The amount of gaslighting from the left about the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court is as audacious as it is predictable.
For example, a column by Amy Davidson Sorkin posted on the website of The New Yorker on Saturday lamented the “falsity” of Republican senators’ criticism of Jackson – as if it’s counterfactual to just read her opinions and ask questions about her often misguided rulings.
And then we get this liberal bromide: “The manner in which the Republican Party’s elected leaders approached the confirmation – feverishly and recklessly, with little regard for the costs – offered a dispiriting prelude to how Congress may operate if, as seems all too possible, the G.O.P. takes control of either chamber or both, in the midterm elections this fall.”
“Feverishly and recklessly,” as a “dispiriting” example of how the GOP may govern?
It’s almost as if Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings, which featured Democrats making phony claims that Kavanaugh was a rapist and delved into his high school yearbook ramblings, with seemingly little regard for his actual rulings, never happened – and, obviously, liberals like Sorkin choose to ignore the ugly, feverish, reckless hearings for the judge, which occurred a few weeks before the pivotal 2018 elections, that certainly offered a prelude of how ugly, feverish and reckless they governed in the last two years of former President Donald Trump’s term.
And then Sorkin suggested Republicans “seemed more like a focus group testing Democrats-are-soft-on-crime campaign ads than like legislators providing advice or consent.” As if the GOP would need to do little more to convince the public the defund-the-police Democrats are in fact soft on crime than show rioting from 2020 in Democrat-controlled cities, or just highlight spiking rates of violent crime in the same.
Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Rick Scott reminded the public in a video released by his office on Friday why he and 46 GOP senators were willing to stand up against liberal flak-peddlers like Sorkin and stand for the party’s principles.
The Florida Republican said he applied the principles he used in selecting judges for the Florida judiciary when he was governor. That, he said, boiled down to “fairly and accurately” interpreting the Constitution and the laws as written.
He said upon meeting Jackson that the judge seemed pleasant enough. But, Scott added, her record demonstrated the kind of “judicial activism that we cannot and should not tolerate from the federal judiciary.”
But there was more.
Although the American Bar Association rated her “well qualified,” Scott noted that as an appellate court judge she had written just two opinions, which did not offer a window on how she views the Constitution. When asked during the hearings about this, she was evasive and noncommittal.
Scott then pointed out that as a federal trial judge, Jackson had a “high rate” of being overturned by higher courts because she applied the law wrongly, exceeded her authority, or simply ignored clearly written laws.
Scott also highlighted her record in child-porn cases, which drew the attention of GOP lawmakers. Her sentences on average were 47 percent shorter than the national average on child-porn distribution, and 57 percent shorter on child-porn possession.
And atop that, she even apologized to the perpetrators for the “anguish” caused by their relatively light sentences, instead of to the victims.
“We can’t have a soft-on-crime justice on the Supreme Court, and we can’t have activist judges on the highest court in the land.”
The senator also pointed out that Jackson refused to answer the question about defining a woman, and that she seemed open to court-packing.
“The Democrat Party needs to understand that the Supreme Court is just another institution to infiltrate with their leftist ideology,” Scott said. “I have no hope that they will but until they do, I will continue fighting to uphold the Constitution.”