On April 7, local time, the U.S. Senate passed judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination at a ratio of 53:47, and she became the first black female justice in the United States. Jackson's path to nomination is a microcosm of an individual struggling in a politically polarized environment. In late March, for example, Jackson was forced to attend a hearing that insulted his qualifications like a "circus show." After being appointed, Jackson will face more "political decisions" that may directly affect the outcome of the "key swing state" midterm elections in the fiercely contested two major parties.
Core Executive Summary:
1. On March 21, Biden-nominated Justice Jackson attended the appointment hearing, which eventually turned into a "farce" of "asking anything but professionally." Republican senators are not concerned with Jackson's professionalism, but with labeling Jackson with enough "politicization", setting up obstacles on another front, and even constituting her "unqualified" factor. If Jackson's appointment is approved, she will make history by becoming the first African-American female justice in U.S. history.
2. In the eyes of the outside world, Jackson is firmly tied to the Democratic Party. The scramble for the appointment of the chief justice has become a political offensive and defensive war, which has become a trend that has intensified in recent years. The Democrats' goal is to add a liberal justice, at least to maintain the existing structure of justices. The two major parties are now winning and losing in different states and in different decisions, but they are turning the Supreme Court into a battleground for political elections in increasingly blatant ways.
3. In addition to the courts, the President of the United States is also involved in the interpretation of the Constitution and shapes the meaning of the Constitution through his selection of justices. Because of this, Biden's high-profile nomination of "African-American women" justices is in large part a hope to fulfill the value principles that he believes the Constitution should uphold and implement. Jackson is not the first judge to suffer political farce, nor will he be the last.
A hearing that "insults their qualifications."
On March 21, Biden-nominated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketangi Brown Jackson had just stepped into the U.S. Congress for the first appointment hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was dismissed by Senate Republicans: first insinuated that they would give her "the Democrats did not give Justice Brett Kavanaugh the "respect" they would give, but then threatened that she would face "sharp problems" in the coming days."
Republican senators have proven to behave more than just "sharp." In the words of the British newspaper The Guardian, the hearing turned from the start into a "childish political farce" and a "political circus show".
For example, on the first day of the hearing, Republicans spent a considerable part of their time expressing dissatisfaction with Democrats, complaining about the other party's past performance in the judges' hearing:
Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, barely mentions Jackson's professional resume in his opening remarks, spending ten minutes looking into history, lambasting Democrats' performance at the trial of the justice appointment, such as Robert Bock, who rejected Reagan's nomination in 1987;
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, also ignored Jackson, the protagonist of the day, and took the occasion to attack some Democrats (progressives) for calling for an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices, threatening that "we must protect the Supreme Court", and other Republicans also echoed and attacked it.
When everyone finally got to the point and began to comment and question Jackson's past judicial practice and appointments, the senators did not stop his "performance", but became more and more out of line.
The high-profile attack is also Ted Cruz, and the topic is the "critical race theory" (critical race theory), which has been hotly debated in American politics and culture in recent years, arguing that the existing social order, laws that ignore ethnic factors, and liberal ideas are based on racism.
He pulled out several instructional books from the Georgetown Day School, especially a children's book called "Anti-Racist Babies," and enlarged two of them on a poster board, asking Jackson "whether he agrees with the textbook's statement that 'babies are racists.'"
To this, Jackson could only sigh and be silent for seven seconds before replying: "I believe that no child should be born to feel racist..."
Cruz's performances are many more, such as when Republican Senator Josh Holly finished questioning, and it was Democratic Senator Keiko Hirano's turn to question in order, he suddenly interjected loudly and took out a joint letter of 10 senators, asking the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, to accept it, so that the latter responded: "I know that the shallow Federal Senator (Cruz) needs to be on TV, but... Let's go back to the conventional order. ”
To Jackson's pardony, Cruz asked the question, "I'm a Latino man, so can I identify myself as an Asian man?" ”
Other Republicans, who should have looked more like typical senators, didn't behave as normal. Martha Blackburn (who had proposed two years earlier to demand that the United States reclaim the $1.6 trillion bond issued by the Republic of China government in 1912) asked Jackson to define what a "woman" was, and she reluctantly replied, "I am not a biologist."
Josh Holly, a fellow judicial officer, spoke out before the hearing that he would question Jackson's past "lenient sentences" for child pornography cases. At the hearing, he not only accused Jackson of developing a way of working to "get child pornography criminals out," but also questioned whether the latter regretted his past sentence.
Jackson said she "regrets" nothing more than spending a lot of time at a hearing about her qualifications, focusing on some of her past words, which she has gone to great lengths to explain.
Republicans' "unprofessional" attacks have "brought Democrats into the ditch." The latter tit-for-tat, setting off Jackson's "defense war", either refuting the opponent, or fancy praise of Jackson... The Guardian, which watched the hearing across the Atlantic, summed it up brilliantly: Jackson's hearing was an insult to her professional qualifications.
