At this point, it almost doesn’t matter who Biden chose as his Supreme Court nominee. What matters is that he seemed to take advantage of world events to provide cover for his choice.
Think about it. Today is Friday, and Russia invaded the Ukraine after months of speculation regarding the matter.
While most Americans are arguing over whether Biden’s a genius or a buffoon, (for the record, the correct answer is buffoon) Biden’s team decided to announce is choice to replace Justice Breyer as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Apparently, Biden interviewed three candidates on Valentine’s Day, and just last night, made his final choice.
I must admit, the timing is suspect. The Russia-Ukraine war currently dominates the news. So is Biden a talented multi-tasker? As my magic 8 ball once said, “signs point to no.” So maybe Biden has no interest in this Ukraine situation. I’m sure he’s still a little salty over that whole “investigate Hunter Biden” bit. Either way, Biden’s announcement just seems ill-timed.
Why would Biden not want too much attention shed on his nomination? Because Judge Jackson just might pose quite a threat to the constitution.
Chopping Constitutional Rights
Apparently, Judge Jackson doesn’t give constitutional rights the value they clearly deserve. Instead,
Fox News adds:
If confirmed, Americans can expect a Justice committed to continuing her career of liberal activism on the bench.
A graduate of both Harvard University and Harvard Law School, Judge Jackson began her federal judicial service under President Barack Obama as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Just last year, President Biden elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She previously served as an Assistant Public Defender and on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
According to her record as both an attorney and a judge, Jackson lacks the dispassionate and unbiased disposition that Americans expect of Supreme Court Justices. Instead, her career is marked by far-left political activism.
In 2008, Judge Jackson was an election poll monitor for the Obama for America Presidential Campaign. Since 2007, she has been a frequent speaker at events hosted by the liberal and progressive lawyer’s association, the American Constitution Society.
Her commitment to progressive causes is so well-known (and appreciated) that she has earned the endorsement of just about every far-left association there is, including Demand Justice, People for the American Way, Human Rights Campaign, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and anti-religious liberty groups like American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The endorsement of so mean left-leaning organizations is enough to give us pause. But her assault on both family and political values guarantees her time on the court will not serve Americans well.
A Broken Record
Jackson doesn’t seem to have a single “all-American” value.
Jackson’s record shows hostility toward constitutional values like free speech, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life. In 2001, she co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of a litany of pro-abortion organizations, including the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Her brief in the McGuire v. Reilly case repeatedly disparaged pro-life sidewalk counselors—most often comprised of moms, grandmothers, nuns, and women who regret their own abortions. She unjustly attacked these loving ministers as a “hostile” and “in-your-face” “gauntlet,” all while ignoring the very real hostility—whether from abusive partners, parents, or peers—that can coerce reluctant women into the abortion decision.
Pro-life advocates often engage in silent prayers outside abortion clinics. Jackson labeled these activities as “chaotic scenes” that should be stripped of First Amendment protections because they “are not pure speech, but rather are a form of expression analogous to labor picketing.”
Americans can disagree on the issue of abortion and even dispute the efficacy of peaceful protests, but Jackson’s brief lacks the even-handedness one would expect of a future Supreme Court Justice tasked with protecting the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans. Reading Jackson’s brief, one quickly concludes that she has quite firmly chosen sides. Litigants in cases pitting abortion against core First Amendment rights would likely face a “home team” umpire in Justice Jackson, as she roots for abortion activities and jeers the free speech of pro-life advocates. In short, Jackson is not the neutral arbiter of the law one should expect to see on the Supreme Court.
Of course, no one expected Biden to look for a candidate worthy of the Supreme Court. He can’t even pick out his own underwear successfully.
