Ketanji Brown Jackson

 

Let’s start our analysis of Ketanji Brown Jackson with a bit of a reality check.  This woman is going to get confirmed by the Senate.  She certainly has all 50 Democrat votes in the Senate, which is all she needs since Kamala will place the deciding 51^st vote for her confirmation if that is necessary.  I will predict, however that she will also get as many as five Republican votes.  This, however, might be a good sign that the Senate is returning to the “Advise and Consent” role they are intended to perform in confirming Supreme Court Justices rather than the “Search and Destroy” approach Democrats have taken recently.  Just reflect back on the hearing for Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The other reality about this nomination is that it will not change the balance of the Supreme Court.  Ketanji Brown Jackson will be replacing Justice Breyer, for whom she clerked.  Justice Breyer was a Clinton nomination, and while he is considered more moderate than Sotomayor or Kagen, he was a dependable liberal vote, especially on the key issues that have faced the court.  The court will still maintain its 6-3 split with six justices nominated by Republican Presidents, and amazingly three of those six appointed by Donald Trump.

I didn’t watch every minute of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Judiciary hearings, but I watched enough to get a feel for not only how I felt about her, but also how I expect the total Senate to vote.  Her opening statement hit on a few chords that I actually liked.  She thanked God for the opportunities she was given during her life.  She also expressed a true love for this country and emphasized how much this country has progressed since her parents’ lifetimes, a concept that I have advocated for years.

She continually refused to describe her judicial philosophy, to which some Senators took exception.  She did, however, take great care to describe her “judicial methodology” which I found even more helpful and sounded, at times, suspiciously like a philosophy.  At these times she talked about how she always intended to pay scrupulous attention to the law and the Constitution and she was constantly trying to “stay in her lane”.  In fact, I thought her methodology sounded very much like what I would have expected from one of my favorite, originalist Justices, the late, great Antonin Scalia.

She also praised her parents (and herself indirectly) for taking full advantage of reformation that has occurred since the 50’s here in America.  She stated that they were able to reverse the effects of racism in just one generation.  This is an idea that I hold along with W.E.B. DuBois which he expressed in his book, “The Souls of Black Folk”.  DuBois proposed that, given the positive changes in access to opportunity in this country, each new generation offers black families the chance to totally reverse the effects discrimination in just one generation.  A young black man or woman born today might even be able to become a Supreme Court Justice, or even President.  I agree.

Ms. Brown Jackson had a few contentious exchanges with a few of the Republican Senators, but believe me, nothing like what Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett faced.  She wouldn’t even try to define what a “woman” is, even though this could come before her and the court as transgender men / women (whatever) in sports becomes more and more common.  Actually, that answer would probably have been a better one.  She was pressed on her light sentencing of child porn cases, but I found her answers on that issue to be at least understandable.  She is not the only judge who has given sentences below the guidelines and she did consistently call those crimes “heinous”.  Actually, when Lindsey Graham grilled her in this area, I found myself feeling sympathy for her.  Neither of these lines of questioning, however, provided an excuse for disqualification for me.

For me, the most concerning line of questioning came again from Lindsey Graham concerning the case of “Make the Road, New York v McAleenan”.  This was a case where the Department of Homeland Security expanded the eligibility for expedited removal of illegal immigrants to those who had been in the country for up to two years.  It had previously only been applied to those in the country for 14 days.  This was a Trump era decision by DHS.  The statute clearly stated that DHS had “sole and unreviewable discretion” to that determination.  She struck that decision down and was reversed unanimously by a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals.  The DC Circuit Court could not have been stronger in its disagreement of her decision when it said, “there could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision…to the Secretary’s (of DHS) independent judgement”.  Senator Graham was suggesting that this was an example of judge Brown Jackson legislating from the bench.  And he was probably right, but she covered herself in this area by her “judicial methodology”.  

As I stated earlier, she will be confirmed and I hope her treatment will become more of a model for future hearings vs. the Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett hearing, which were disgusting, especially Kavanaugh’s.  Her confirmation will make the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice an issue in the 2028 Presidential election or even possibly in 2024.  After Breyer retires, the next two oldest judges are Clarence Thomas (age 73) and Samuel Alito (age 71).  For your convenience, below is a recap of the age and the President who nominated our current Supreme Court Justices.