Why did Justice Jackson's appointment hearing become a "farce" of "asking anything but professional"? Through these seemingly ridiculous questions, it can be found that the Republican senators are not concerned with Jackson's professionalism (because the judge's professional ability is difficult to question and difficult to refute), but to label Jackson with enough "politicization" to set up obstacles on another front, and even constitute her "unqualified" factor.
The U.S. Supreme Court has had 115 justices in its 233-year history, 108 of whom are white men, and if Jackson's appointment is approved, she will make history as the first African-American female justice in U.S. history.
Therefore, regardless of her own subjective position, her gender, skin color, and "history-making" attributes, coupled with the fact that she was the first justice appointed by Biden (and her high-profile promise to nominate African-American and female justices during the campaign), determined that it would be difficult for her to get rid of the political attributes and labels labeled "progressive" by the outside world.
The critical racial theory mentioned above has in recent years changed from a niche academic concept to a political issue that is hotly debated in American politics and the public. Lacking a unified interpretation, not a coherent school of thought, and having broad links with other currents of thought (according to the American legal scholar Kimberly Crenshaw), the theory became the object of conservative venting their moral panic and a synonym for white racial anxiety.
Cruz took out the children's book, in effect, to ask Jackson to make a statement on the "original sin theory" that "white children are born racists." If Jackson is a little careless in answering this question, he will be mired in a huge public opinion backlash and political vortex: either to provoke the anger of white groups and conservatives, or to the dissatisfaction of minorities and progressives.
What's more, once she talks too much about an already highly politicized issue, not only will she "lose too much", but it will also confirm the doubts of doubters: Jackson is a judge with her own political stance, and if she enters the Supreme Court, it will lead to the further degeneration of the highest temple of the US judiciary into a political machine.
Similarly, some senators, represented by John Corning, challenged Jackson about defending the detainees at the Guantanamo base. In 2005, jackson, as an assistant federal public defender, filed a habeas corpus petition for four detainees stating that the four had been tortured in captivity and designating then-U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as defendants, saying they had approved the acts constituting "war crimes and/or crimes against humanity."
The authenticity of the petition was confirmed, and the four were not tried or convicted and eventually repatriated. But Jackson's resume is now being used by these senators to the level of "providing free legal services for the exoneration of terrorists/members of the Taliban," and Corning himself questioned why Jackson called George W. Bush and Rumsfeld "war criminals."
In addition, Jackson's experience as a public defender defending defendants has also been hyped by Republicans as a "tolerant crime," which is exactly what they have been criticizing democrats. Linking Jackson to the Democratic Party's political views on crime, especially the increase in violent crime rates in the United States since Biden took office, can promote her shared values with the Democratic Party of "more sympathy for criminals."
In the face of the series of hearings that were regarded as "farce" by the international media, Jackson tried her best to show her restraint and professionalism, and remained in the professional field to respond to various inquiries. But looking at the Q&A that took up much of the hearing's time, even the BBC lamented that it was more like a "political tactical arrangement for the midterm elections" than an assessment of the justices' professional qualifications.
Is all you care about is the Supreme Court landscape?
November's midterm elections are not far away, and of course they have long been the immediate target of fierce competition between the two major parties on all fronts. Despite talking about "professional assessment", everyone understands in their hearts that this appointment of the chief justice cannot only be counted as a "legal account", but also a "political account".
In recent days, even former President Trump has stood up to "rub hot spots". The Jackson hearing was critical. At a "Save America" rally in Combers, Georgia, on the evening of March 26, he told his supporters: "If she (Jackson) can't even say who a woman is, how can people believe she can tell what the Constitution is?" ”
Subsequently, Trump added more pointedly: "A party that does not want to admit that men and women are biologically different, a party that goes against all science and human history, should not come close to the place where power is manipulated." ”
Obviously, in the eyes of the outside world, Jackson has been firmly bound to the Democratic Party. Whether she likes it or not, the scramble for the appointment of the lord chancellor has become a political offensive and defensive war, which has become a trend that has intensified in recent years, a reality that almost all nominees for justice cannot escape.
Among other things, as early as Biden's presidential campaign, he promised the opportunity to appoint the first African-American female justice. After the retirement of liberal Justice Stephen Breyer on Jan. 27, Biden has publicly stated that he will make good on his campaign promises.
Skin color and gender are not related to legal professional qualifications, and are a highly politicized topic in American society today (African-American female voters are widely regarded as an important basic plate of the Democratic Party and Biden), and Biden has made the appointment of justices the subject of his political activities, in the words of Time Magazine, which is undoubtedly a "partially political" move.
