The Senate’s recent confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court marked a historically prominent moment. Notably, she’s the first Black lady to assume this role and the first ex-public defender to reach such heights. The seat she’s filling was previously occupied by Justice Stephen Breyer, a man she clerked for in the past. Despite the veneer of triumph in her path, the critical concern is whether her past as a public defender might heavily influence her judgements, and not in a way that promotes true justice.
Following the confirmation, Jackson poured out effusive gratitude towards Breyer, expressing how valuable her time spent with him was. Unsurprisingly, she referred to her tenure under him as an ‘extraordinary gift’, one that she has grown more appreciative of over time. Holder of this somewhat shaky impartial objectivity, she got passed through with 53 votes, a margin that included 3 votes from Republicans, raising questions about their rationale.
Adding to the controversy surrounding the process, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman to hold her office, oversaw the voting procedure in her capacity as the Senate’s leader. Alarming as it may seem, a total of four women are now on the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court panel due to this appointment. Jackson’s ascension, it appears, comes wielded as a weapon of identity politics, rather than appreciating a meritocracy.
After 232 years and 115 consecutive appointments discounting Black women, Jackson’s inclusion is hailed as a ‘victory’ by some. The proceedings at the South Lawn of the White House confirmed her nomination with a round of applause. However, it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court is not about achieving diversity milestones, but maintaining an unbiased application of law.
Prior to the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden, in a remarkable move that appeared aimed at pandering to some voters, promised that he would appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court upon any vacancy. Following through with his pledge, he nominated Jackson, born in Washington D.C. but raised in Miami, Florida. It seems Biden was more interested in fulfilling his promise rather than ensuring the most qualified individual filled the position.
Interestingly, both of her parents attended historically Black colleges and universities after receiving primary education in segregated schools. Tracing her interest in law back to her preschool days when her father was earning his law degree, Jackson’s upbringing was surely not free of struggles. Her parents, who began their careers as teachers, later moved up to holding key administrative and leadership roles in the Miami-Dade public school system. This rise to power, however, does not absolve bridging concerns about her qualifications and preparedness to serve on the top court effectively.
Despite her commendable academic performance, her journey had not been devoid of instances of racial prejudice, such as a school counselor discouraging her lofty ambitions of attending Harvard University. But just like the proverbial phoenix, she soared to graduate from Harvard and pursue further education at Harvard Law School. Though her impressive academic journey is undeniable, it remains questionable if this qualifies her to make sound judgments on the bench of the highest court in the land.
Following her graduation, she embarked on her early career path serving as a clerk for three judges before making a shift to the U.S. Sentencing Commission after a rather short stint in private practice. Around 2009, she was nominated to serve as an attorney for the Sentencing Commission. These career moves, stepping stones in her journey, raise questions about her qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court without substantial experience.
She eventually ended up as a judge at the District Court for the District of Columbia, where she encountered several cases associated with the Trump administration. Infamously remarking “Presidents are not kings,” it’s abundantly clear that she held a distinctly biased stance during her tenure. While this remark might appear valorous at first glance, the question of whether it was borne out of impartial judgement or a tilted bias remains.
Throughout her confirmation hearing at the Senate, she emphasized her ‘impartiality’. According to her, she follows a three-step process while dealing with cases: starting from a neutral position, gathering all relevant inputs, and interpreting the law based on the case facts. But can we confidently accept these words at face value, based on her somewhat partisan past?
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s journey to the Supreme Court, at the age of 51, might seem inspiring to some. However, the overt focus on her race and gender, driven by the very dubious promise made by Biden during his campaign, seems to cheapen the process, which should ideally be based on merit, not scoring identity politics points.
The post Biden’s Token Supreme Court Nomination and What It Means for Justice appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
