With a Supreme Court confirmation fight looming, it’s surprising that so few Republican leaders have devoted the time, energy, and focus required to oppose President Biden’s candidate, who, if confirmed, might deliver a catastrophic blow to the rule of law in America for years. Despite the fact that the Russia-Ukraine situation continues to dominate the daily news cycle, Republicans should not let the approaching Supreme Court battle go unnoticed. Following the news of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement in February, Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a progressive favorite with a terrible judicial record and well-documented commitment to left-wing causes, to replace him on the Supreme Court.
As the Senate begins hearings on Judge Jackson’s confirmation on Monday, any Republican who cares about the rule of law, judicial independence, and working for the interests of the American people should do everything they can to prevent his confirmation. Despite what some establishment Republicans believe, Jackson’s nomination presents a number of major concerns. When it comes to judicial nominations, Democrats make no attempt to give the idea that they care about core constitutional rights or that they will pick judges who will make solid constitutional decisions. Jackson is the most recent illustration of this trend: given on all available evidence, a Justice Jackson would act as a reliable rubber stamp for many of progressives’ most treasured policy aims, rather than as a neutral interpreter of the Constitution.
As a result, Senate Republicans should view Jackson for what she is: a politician in a black robe whose major purpose on the Court will be to further the Democrat Party’s radical woke agenda while undermining any last trace of equal justice under the law. A coalition of far-left advocacy groups urged Biden to consider Jackson as a replacement for Breyer from the moment he announced his retirement. “Jackson fits nicely with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement’s platform,” according to NBC News. Despite Jackson’s bizarre (and almost certainly dishonest) claim that she hasn’t developed “a view” on the “living Constitution” – the progressive theory that the written words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning – her resume clearly places her in the living constitutionalist camp, and her previous legal rulings have consistently favored progressive priorities.
Since her appointment as a federal judge, Jackson has blocked the Trump administration’s executive orders aimed at holding federal employees accountable (a decision that the D.C. Circuit unanimously overturned), stymied Trump’s ability to deport illegal immigrants, and forced former White House Counsel Don McGahn to comply with a politically motivated subpoena from congressional Democrats. Jackson has also been hailed by a left-wing advocacy group for refusing to use terminology like “illegal” and “alien” in her immigration judgments. Most alarming, she defended a policy that introduced explicit race-based privileges in government contracting, giving the impression that she is a follower of the left’s identity politics regime. Furthermore, Jackson “is not highly respected as a judge,” according to Ed Whelan of National Review, and “had a notable record of reversals by the D.C. Circuit – notably by liberal judges—in her high-profile judgments.” This pattern suggests that Jackson will face challenges based on the merits of her judgments and legal competence rather than just her political leanings, which is a concerning indicator for any Supreme Court nominee.
Jackson allegedly defended terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay (including a possible Taliban leader) in a “zealous” and “ideological” manner, according to reports. To top it off, previous to her appointment as a federal judge, Jackson was a signatory to an amicus brief submitted by pro-abortion organizations, including NARAL, in support of a so-called “buffer zone” around abortion facilities, which aimed to limit pro-life Americans’ freedom to lawfully congregate. Should the American people – particularly those with pro-life and other conservative viewpoints – really trust Jackson to stand up for their First Amendment rights in an age of Big Tech dominance and free speech suppression?
Read More:
- President Biden, Please Provide Ukraine With The Assistance They Require Right Away
- Biden Is Working To Close The Pay Disparity Between Men And Women In The Federal Workforce
- As Attacks Intensify, Leaders From Three Eu Countries Are Travelling To Kyiv
Following the left’s shameful hysteria during Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, in which they slandered Kavanaugh as a serial rapist and suggested Barrett was unqualified to serve on the court because of her Catholic faith, no Republican senator should feel compelled to support Jackson, who, unlike Trump’s appointees, is almost universally regarded as a partisan tool of the radical left without. As a former acting attorney general of the United States, I’ve seen personally how America’s constitutional system is disintegrating. For decades, the left has viewed the Supreme Court as a mini-legislature with the primary purpose of imposing extreme ideas that the American people oppose.
Because Democrats realize their far-left policies will not earn popular support in the United States, they must rely on the veiled radicalism of judicial nominees like Jackson to legislate their Marxist ideas from the court. As a result, every Senate Republican must do all in their power to expose her radicalism to the public, as well as strongly oppose her confirmation.Now is the moment for strong, tenacious, and courageous conservatives to stand up for the conservative movement’s and American political tradition’s core beliefs. Members of the United States Senate will be delivering yet another catastrophic blow to the American legal order and constitutional jurisprudence if they vote to confirm Jackson’s appointment to the nation’s highest court.
For this reason, every American should vote “no” on her confirmation for the sake of our country, its ideals, and the purity of its laws.
