She's one of the most qualified nominees in our history, perhaps the most qualified. Her experience as a public defender is a huge plus for me. She attended public school, before making her way to Harvard. She's paid her dues as a judge, doing all the things we should want Supreme Court nominees to do. The fact that I might disagree with many of her rulings is beside the point. Is she qualified, and free of major temperamental concerns? Yes.
These things are always a circus, but all I needed from Judge Jackson was the assurance that she understands the limitations upon her power come from the text of the Constitution itself. When she said this herself, I was assured.
I generally believe that the president is entitled to deference in these matters, absent a major concern. Our Senators like to hear themselves talk, and rarely ask anything informative. They could illuminate the differences in judicial philosophies, informing the public, instead of inflaming them.
I would probably ask Judge Jackson about the conditions which would have to exist, in order for her to outlaw the death penalty. I might ask her about the interaction between legislatures, the US Constitution, and remedies and relief in individual cases, in general.
I personally would have no statements to make, and I would do my best to ask questions the nominee could and would answer. It's almost as though the person before them is simply a prop in their ideological battles against one another. That's a real shame.
Comments