What Ketanji Brown Jackson's Nomination Says About the Senate

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

This past week, if you can believe it (it was less than a week ago) we found out that Joe Biden's first (and probably only) nominee to be on the Supreme Court would be Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Brown Jackson is a longtime jurist, with experience to rival a John Roberts prior to his nomination, having served on both the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.  She is arguably the most progressive candidate that Biden was considering, and would be the first Black woman to serve on the high court.  She will face a grueling confirmation hearing in the coming weeks, and I suspect will get an up-or-down vote in April to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, a man for whom she once served as a clerk.

Brown Jackson's nomination is noteworthy both in the sense of the historic nature of her appointment and because Supreme Court nominations are always noteworthy.  If confirmed, it is likely that her name will be part of the national lexicon for the next 35-40 years.  But she's also noteworthy because of what her confirmation will represent-an almost complete reversal of the normalcy surrounding Supreme Court nominations in a nation where confidence in the Supreme Court and its ability to deliver impartial verdicts that are in the best interests of the full country, a country that relies upon its consistency, is at an all-time low.

Brown Jackson, it's worth noting, is not Brett Kavanaugh succeeding Anthony Kennedy or Samuel Alito succeeding Sandra Day O'Connor or (most crucially) Clarence Thomas succeeding Thurgood Marshall.  While Brown Jackson is probably to the left of Stephen Breyer, she will not disrupt the balance of the Court or even change the partisanship of it in the way that those appointments did.  It's worth noting that with the exception of Byron White being replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no seat has gotten notably more liberal on the Supreme Court in at least fifty years (most of the Court's more notable liberals like Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter were appointed by Republicans, a phenomenon that is not the case for any of the current Republican-appointed justices), honestly not since the 1940's.  Brown Jackson's nomination likely ensures that this seat doesn't go the way of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's, handed over to the conservative side of the Court, but it does little to disrupt the balance of the Court.

Which makes the Republican reaction to her nomination all-the-more remarkable.  Almost instantly after being nominated, Senator Lindsey Graham, arguably one of the most accepting senators to President Biden's appointments, instantly said he would not support her in the Supreme Court.  With Graham out, it's likely that most Republicans will ultimately not back Brown Jackson.  Though it's possible someone like Mitt Romney (whom, it's worth noting, did not back Brown Jackson's appointment to her current position like Graham did) changes his mind, the best case scenario for Brown Jackson is a 52-48 Senate, and I honestly am currently predicting she only gets Lisa Murkowski, whose unique reelection is contingent on at least some support from Democrats.

This ultimately doesn't impact Brown Jackson.  Thanks to the people of Georgia and Stephen Breyer's decision to retire in 2022, the Democrats will get to have an up-or-down vote on Brown Jackson in a way they didn't with Merrick Garland.  And there is no evidence that Brown Jackson, whose resume is beyond reproach, will have any issue getting the 50 Democrats on her side.  Though they have been a problem on policy, Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema have backed every single one of Joe Biden's nominees to the Court, and it's unlikely that will stop now even though it's probable they'll wait to confirm their support until after Brown Jackson's hearings.  Even if Murkowski defects, Kamala Harris is ready to cast the deciding vote in the US Senate to ensure Biden gets his nominee.

But if a woman who would not change the balance of the Court can barely get 1-2 Republicans, despite her vote not mattering or even being close to mattering in the way that a Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett's did...the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan office is officially dead, even if it's been unofficially dead for years.  It is difficult to understand what the future of a Court viewed as a partisan office will be (adding seats to the Court to gain advantage seems pretty much inevitable at this point if the Court feels less hallowed and more hollow), and Republicans, who could've maybe bought themselves some upper ground by backing Brown Jackson this year, continue to bear the blame of this trajectory.