Ketanji Brown Jackson joins SCOTUS

Yesterday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson won confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. The bad news is that the Court just got Ruth Bader Ginsburg back, or maybe worse. The good news is that she replaces a vote that was almost as anti-constitutional as she is likely to be. And the broader point is: a Great American Awakening will require more than a bare Republican majority in the United States Senate.

Who is Ketanji Brown Jackson?

The country learned all it needed to learn about Ketanji Brown Jackson when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s a woman who does not know what a woman is. “I am not a biologist” really means “I do not bind myself to biology, but to (positive) law.” She is willing enough to claim the title of “first black woman to sit on the Court.” More to the point, she cites that as her perspective and claims that it’s valuable.

But by not defining the word woman, she still hews to the current leftist narrative, which is: any man seeking to redeem himself, may join the ranks of women. Sadly, many doctors are willing to make that happen – for a big fat fee. We have already seen, in the drama surrounding women’s college swimming, that if even a man can become a woman, the concept woman becomes meaningless. We don’t need anyone on the Supreme Court of the United States who doesn’t get that.

Nor does the Court need another Justice who interprets the Eighth Amendment to mean no one should suffer significant punishment. Which is what one may reasonably infer from the light sentences she has handed down. Lots of resentful crime victims, and their survivors, can tell you how that demeans them. Especially when they fall victim to repeat offenders – a common hazard of light sentencing these days.

A personal slant?

Across the Pond, The Guardian talks about the personal narrative she will bring to the court. News flash: the law has no room for a personal slant. Certainly not at the appellate level. People make much of the equity powers of a judge. Those are the powers Ketanji Brown Jackson has, frankly, abused with a sentencing policy that demeans victims with its lightness. Whatever you think of equity powers, appellate judges don’t have them. The only relevant question is one of law. But liberal Justices always want to apply their notions of equity – and twist the law to fit. And not only the law, but the Constitution. Recall what Thomas Jefferson lamented about the judicial-review power. In a letter to one Spencer Roane in 1819, he writes:

The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.

And why? Because, as Jefferson also wrote, an independent power is an absolute power.

Folks, the Supreme Court once started a war with its absolutism – the War Between the States. And it could likewise start another war today. The only reason it mightn’t is that it has five votes the other way – most of the time.

What difference will Ketanji Brown Jackson make?

Two of the most leftist news organs out there, think she’ll make no difference at all to current cases before the Court. The Guardian is one; Politico is another. They talk about the dissents she will write, and point out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg make a mark with dissents. Funny – they never talk about the dissents Clarence Thomas issued, before the successive appointments of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett. Those dissents, these same organs blew off. If they’re talking about dissents in the context of Ketanji Brown Jackson, they recognize that she is on the outs. Out-numbered, therefore out-voted.

After all, look at the one whom she replaces: Justice Stephen Breyer. The only reason he didn’t retire earlier is that he didn’t want Donald Trump appointing his successor. He and Jackson would have voted alike. The difference might be that Stephen Breyer might have been able to persuade others. Can Ketanji Brown Jackson make the same claim? Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg have that power? No. Yes, you can look at Jackson’s dissents, all right. They’re likely to be as bitter as Ginsburg’s often were.

But that does not make her presence on the Court any more palatable. Elections have consequences – and to that subject we now turn.

How must we remake the Senate?

The only reason Ketanji Brown Jackson sits on the court is that three nominal Republican Senators agreed to this. They are Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine. And the only reason those three are Senators is that the Republican Party, and rank-and-file members, forgot, at a critical moment, what a Republic is.

Time was when we could pretend that the names Republican and Democratic stood for two competing political machines. You paid your dues, wrote letters of recommendation to get people into West Point, and tracked down Grandma’s Social Security check. If you could do that, nobody cared how you voted.

No more. Barack Obama changed the Democratic Party into the Communist Party in all but name. The genius of Donald Trump is that he did change the Republican Party into a Party that would counter this dangerous ideology, in fact.

But not everyone calling himself Republican got on board with that – because until now, no one has defined Republican as anything more than “party card carrier.”

Republican ought to mean “defending the concept of America as a republic.” A republic is a society where the law rules. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. The Democratic Party are the wolves, and they just put a she-wolf onto the Supreme Court. Unless you want more like Ketanji Brown Jackson, you’ll decide what a Republican should be. And vote accordingly.

About the image

The portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson at Loeb House at Harvard University is by Rose Lincoln, member of Harvard’s staff. It carries the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-alike 4.0 International License.