stressing “there is no religious test for office in the Constitution – a fact that Judge Jackson rightly pointed out in response to Senator Graham’s questions about her faith.”

Jackson had responded well, accurately and fairly decisively.  Nonetheless, in context, it should have been discouraging to read of Rabbi Moline

“While senators can ask how a nominee’s religious beliefs would influence their rulings, using faithfulness as a metric to evaluate a future Supreme Court justice is completely inappropriate,” he said.

Hold on, there. Cory Booker and numerous Democrats set the precedent for consideration of demographic features. For them, it was race and gender. For Lindsey Graham, it is religion, although his primary intent probably was to make a point over the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett.

Race and gender are immutable characteristics, fixed from birth. Religious faith, and even religious affiliation, are not.  It behooves Democrats and the left, if they insist on continuing to argue that the measure of a person can be race (gender, less often), to concede the importance of religious belief. If they choose to be offended at the invocation of religious belief, they need to drop their obsession over chromosomes and skin color.

 

Share |

Sons And Daughters Of The Elite

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson invoked a great passive-aggressive moment on Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into her nomination to replace Justice Breyer on the USA Supreme Court. Questioned about the remarks made during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings by two Trump-nominate judges, Jackson stated "I do agree with both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett on this issue,  Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy."

Nonetheless, there was more controversy prompted by the interrogation (first 17:09 of the video below) of Judge Jackson upon Texas senator Ted Cruz 

interrogating Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson about critical race theory.

The Texas senator first took issue with references made to Nikole Jannah-Jones during a speech Jackson gave at the University of Michigan on MLK Day in 2020. Hannah-Jones wrote The 1619 Project, which won the Pulitzer Prize.

"It is not something that I've studied. It doesn't come up in my work," Jackson said about The 1619 Project. "I was mentioning it because it was, at least at that time, something that was talked about and well-known to the students that I was speaking to at the law school."

Cruz then moved on to discussing critical race theory, an academic framework that examines how race and racism function in various institutions. Republicans have decried critical race theory, passing laws to ban the theory from schools.

Jackson repeatedly emphasized that she has never studied critical race theory and that it doesn't apply to her work as a judge.

"It wouldn't be something that I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court," Jackson said.

Democrats were repulsed by Cruz's line of questioning and

The Republican National Committee on Tuesday also attempted to tie Jackson to critical race theory. The committee posted a GIF depicting Jackson with her initials "KBJ" being crossed out and replaced with the initials "CRT," meaning critical race theory.

The committee was also criticized for the post, with many decrying it as "racist."

"Critical Race Theory is being used as a slur against Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson," Kentucky's Charles Booker wrote on Twitter. "For some politicians, it's the new way to say the N-word. It's not right, and this Senate confirmation is too important. The American people deserve better."

Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell tweeted at the committee, "Why do you hate black people?"

This was sound and fury signifying nothing- or perhaps everything  As Cruz pointed out, Jackson is a member of the Board of Trustees of Georgetown Day School, which the Senator attempted to prove teaches critical race theory. In roughly 80 seconds more telling than is obvious, the Judge commented (at 10:23)

Georgetown Day School has a special history that I think is important to understand when you consider my service on that Board. The school was founded in 1945 in Washington, D.C. at a time in which by law there was racial segregation in this community. Black students were not allowed in the public schools, to go to school with white students. 

Georgetown Day School is a private school that was created when three white families- Jewish families- got together with three black families and said that despite the fact that the law requires us to separate, despite the fact that the law is set up to make sure that black children are not treated the same as everyone else, we are going to form a private school so that our children can go to school together.

The idea of equality- justice- is at the core of the Georgetown Day School mission and it's a private school that every parent who joins the community does so willingly with an understanding that they are joining a community that is designed to make sure that every child is valued. Every child is treated as having an inherent worth and none are discriminated against because of race...

 

 Judge Jackson notes that no child should be discriminated against because of race, and establishing in 1945 a school dedicated to that notion was both laudatory, especially so because it probably was controversial.

Nonetheless, it is now 77 years later, 68 years after Topeka v. Board of Education, decades after the nation understood that schools should not be racially segregated. Yet, they still are segregated, in some locales more than in the past.

This is not primarily because of racism or racial discrimination. Instead, schools are separated by race primarily because of housing patterns fostered by economic class distinctions- and the proliferation of private schools, of which (as Jackson pointed out) Georgetown Day School is one.

The class divide in the USA is large and getting larger. "None are discriminated against because of race" at the school, the nominee remarked. 

And so they are not. But the annual tuition at the prestigious school runs from $39,896 to $46,682. It is gratifying that there are black families who can afford that. However, there are more black families who cannot, proportionately even more than of white families who cannot.  

Disturbingly, Judge Jackson, an extremely impressive and well-qualified nominee worthy of Senate approval, is proud to be intimately associated with an institution closed off not only to the poor of all races but to the vast majority of the middle class and working-class of all races.

This is not to suggest that Ted Cruz, evincing a loathing of Georgetown Day School because of its alleged approach to teaching American history, deserves any credit. He'd love to derail approval of a nominee proud of the school's social justice mission, yet failed to notice that the "children (who) can go to school together" at a school "designed to make sure that every child is valued" excludes all but the elite.

It's a reminder that when a Republican oozes sympathy toward, or empathy for, everyday Americans or the working-class, he or she probably is working a con.  But it's a reminder also that, notwithstanding the passion for racial justice among most Democrats, their passion for economic justice, though greater than among Republicans, is fairly meager- except insofar as it advances racial justice.

Share |