One must wonder if a recent letter writer looked at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s qualifications for the Supreme Court prior to asking if she is best available nominee.
Judge Brown Jackson is a supremely qualified Supreme Court nominee. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School where she was editor for the Harvard Law Review. She clerked for Justice Stephen Bryer, whose seat she will fill. She serves as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and prior to that was a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She received bipartisan confirmation for all of these positions. She will also be the first Supreme Court justice who has served as a public defender. She is well-liked and highly regarded by the legal community.
Part of President Biden’s platform is racial justice and equity, so yes, Jackson’s nomination does address that commitment. So what? No different than Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett passing his pro-life litmus test. And Coney Barrett’s resume pales compared with Jackson’s. Let’s not forget that both Reagan and Trump made campaign pledges to put a woman on the Supreme Court, which they did. I must have missed the letters of objection, and accusations of vote
solicitation then.
Yes, Brown Jackson is among “the very best available”; there was a large group of stellar candidates. The implication in the letter that because Judge Brown Jackson is a Black woman, she must not be as qualified as another demographic is not only erroneous, it is insulting. And dare I say, smacks of racism.
Elizabeth Elsbree
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
