The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson have, up until now, been expected to be one of the more low-key interrogations of any recent nominees. But that doesn’t mean that she won’t have at least a few questions to answer. As analysts have dug deeper into her background, some details have emerged that may generate ethics questions during the process. For one thing, she has quite recent ties to a left-wing Democratic public relations firm. Further, one of her university board memberships could result in calls for her to recuse herself from a major, closely-watched case that the court will hear this fall. But the Republican members of the Senate who will be responsible for questioning her also seem to realize that they will need to handle the situation carefully to avoid handing ammunition to the Democrats during the runup to the midterm elections. (Free Beacon)
Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will face ethics questions about her ties to left-wing public relations professionals, and a conflict of interest that could trigger her recusal from a landmark affirmative action case.
Jackson, whom President Joe Biden nominated Friday, has come under fire following a report that she retained PR gurus with deep ties in Democratic politics to assist with her prospective nomination. And Jackson’s service on one of Harvard University’s governing boards will prompt questions as to recusing herself from a lawsuit accusing the university of bias against Asians in admissions, which the High Court will hear this fall.
Republicans are still fine-tuning a response to Jackson’s nomination. Beyond the ethics items, the nationwide spike in violent crime could play a major role in Republican maneuvering around her nomination. Jackson has deep experience in the criminal justice system as a former trial court judge and commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a panel that offers guidance on criminal penalties.
The left-wing PR operatives being mentioned are Robert Raben and TJ Ducklo, well-known Democratic activists in political circles. They were supposedly tasked with clearing the path toward Brown Jackson’s nomination, shooting down any challenges to her qualifications, and “steering” reporters toward some of her allies who were willing to offer positive views of her in the press. Chuck Grassley was the first Senator to raise questions about her connections to Raben and Ducklo, saying that such a relationship would be “unusual, if not unique.” But at the same time, it’s unclear if there’s anything really unethical about wanting to improve your chances for a promotion, to say nothing of being illegal.
Still, having ties to anyone so obviously partisan and making use of those relationships on the eve of the nomination will raise questions about how partisan Brown Jackson is and how much liberal bias will creep into her votes if she winds up on the court. That may seem like a silly question when pretty much all of the justices on the current bench obviously lean heavily in one direction or the other, but I suppose everyone has to go through the steps of pretending it’s not the case.
The other factor being mentioned is Brown Jackson’s position on Harvard’s Board of Overseers. It’s a prestigious role that looks good on any judge’s resume, but Harvard is embroiled in a lawsuit that will come before the Supremes in the fall session. The case involves claims that the university discriminates against Asian students in admissions. Would her close working relationship with Harvard’s Board of Overseers (who are involved in such policy decisions) leave her biased in Harvard’s favor? It certainly sounds like a possibility. And since the challenge involves questions of racism, the “historic” nature of Brown Jackson’s nomination as the first Black, female nominee might raise eyebrows over the idea of her hearing the case. But having to recuse yourself from a landmark case so quickly in your tenure doesn’t create a great look for her.
Still, the GOP needs to tread very carefully here. Any questions directed at the nominee suggesting potential ethical issues will immediately be seized upon by Democrats and their media stenographers as further “proof” that the Republicans are just a bunch of racist misogynists. It’s a drum they’ll be beating right up until the midterms anyway, but there’s no point in handing them any fresh ammunition that might help them blunt the expected red wave this fall. And as we’ve discussed here before, we’re talking about replacing one liberal justice with another, so the balance of the court doesn’t really change. Even if Brown Jackson’s nomination were to somehow be defeated (which it won’t be), Biden would just put up someone else that’s ideologically indistinguishable from her. So in the end, it’s probably better for the Senate Republicans to mostly keep their powder dry and let this nomination proceed as quietly as possible.
