Really Bad Judgement

It’s hard to get into detail covering the fullness of the debacle that Republicans are causing for themselves in the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson – from Lindsey Graham petulantly storming out of the hearings for the second time (against a nominee he actually voted to confirm to the federal bench only one year ago...) to continued bizarre accusations of her supposedly be soft of children porn and terrorism.  All that’s missing are charges that she tried to kill the Muppets and Mr. Potato Head.

But two exchanges stand out crisply and blatantly to represent the shamefulness of all their GOP efforts to egregiously smear without provocation a profoundly qualified black woman -- who this same Senate already confirmed a year ago even though all this same material was available at the time, but unmentioned -- merely for the reason (it appears) that she is a profoundly qualified black woman.

At one point, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tried to claim that Republicans had been “respectful” to Judge Jackson during the hearings – which is numbingly idiotic enough, but then you get to his reasoning, which just makes it worse.  He said that the respect they’ve apparently shown is because Republican senators haven’t accused her of “rape or assault.”

It’s not hard to grasp that the reason no Republican senator has accused Judge Jackson of "rape or assault" is not because they're "respectful" (which they aren't at all, since relentlessly accusing her of being soft of child porn and terrorism, among other things, is basically the opposite of showing respect).  The reason Republican senators haven’t brought up such idiotic charges is because NO ONE ELSE in public life has accused her of rape or assault!!

What Rand Paul has weirdly forgotten is that the only reasons Democrats brought up rape and assault charges when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court is because two women had accused him of it, one of whom even testified under oath.

In fairness, this is sort of the standard of Republican “respectfulness” these days, after the January 6 insurrection and efforts to overthrow the government and Democracy, and four years of Trump fascism which the party enabled.

The other exchange which stood out as exemplifying Republican handling their end of the hearings came when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) had his turn to question Judge Jackson.

For his part, Mr. Tillis read through a portion of what the Judge wrote on ruling about releasing prisoners during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.  He accused Judge Jackson of advocating that all prisoners during the pandemic could be released from prison into society. In response, she politely told the senator that "if you read two more sentences down," he would see that her ruling clearly states the exact opposite.

Just two more sentences.  Which means Mr. Tillis or his staff was too lazy to keep reading two more sentences when researching a Supreme Court nominee – or he did read two more sentences away, knew the truth, thought Judge Jackson would forget her ruling from just a couple years ago, and not respond.  I’m going with the “too lazy” gambit.

Here’s how she responded –

"Senator, if you read two more sentences down, that is precisely what I focus on. This is a case, United States v. Wiggins, where I was setting up high analysis as to why I would NOT [my emphasis added] be releasing Mr. Wiggins in this case. “  The Judge then goes on to explain -- "What I said in that statement that you read was, it would seem as though something like a deadly pandemic rampant in the jails would justify releasing everyone, but – I go on to say in that very opinion – Congress has indicated that we have to take each case individually. We have to look at the harm to the community that might be caused by the release of individual people. We cannot just release everybody, I said in that opinion."

By the way, this is what it's like trying to smear someone with fecal matter without first just looking down to see that the slop bucket you brought doesn't have anything in it.

Which is a pretty good way at looking at how Republicans are handling this entire Senate hearing for a eminent, admired judge – praised by liberals and conservatives alike -- who has been confirmed by the Senate already four different times.

Pro tip: when you’re holding a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee who you already approve a year ago for the federal bench, and the best you can offer are charges you’ve pulled from your butt that the person is soft on child porn and terrorism, then it’s clear to everyone that you have nothing.  So, unless you’re trying to fundraise from your unthinking base in front of the cameras, it’s probably best to follow the advice of the founder of Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln:

“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.”

Or,  you can just do what Lindsey Graham does and walk out of the room.