Jackson, in first day of hearings, shows why she was nominated

Their histrionics was a sign of how little Republicans have to work with in opposing Jackson. Their accusations were as diverse as they were flimsy: Jackson is a zealot, they said. She is a pick of the radical left. She was a public defender who — gasp! — represented criminals. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) repeated his already debunked claims that she is a softy on child porn defendants. Perhaps the lowest point came from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who ranted about everything from masks to transgender children.

The day served as a reminder of how unpleasant, partisan and unenlightening these hearings have become — and of the low quality of senators in attendance compared to their predecessors. It is unimaginable that a Howard Baker of Tennessee or an Alan Simpson of Wyoming would behave like this.

If there was a pleasant surprise, it came in the form of energetic remarks from Thomas Griffith, a well-respected, retired D.C. Circuit Court judge whom George W. Bush appointed. Griffith noted that an appearance by a retired judge nominated by a president of another party should not be so unusual. That his introduction of Jackson seemed abnormal, he said, was a measure of “hyperpartisanship.” He added that judges are not supposed to be “partisans in robes.” Alas, Griffith’s words came at a time when the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court appears to be just that — partisans willing to twist procedural and substantive rules, rewrite statues and rip up decades-old precedents all to the benefit of Republicans.

It was then Jackson’s turn. She thanked God, her glowing family, her friends and her country. She invoked Justice Stephen G. Breyer, for whom she clerked, a not-too-subtle reminder that if the Senate found him acceptable, there should be no reason to oppose her. She gave a nod to Constance Baker Motley, the first African American woman appointed to the federal judiciary. And Jackson reaffirmed her “careful adherence to precedent,” acknowledging her tendency to write long opinions so people know exactly her reasons for deciding a case. (If only the Supreme Court’s right-wing justices felt similarly and stopped abusing the “shadow docket” and issuing orders without written opinions.)

Jackson provided a succinct description of her own view of what it means to be a judge: “I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously,” she said. “I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me.”

She is so manifestly qualified, so perfectly embodies the American dream and is so blessed with superior judicial temperament that it is obvious why Republicans are struggling. They just can’t seem to find a way to knock down a super-qualified, charming, humble and brilliant Black woman. It seems it does not occur to them that they should stop looking for the limelight (to further their presidential ambitions), ask short and reasonable questions and then vote to confirm on her qualifications. And that tells you everything you need to know about the decline of both the Senate and the Supreme Court.