USA Today labeled the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court as a “four-day spectacle.” Affirmative action, how deep her Protestant faith is, and the type of persons she represented as a public defender were hot spots.
It seems to me that in some theoretical, nonpolitical environment, the legitimate questions that would be asked include: Personal history, education, family history, judicial history, legal problems, prior success, personal philosophy as to judicial activism, and personal opinion as to the degree of literalness she would apply to the Constitution, passed in 1781.
What Jackson got was critical race theory, how deeply religious she is, was she soft on child pornographers in sentencing, and castigations because she represented a Guantanamo Bay detainee as a federal public defender.
Memo to those who apparently do not understand the criminal justice system: ALL public defenders do is represent persons charged with crimes. Public defenders grew out of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held if persons are not able to afford lawyers, one will be appointed for them. Seems a simple and common-sense decision.
If one is deemed unqualified for a judicial post because one has been a criminal defense lawyer, then we are eliminating one-half of those who are…