After all, his predecessor Trump appointed three justices in a rare four-year tenure — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Kony Barrett — all of whom were politically controversial:
In 2017, Gorsuch was nominated and approved by trump, just in office, thanks to the fact that Obama's plan to appoint Merrick Garland (now U.S. attorney general) was blocked in the Senate the previous year, citing ongoing election campaign;
The 2018 Kavanaugh sexual assault scandal became the focus of contention between the two major parties before and after the hearing, and finally passed under the full escort of the White House and Republican senators;
In the last year of Trump's term, Barrett was appointed to replace the deceased liberal justice Ginsburg, which coincided with the election period, but was not hindered by the procedure, and after passing the appointment by a narrow majority, it directly changed the structure of liberal and conservative justices in the Supreme Court.
Now that Justice Breyer is retiring, adding a liberal justice to at least maintain the existing structure of justices (6 conservatives and 3 liberals) is undoubtedly a goal for Democrats. Biden's label of "African-American women," while described by critics as a selection criterion for "skin color over qualifications," is in part a legitimate argument for political purposes.
In particular, the composition of the Supreme Court at this time is directly related to the midterm elections on November 8. The judicial war over the midterm elections has been quietly fought in different places.
The midterm elections involve both federal and state levels, and in addition to the 35 federal senators and all federal representatives, most states will be open to gubernatorial and state assembly seats.
On March 23, the Supreme Court's decision on Wisconsin's reclassified district map revolved around a change in the number of predominantly black state legislature districts: According to the Democratic governor's version, the number of black-dominated state House districts would increase from 6 to 7, while the Republican-dominated state legislature would be reduced from 6 to 5. In the end, the governor's plan was rejected by the Supreme Court.
In addition, the state's House of Representatives district map, redivided according to the governor's version, remains republican-friendly. Republican lawmakers in the state, however, remained dissatisfied and took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court really can't look at this, but it is not judged by their nature.
It can be seen that the Supreme Court, which is currently dominated by conservative justices, is indeed quite "conservative", and its judgment will directly affect the results of the "key swing state" midterm elections in the two major parties that are fiercely contested.
According to the analysis of Manin, a practicing lawyer in Wisconsin, although the seats of the federal representatives occupied by the two major parties in Wisconsin will not change after the midterm elections, the competition for 1 federal senator seat, the governor's seat, 17 state senators and 99 state house seats will be full of variables.
One of the most important variables is the Supreme Court's judicial decision around the election.
This follows the Supreme Court's January 14 rule that Ohio's new congressional election map (favorable to Republicans) violates the state's constitution, and on March 7 this year endorsed new versions of North Carolina and Pennsylvania's congressional election maps (replacing the previous version that was more Republican-friendly).
In addition, disputes over the revision of election laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas and other states over minority voting rights will inevitably reach the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the nine justices will directly affect the voter structure and election results of each state.
At present, the two major parties have their own victories and losses in different states and different judgments, but they are turning the Supreme Court into a battlefield for political elections in more blatant ways, and it is no wonder that the lament that the Supreme Court has become a political machine is getting stronger.
In addition to short-term political elections, supreme court justice appointments have relatively long-term political considerations. Time magazine pointed out that Biden is participating in "presidential constitutionalism" by nominating justices. In other words, in addition to the courts, the president of the United States is also involved in the interpretation of the Constitution and shaping the constitutional meaning through his selection of justices.
Beginning with Thomas Jefferson, successive U.S. presidents have more or less expressed their disapproval and denial of certain bills, and the Obama administration has even publicly stated that it will not comply with the Defend marriage act. As a result, in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Chapter III of the Act was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, laying the legal foundation for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States.
These are typical examples of the president of the United States' personal constitutional philosophy influencing supreme court decisions. Time magazine made this analogy, arguing that Biden's nomination of Jackson was reflected in his constitutional view of specific issues, such as affirmative action.
Whether judicial decisions should take ethnic issues into account, considering whether ethnic issues are conducive to equality or violate the principle of equality, has long been a point of debate in the Judicial Community and social values in the United States. The legal provisions alone cannot solve all cases, and the chief justice is inseparable from the interpretation of his personal position, which naturally becomes an important factor affecting judicial judgments.
The US media represented by Time Magazine believe that the current conservative-dominated Supreme Court confuses "annoying (reverse) racial discrimination" with "racial awareness actions to promote pluralism", and based on the logic of "all ethnic considerations are harmful", it strictly examines all cases involving racial issues, but covers up the harm caused by structural racial discrimination in history and reality.
Because of this, Biden's high-profile nomination of "African-American women" justices is in large part a hope to fulfill the value principles that he believes the Constitution should uphold and implement. It's no wonder Republican senators repeatedly questioned Jackson at hearings about "critical race theory" and progressiveism.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor admitted that partisan differences may affect the American public's perception of the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court, and more and more politicians and the media have questioned the Supreme Court, and many even dismissed it. Some of the criteria for the nomination process have been broken, and voting has been strictly divided according to party lines... These phenomena in recent years have damaged the Supreme Court's own image.
One side nominated the justices for political purposes, and the other side also tried to label Jackson a "professional judgment of political influence." Jackson is not the first judge to suffer political farce, nor will he be the last.