On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) slammed Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson for repeatedly evading questions about her record and judicial philosophy from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In remarks on the floor of the Senate, McConnell said that “many of Judge Jackson’s responses have been evasive and unclear,” and he criticized Jackson for “[declining] to address critically important questions or ameliorate real concerns.”
McConnell first took issue with Jackson’s repeated refusal to answer questions from senators about her stance on court-packing. “The far-left fringe groups that promoted Judge Jackson for this vacancy want Democrats to destroy the Court’s legitimacy through partisan court-packing or unconstitutional term limits. She was literally the court-packers’ pick for this seat. And she has repeatedly refused to reject their position.”
McConnell pointed out that both Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat Jackson was nominated to fill, and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had no issues denouncing the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court.
“But Judge Jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. She refuses to rule out what the radical activists want,” McConnell said. “Where Justices Ginsburg and Breyer slammed the door shut, Judge Jackson leaves it open. She told Senator Kennedy that she does have an opinion on court-packing, but it’s ‘not a strongly held opinion,’ and in any event, she wouldn’t tell Senators what it is.”
“Judge Jackson also displayed a remarkable lack of candor during basic questions about judicial philosophy,” McConnell continued. “When asked about judicial philosophy, the nominee tried to punt by simply restating the most basic elements of a judge’s job description. She said she looks at the facts of cases and treats litigants fairly. That’s not explaining a judicial philosophy. That’s just rewording the judicial oath. It’s a non-answer. These are pivotal questions. They require clear responses.”
McConnell then pointed to one particular moment where Jackson said that she did not deal with interpreting the Constitution in her capacity as a judge in lower courts. “Here’s what she said,” McConnell quoted. “‘I would say, just as an aside … that while I have been on the bench for nine plus years, the issue of constitutional interpretation in that sense doesn’t come up very often. It comes up to the Supreme Court for sure, but it doesn’t come up very often in the lower courts.’ In other words, at least in that moment, a nominee for the United States Supreme Court tried to tell the Committee that her professional experience had not prepared her for an in-depth discussion of constitutional interpretation.”
McConnell also blasted Jackson for trying to explain away accusations that she has a lenient sentencing history.
“In a number of instances, she’s given out sentences far, far below the sentencing guidelines and far below the government prosecutors’ requests. In cases ranging from child exploitation to fentanyl trafficking, she used every possible ounce of discretion to essentially remake sentencing policy from the bench.” He pointed out that, while being questioned by Senator Tom Cotton, she refused to give her opinion on sentencing guidelines, but at other times claimed judges have wide latitude in sentencing. “Either subjective questions about sentencing are fair game for the judicial branch, or they are not. Certainly the nominee cannot have it both ways,” McConnell said.
McConnell concluded his remarks by saying that Wednesday’s hearing would give Jackson another chance to answer the outstanding concerns she failed to adequately address about her opinions on court-packing and criminal sentencing, as well as her method of constitutional interpretation.
“The Senate and the country will be watching,” McConnell said.