After a contentious process, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was finally confirmed this week by a 53-47 vote in the Senate. In an unfortunately tokenistic fashion, the liberal media focused on the fact that President Joe Biden’s nominee would be the first black woman on the Supreme Court. But there’s a much more significant unique aspect to her confirmation: She’ll be the only member of the current high court with experience as a former defense attorney.
Set aside for a moment the many valid concerns we on the Right have about Jackson’s arguably disqualifying judicial philosophy, such as her not believing we have “natural rights.” Unfortunately, these views are to be expected from a Democratic president’s nominee. But all else equal, the fact that we have a public defender on the court (rather than a similar nominee without that experience) is something conservatives and libertarians ought to cheer.
The court has several former prosecutors and has had no shortage of judges in recent history with experience otherwise working to defend the government. But, as my colleague Hannah Cox explains, Jackson is “the first judge with public defense experience to be nominated to the high court since 1967.”
“Is it any coincidence that during that time we’ve seen a significant diminishment in privacy protections, due process, and the right to a jury trial?” Cox wisely asked. “It is of the utmost importance that we have justices on the high court who have spent time fighting the government on behalf of individuals vs. working to uphold the system.”
Unfortunately, some Republican senators attacked Jackson for her experience as a defense attorney. Those who truly believe in limited government and individual liberty should actually find it laudable, no matter their other reservations about her nomination.
Alas, no.
Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted Jackson in a television interview: “Their heart is with the murderers, the criminals, and that’s who they’re rooting for. Public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal.” Republican Sen. Tom Cotton also made similar attacks against Jackson, as National Review cataloged.
Cruz, Cotton, and other GOP senators parroting this line of attack against Jackson are betraying their commitment to limited government and the Constitution.
Defense attorneys do not in any way endorse the actions of their clients. As Charlie Cooke points out, Cruz of all people should know this: He defended laws as Texas solicitor general that he later claimed were stupid and he didn’t support, saying that he was simply doing his job. Which is true! What possible reason is there not to apply to same grace to Jackson?
Public defenders do not harbor any inherent sympathy toward criminality. Yet they do fulfill an absolutely vital role in the legal system that helps protect our freedom. It’s about due process under law and the accountability of coercive state power against overreach and injustice.
It’s a good thing that we now have someone with this experience represented on the Supreme Court.
To be sure, Republican senators have had many valid criticisms of Jackson, and there was no shortage of legitimate reasons to vote against her nomination. But those who descended into attacking public defenders allowed rank partisanship to override their stated fidelity to constitutional principles.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a co-founder of Based-Politics.com, a co-host of the BasedPolitics podcast, and a Washington Examiner contributor.