 

Justice	Born	Nominated By	In	Leans	Age
Stephen Breyer	1938	Bill Clinton	1994	Liberal	83
Clarence Thomas	1948	George H.W. Bush	1991	Conservative	73
Samuel Alito	1950	George W. Bush	2006	Conservative	71
Sonia Sotomayer	1954	Barack Obama	2009	Liberal	67
John Roberts	1955	George W. Bush	2005	Swing	66
Elena Kagan	1960	Barack Obama	2010	Liberal	61
Brett Kavanaugh	1965	Donald Trump	2018	Conservative	56
Neil Gorsuch	1967	Donald Trump	2017	Swing	54
Amy Barrett	1972	Donald Trump	2020	Conservative	49

The Steven Colbert School of Logic

 

Recently, late night talk show host and certified out-of-touch elitist, Steven Colbert, announced on air that he didn’t mind paying a higher price for gas here in the United States because it somehow soothed his conscience.  He went on to say that he wouldn’t mind if gas prices went up to $15 a gallon because he drove a $200,000 Tesla, and why doesn’t everyone?  Since Colbert made that statement, I’ve actually heard some of my friends echo that sentiment suggesting that we should all stop “bitching” about high gas prices here because people are being killed in Ukraine.  Most of the people using this line of reasoning and pretty well off (Colbert has a net worth of $75 million) so high gas prices really don’t affect them.  Many Americans of more modest means, however, will have to make some tough choices as they watch their gas and heating oil costs double in just a year’s time.  They will be choosing between gas and food or insurance or doctor visits.  They will not be out pricing Teslas as a solution to their problem.

While I and most Americans are appalled with the senseless slaughter of civilian Ukrainian life by the madman who is running Russia, we all need to take a step back and consider what things we can do here that will actually make a difference over there.  I can guarantee you, however, that paying a higher price for gasoline in The United States will NOT save a single life in Ukraine.  If fact, higher global oil prices will only intensify or prolong the assault on Ukraine because it is oil revenues that are financing Putin’s war. 

So, someone please tell Steven Colbert’s conscience that it is not off the hook, and in fact has some damage control to do.  If Steven Colbert and anyone here in the United States wants to help the people of Ukraine, the first thing you can do is send money to one of the hundreds of organizations, including the Ukrainian Red Cross, who are actively supporting Ukrainian women and children who are trying to flee that country.  I would hope that Mr. Colbert is using some of his $15 million annual salary and $75 million net worth to support some of those groups.  And I hope it’s not with a $100 check, lest his conscience should not be soothed.

The other thing you and I can do is to write our Congress people and ask them to stop the war on the oil and gas industry here in the United States.  We should also vote for candidates who align with that position.  The war here in the US has not only NOT prevented the assault on Ukraine, but it has undoubtedly contributed to it.  Stifling our gas and oil companies will also not develop renewable energy here in America or around the world any faster.  Again, it may even delay it.  What we need is an “all of the above” energy strategy.  

I do believe in developing renewable energy.  It was Thomas Edison who said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy.”  That’s probably because Edison knew that the sun puts down more energy on this planet in an hour than we on earth consume in a year.  The power of the sun is amazing and I’m confident that it is the long-term solution to our energy needs, but that solution is not ready now.  Today, solar power only supplies about 1% of our energy needs here in the US, and that’s because we simply have not figured out how to capture and store that energy efficiently.  I’m confident that we will eventually figure out how to harness the energy of the sun, but considering where we are now, that time will not come for decades and it may even take 50 to 100 years.

But destroying our existing energy industry now, will not develop that capability any faster.  The Biden administration is strangling oil and gas production here through regulations and restrictions which is driving up those prices here and around the world, and those higher prices don’t help anyone.  He should be encouraging the development of all energy sources and allow the free market to transition to renewable energy sources through research and investment as that capability becomes efficient and affordable.  

The first gas powered car was invented in 1881, but then President Chester A. Arthur did not sign an executive order to kill all the horses in the country so that we could develop the car industry faster.  In fact, if President Arthur had made such an idiotic move, it would have caused extreme pain for the entire United States and actually delayed the progress of the auto industry. But that is exactly what we are doing today as this administration punishes the oil and gas industries in the US and suggesting that it can be replaced by wind and solar, etc.  That is ridiculous and delusional.

The point is, we cannot let our unscrupulous politicians sell us absurd concepts just by appealing to our compassionate natures, or unwarranted fear (paranoia).  High gas prices in the United States and the world with not save a single life in Ukraine.  In fact, high energy prices will probably make things better for Putin and worse for Ukraine.  Likewise, punishing and restricting our oil and gas industry in the US will not develop renewable energy any faster.  In fact, it will probably delay it.  What we need is an “all of the above” energy strategy now, and probably forever.  Drill and pump today, taking advantage of our massive resources while we research and develop alternative sources of energy so that we can transition to them when they become feasible in the future.