Linda Greehouse dropped in on The New York Times editorial page to scold Republicans for their (mis)treatment of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:
When Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination reaches the Senate floor soon, every Republican who votes against her confirmation will be complicit in the abuse that the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee heaped on her.
Every mischaracterization of Judge Jackson’s record on the bench. Every racist dog whistle about crime. Every QAnon shout-out about rampant child pornography. Every innuendo that a lawyer who represents suspected terrorists supports terrorism.
So far, only one Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, has said she will vote to confirm Judge Jackson. The Republican senators who don’t disavow their colleagues’ behavior during last week’s confimation hearing will own it. All of it.
Greenhouse names names, but you know who they are. The difference in reception between the last Democratic nominee, Elena Kagan, and now is stark, Greenhouse observes. “The alternating question periods between Democratic and Republican senators induced a kind of whiplash.” Democrats celebrated Jackson’s accomplishments while Republicans’ questions “oozed venom.” Republican fixation on kiddie porn and pedophilia was both creepy and “verged on the unhinged.” Here, Greenhouse is being too kind.
Noting Republican explanations for rejecting Jackson, The Washington Post Editorial Board concurs:
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, seems to be getting rave reviews from Republicans. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said that she is “a person of exceptionally good character, respected by her peers and someone who has worked hard to achieve her current position.” Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) declared that she “has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law.” Obviously, Judge Jackson exceeds the standard that should apply to Supreme Court nominees: that they be well-qualified, possess an even temperament and sit within the judicial mainstream. Yet Mr. Graham, Mr. Sasse and other Judiciary Committee Republicans are vowing to oppose advancing her nomination when the panel meets on Monday.
The reasons they have concocted are not credible. Mr. Graham voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second-most powerful court in the country, less than a year ago. Yet Mr. Graham has suddenly concluded that she has a “record of judicial activism.”
Glass houses, Mr. Graham. He and his colleagues have raised legislative hacktivism to an art form and will perform at the drop of a hat. They have a future on streetcorners and in subways.
Only the ever-irresolute Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she will vote for Judge Jackson. (To be determined. Pressure only need be applied in the right place and Collins will fold.)
Others from the Republican caucus praise Jackson’s accomplishments while rejecting her nomination, as the Board sees it, “grasping for pretexts, each more preposterous than the last, to oppose this historic nominee.”
Judicial activism is an even more ludricous charge given unproven allegations now being hurled against Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife for involvement in the First Republican Coup of 2021. God help us, there won’t be a second.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.