One of the most important offices in the United States needs to be filled: President Biden proposed Ketanji Brown Jackson to become the first black female judge on the Supreme Court. Their questioning came to a low point in US parliamentarianism.
When it was finally over, tears had flowed, faces had frozen, the candidate had been constantly interrupted in her answers and US senators had been called to order. The Texan Ted Cruz, Republican hardliner, went so far on Wednesday that the committee chairman Dick Durbin had to bring him to his senses with loud hammer blows on his desk. “At some point you have to stick to the rules,” said the Democrat, Senator from Illinois, and cut Cruz from speaking. “This is a new low,” said Democratic Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey) after the meeting.
Ketanji Brown Jackson: First black woman on the Supreme Court?
Hearing candidates for the US Supreme Court before a Senate committee has never been a cakewalk. Ultimately, it is important to dispel any remaining doubts about the suitability of a judge for the country’s highest court – for a position with the greatest responsibility for the country, which is also awarded for life. But rarely before has a candidate been met with as much hostility as Ketanji Brown Jackson. The 51-year-old is to be appointed to the nine-member committee at the suggestion of US President Joe Biden. If confirmed, she would be the first black female Supreme Court judge.
In Germany, such a hearing last attracted a great deal of attention in 2018, when the lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, nominated by ex-President Donald Trump, was suspected of having sexually molested several women during the hearing. FBI investigations could not confirm the allegations, Kavanaugh has been a Supreme Court judge since October 2018.
“Could you treat a Catholic fairly?”
Apparently, some Republicans were intent on getting revenge on the Kavanaugh case. At least that’s what the speculation was on social media. And Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, even confirmed this indirectly. How she would feel if she was “ambushed” at the last minute with an allegation of personal misconduct, as Democrats did during the Kavanaugh hearing, Graham Brown addressed Jackson on the second day of the hearing.
The day before, the South Carolina man had set the tone by questioning the Washington, DC-born lawyer’s impartiality on religious matters. “Could you treat a Catholic fairly?” he challenged Brown Jackson, who had previously identified as a non-denominational Protestant when asked. Graham, himself a Baptist, said his question also referred to the hearing of Supreme Court judge Amy Coney Barrett about two years ago, who was accused by Democratic senators of wanting to ban abortions again in the future as a devout Catholic. The issue is very controversial in the US, but has not been heard again in the Supreme Court since Coney Barrett’s appeal.
Massive criticism of work as a public defender
Brown Jackson pointed out that she had nothing to do with either the Kavanaugh or the Coney-Barrett hearings. She was supported in this by Committee Chair Durbin. “I don’t think anyone can look at my balance sheet and say that it points in one direction or another, that it supports one point or another,” the lawyer also emphasized her independence.
Graham, Cruz and their Republican running mate Josh Hawley of Montana cared little. Again and again they approached the 51-year-old, doubted her attitude, accused her of subliminal racism and complained that she was being supported “by left-wing, radical groups”. In particular, she was accused of her work as a public defender for inmates at the notorious Guantánamo prison camp, which was set up after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “That’s what you do as a public defender: You stand up for the constitutional right to (legal) representation,” Brown Jackson defended, however, and made it clear: As a public defender, she did not choose her clients – and not their actions approved. Among other things, Graham replied that in his opinion the enemy fighters should have stayed in Guantanamo until they died, which “won’t bother me one bit”.
Allegedly too lenient penalties in child pornography cases
The Republicans attacked the judge particularly harshly in connection with her verdicts in cases of child pornography. Hawley accused her during the hearings of “letting child porn offenders get away with it” in the past. In several cases, they have imposed penalties below the official guidelines. The Montana governor ignored the fact that the prosecution had advocated lighter sentences in most of the cases he cited, and that US federal judges fall below guidelines in child pornography judgments about two-thirds of the time nationwide. The conservative senators repeatedly did not let the lawyer answer, repeatedly interrupting her after the first sentence – until Brown Jackson only signaled her incomprehension and frustration with her arms raised slightly.
She had patiently rejected the repeated allegations that she had often made judgments that were too lenient. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” Brown Jackson said at Tuesday’s meeting. Such cases are “among the most difficult” for judges because the legal framework is sometimes ambiguous, leading to large differences in penalties. However, she always made sure that she considered “the voice of the underage victims” in her judgments, according to the candidate, who is currently working as a federal judge.
Committee chair apologizes
The heated and sometimes hostile atmosphere animated the Democrats Cory Booker on a fiery supportive speech for Ketanji Brown Jackson. She will make history as the first African American woman to sit on the Supreme Court, regardless of how she was treated during the hearings. Booker even moved the judge to tears. Committee Chairman Durbin expressed his regret at the way the hearings went. “My colleagues had promised a fair and respectful interrogation,” he addressed Brown Jackson, “there were obviously some notable exceptions. I apologize for that.”