I like her demeanor, her patience, and her thoughtfulness.
I love her obvious devotion to family. The way her parents looked on her with pride is exactly what any of us would want from my own parents. The way her husband embraced with a genuine love following her hearing is exactly the model of faithful tenderness any of us should desire in a spouse. The way her daughter watched her in awe and admiration is exactly the kind of respect and esteem any of us yearn to receive from our own children.
I appreciate the way when pressed about her faith she responded unequivocally that she was a Christian.
And there's no question that I hold in high regard anyone willing to put themselves, their reputations, and their character, subject to the most intense, public scrutiny imaginable – sitting in front of a room of theatrical performers posing as serious politicians and attempting to answer diatribes poorly framed as questions.
All that said, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is not morally qualified for the Supreme Court.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Obviously, the Constitution lists no qualifications that a nominee must meet – nothing about age, race, gender, previous legal experience, none of it. And certainly as a Harvard-trained attorney and as a federal judge for nearly a decade, I don't mean that her professional credentials are lacking. While we're at it, I'll note that intellectually she runs circles around others already serving on the high court, like Sonia Sotomayor.
But there was one moment in her confirmation hearings that was so morally and ethically disturbing, it shouldn't be overlooked or ignored by a man or woman of conscience. Remarkably, it didn't get nearly the attention that Jackson's transparent dodge did when she claimed that she couldn't define "woman." That silliness got the headlines that her response to Senator Kennedy should have received:
Now, do I expect that President Biden would ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court that wasn't as ideologically committed to the perpetuation of legalized abortion as he is? Of course not. Republicans make that kind of mistake (5 of the justices that enacted Roe were Republican nominees, then Republican nominees Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter have all helped sustain and protect it), Democrats do not (not a single Democrat appointee since Roe has opposed it).
Still, this exchange reveals the lack of seriousness that our culture now allows to persist relative to human rights. Jackson's answer caused immediate flashbacks back to President Obama's infamous declaration that the question of when a baby gets human rights is one "above [his] pay grade."
But realize this isn't just about abortion. Former President Obama notoriously opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act both as a state senator in Illinois, and as a U.S. Senator. Those laws sought to protect children like Gianna Jessen who survived the abortion attempt and were born injured, but alive.
Sworn testimony from more than a few nurses at the time confirmed the horrific reality that babies like Gianna were simply being abandoned and left for dead without pain or medical care. For a man who made the centerpiece of his presidency a commitment to providing healthcare as a "human right," Obama's refusal to require healthcare for infants who survived abortion made it clear that to the 44th president, "unwanted and injured infants" were not a class of humans who qualified for equal protection under the law.
Therefore, it is completely legitimate to ask a potential Supreme Court nominee her understanding of when the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause attaches itself to Americans. She said she couldn't answer that question.
I don't say this to be partisan, to paint myself into an ideological corner, or to be infuriatingly controversial to some – but an inability to provide any answer to that seminal question should be automatically disqualifying for a person applying to sit on a panel as significant and influential as the U.S. Supreme Court.
If seated would Jackson be the only justice to fail such a human rights litmus test? Certainly not. In fact, chances are that the man she is replacing, Justice Stephen Breyer, would be equally unable or unwilling to answer that question. While that means her confirmation wouldn't tip the high court ideologically, it also means that our civilization lost yet another chance to strike a legitimate blow for the dignity and worth of humanity.
For my money that's by far the most devastating thing about these entire theatrical hearings.
