The Post editorial was so ethically awful that it warranted special attention. The rest of the story…
1. As I so sagely predicted, the Republican attacks on Jackson have been declared racist by Woke World, democrats and the news media. Here are some of the comment on the Post editorial:
“I am reminded of what Jackie Robinson had to go through in 1947 when he broke the color line in baseball. How he had to take every shot, every insult, every racist thing thrown at him without complaint. And now, in 2022, Judge Jackson had to sit there and just take every insulting, despicable, racist and sexist thing thrown at her without being able to call out those who treated her with such bigotry, such callous disrespect.”
- “Graham, Blackburn, Cruz and other GOP inquisitors know retention of the racist vote is crucial to the election of Republican candidates. They are intent on pandering to that component of Trump’s populist base. The senators’ disrespectful treatment of Judge Jackson doubtlessly did much to retain that base support.”
- “Come on. “Not all Republicans are racists” is so 2016. ANYONE and I mean anyone who votes for a Republican in 2022 is a racist. Period. Maybe not fully racist meaning gee, they might have concerns about inflation or whatever, but racist in the end. R = RACIST.”
Nothing any of the Republicans said to or about Jackson was racist, but it doesn’t matter. The tough questioning served no purpose, but helped bolster the “Republicans/conservatives are racists” Big Lie. The justification was “tit for tat.” It is incompetent politics, particularly at a time when minorities are increasingly open to conservative candidates.
2. The GOP obsession with Jackson’s sentencing philosophy regarding child porn violators was an embarrassment. Child pornography is a weird legal realm that has always had First Amendment problems, and they remain unresolved. Moreover, it is a topic unlikely to surface in a Supreme Court case. Moreover, Jackson’s relationship to the issue is tenuous at best: if this was so important, why wasn’t there a peep from GOP Senators when Jackson was confirmed as a federal judge? As conservative former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote, Senator Hawley seemed to deliberately muddle the crime of child pornography with crimes like child molestation and rape. McCarthy called the whole child porn issue regarding Jackson as “meritless to the point of demagoguery” in the National Review.
To make the “child porn” tactic even worse, and I hadn’t picked up on this, the sick web far-Right cult QAnon had first come to national attention after the absurd “Pizzagate” theory held that Satan-worshiping Democrats were trafficking children out of the basement of a Washington pizzaria. A believer with an assault rifle raided the restaurant, and Judge Jackson, as a district court judge, sentenced him to four years in prison. QAnon’s conspiracy theories took off when an anonymous writer, writing as Q, used the incident to advance the claim that a cabal of top Democrats was abusing children. So, naturally, QAnon has been activated by the “soft on child porn” attacks by Sentor Hawley and others, and, as night follows day, The New York Times is reporting that they may be a deliberate QAnon “dog whistle.”
Again, Republicans are handing Democrats and the media sticks to beat them with, while deriving no benefits whatsoever. Instead, they could be repairing the political culture and showing that one party, at least, has some functioning ethics alarms.
3. One of my least favorite Democratic Senators, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)—he wants to prosecute those who are unconvinced by climate change activists—-condemned his Republican colleagues for repeatedly asking Jackson about her “judicial philosophy,” a question she adamantly refused to answer. McCarthy, among others, has criticized what he takes as her philosophy of judging. Personally, I hate questions like that: they are “gotcha!” queries. No judge worthy of confirmation will give anything but a boilerplate answer, or, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, just duck the question. But I digress: Here is Whitehouse yesterday:
“The fact that Judge Jackson has said, ‘I don’t have a judicial philosophy, I’ve got a judicial methodology, doesn’t bother me a bit.In fact, it kinda bothers me the expectation that a nominee to the Supreme Court should have a judicial philosophy.One of the problems with ‘judicial philosophy’ is occasional adherence, selective adherence, which in my mind makes it less of a judicial philosophy and more of a doctrine of convenience to be trotted out when it helps the people you want to help, and originalism strikes me as that kind of doctrine…I don’t think you have to have a judicial philosophy. I think you have to have integrity, a judicial temperament. But a philosophy? Where does that come from?”
Now here he is questioning Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings:
“How would you describe any differences that you may have in judicial philosophy with [then-Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Merrick] Garland?”
…and speaking during Justice Sotomayor’s hearings:
“It is fair to inquire into a nominee’s judicial philosophy, and we will here have a serious and fair inquiry.”
4. Sen. Martha Blackburn tried to drag Jackson into the trans/”real woman”/biological man controversies by asking, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’”
“Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t,” Jackson responded.
“Not in this context,” Jackson said. “I’m not a biologist.”
“Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked, fairly
“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.”
That was an admirable deflection job by Jackson, I must say. However:
- This shows how much the Left has rendered language, reason and biology incomprehensible in its scorched earth efforts to make transsexualism “normal.”
- It also hints that Jackson feels necessarily allied with extreme LGBTQ activists, since she appears unwilling to attract their ire by defining “woman” as it has been defined for eons.
- Meanwhile, I have to ask: how can the Times write repeatedly of Jackson’s importance as the “first Black woman on the Supreme Court,” and the Washington Post editors, in the editorial discussed here, attack Republicans for not “recognizing the historic nomination of the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court,” when the “woman” herself can’t define what being the “first black woman” means? If I were Clarence Thomas, I’d announce today that I had decided that I was the first black woman on the Court, and dare Jackson to refute me.