<[link removed]>
I hope you saw my latest weekly column.

 

ROGER WICKER: Judge Jackson’s Record Suggests She Will Legislate from the Bench

<[link removed]>

 

This past week, I met with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in my office to discuss
her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. I entered that meeting with serious
concerns about her record and judicial philosophy, having voted against her
appointment to a federal appeals court just last year. Our meeting was cordial,
and I appreciated hearing about her professional journey and her family. Yet
she did not alleviate my concerns that she has a far-left judicial philosophy
and would legislate from the bench. I will be voting “no” on her confirmation.

Jackson Would Not Disavow Court Packing

President Biden has pledged to appoint activist judges, and Judge Jackson has
given us no reason to doubt she is that kind of judge. Throughout the Senate
confirmation process, she has refused to answer basic questions about her
record and her approach to the law. At one point, she indicated that she would
restrict religious freedom when it comes to same-sex marriage. She was also
totally unable to define what a “woman” is, a sign that she is likeminded with
the far left on issues involving the transgender movement.

Significantly, she would not reject the idea of court packing. Left-wing
groups have been pushing Congress and President Biden to add seats to the
Supreme Court to guarantee favorable rulings, even though liberal Justices
Stephen Breyer and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg have openly opposed the idea.
When asked directly about court packing, Judge Jackson dodged the question
entirely. This was troubling, but not surprising, given that she was the top
choice of extreme left groups who are pushing to rig the courts.

Jackson’s Record Is Too Thin

Judge Jackson has an unusually thin judicial record for someone being
appointed to our nation’s highest court. In her brief time as an appellate
judge, she has authored only two opinions, providing almost no insight into her
thinking. By comparison, President Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees had
authored more than 200 opinions each during their time as appellate judges.
Making matters worse, much of Jackson’s record from her time as Vice Chair of
the U.S. Sentencing Commission is sealed and has not been disclosed to
Congress. Senate Democrats have long acknowledged the importance of examining a
nominee’s record, yet this nominee’s paper trail is largely hidden. Americans
should not be left guessing as to how Judge Jackson will do her job as a
lifetime member of our highest court.

A Pattern of Judicial Overreach

Brief as it is, Judge Jackson’s record raises serious red flags. It is telling
that some of her most significant rulings have been reversed by the D.C.
Circuit Court, hardly a bastion of conservatism. In one instance, Judge Jackson
ruled that House Democrats could force President Trump’s chief counsel to
testify before congressional investigators. That ruling was promptly
overturned. She also blocked the Department of Homeland Security from expanding
deportation efforts, a ruling that was dismissed out of hand. Additionally, she
struck down parts of President Trump’s executive orders aimed at making it
easier to fire poorly performing federal employees. When she was unanimously
overruled, the appeals court said she had “no power” to wade into the matter.
These cases indicate that Judge Jackson does not appreciate the limits of her
role as a judge.

 

You can click here to share my Op-Ed with your friends on Facebook!
<[link removed]>

 

Thank you for your support,

Senator Roger Wicker

 

 

Donate
<[link removed]>
Please mail contributions to P.O. Box 64, Jackson, MS 39205.


Paid for by Wicker for Senate


You can also keep up with Roger Wicker on Twitter
<[link removed]> or Facebook.
<[link removed]>


Don't want to receive our emails anymore? Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>