In a recent hearing that many had eagerly anticipated, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson found herself under scrutiny as senators took turns examining her past writings. The spotlight was on her articles, which some argued had political positions. The judge’s responses revealed a tangled web of principled stances and qualifications that often left the audience scratching their heads in confusion. The tension in the room felt thicker than a New York City bagel, as the back-and-forth unfolded.
Take, for instance, an article penned in October 2020 discussing George Floyd’s tragic death. The judge referred to the protests that erupted, calling them “mostly peaceful.” However, when pressed about her apparent positions, she found herself trapped in a verbal tug-of-war. The senator pointed out that despite her claims of neutrality in her writing, the words she chose indicated otherwise. Judge Jackson seemed to play the role of a tightrope walker, attempting to balance on both sides, much to the delight of some and the chagrin of others.
Further complicating matters, an earlier piece titled “Raising Responsibility: A Concern Parent’s Perspective” laid bare her thoughts on police perceptions of race. Here, Jackson mentioned an internal struggle when teaching her sons about respect and fear regarding police officers. Yet again, when asked about her view, the senator highlighted the contradiction between her written words and her responses, dubbing her an advocate unable to shed her past positions. It felt a bit like watching a magician pull scarves from a hat—no matter how many she produced, the question remained: how did she pull it off?
But the theatricals didn’t end there. Jackson was also questioned about her writings during the Trump administration concerning immigration laws. She suggested leniency for individuals crossing the border unlawfully, which some interpreted as her advocating for a hands-off approach. When confronted with the more colorful details of her past essays, Jackson attempted to clarify the context of her writings, suggesting they belonged to a time when she was more of an advocate than a judge. But for many, context only muddied the waters further; her words seemed to waltz right into the realm of political advocacy.
The climax of this gripping hearing seemed to pivot around Jackson’s comments made on a podcast regarding gender quotas. She expressed thoughts on the need for accountability in diversifying the judiciary, but when pressed, she was adamant that she never advocated for quotas. Senators appeared unconvinced; they seemed to think her ideas danced around the concept like a kid at a school dance, close enough to be in the spotlight, but just out of reach when it came to commitment.
As the hearing drew to a close, the air was thick with questions left unanswered and points left hanging. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s journey from writer to judge reflects a complicated relationship with her past statements, political advocacy, and the evolving understanding of justice in America. While she may have sought to keep her balance on that tightrope of professional integrity, the audience departed wondering whether she was still holding on, and if so, for how long.
