Risch, Crapo tip hand on Brown-Jackson confirmation: They work to politicize the court

Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, of Idaho, each voted against confirming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon. The few Republicans in the U.S. Senate who retain a degree of loyalty to the idea that the advice and consent role is meant to weed out unqualified justices — rather than as a means of politicizing the court — voted to confirm her.

Jackson has a strikingly low reversal rate — only about one of every 50 decisions she issued was reversed. She has impeccable educational and legal credentials. She has not built her reputation as a highly ideological judge but simply as a fair one with a broad range of legal experience.

The attacks on the eminently qualified Brown Jackson seemed not only weak but actually lazy.

Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and others attempted to paint her as soft on child pornographers, a charge so ludicrous, a columnist for the conservative National Review called it “meritless to the point of demagoguery.”

Sen. Tom Cotton attacked her for acting as a defense attorney to Guantanamo detainees — seemingly pretending he does not know what the role of a defense attorney is. In an utterly laughable floor speech, he speculated that Jackson might have gone to the Nuremberg trials to act as a defense attorney. It was an absurd nonsequitur and not even a real criticism. The accused always gets a lawyer, and it is honorable to act as a defense attorney, no matter how vile the client may be.

But Idaho’s senators didn’t even bother with something that elaborate. They simply asserted that she is an activist judge and voted against her.

In short, Risch and Crapo didn’t even seem interested in creating a reasonable cover for the decision they made long before Brown Jackson was nominated: Vote against Biden’s nominees, whoever they are.

“As with previous considerations of nominees to the Supreme Court, I take my responsibility of confirming Supreme Court justices very seriously, and took every opportunity to learn more about Judge Jackson,” said Crapo. “Her record simply does not reflect she would rule based on law and not legislate from the bench.”

Risch’s justification was just as tired.

“I take seriously the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, and value judges who interpret the Constitution through originalism and do not legislate from the bench,” Risch said. “Judge Jackson’s past rulings as a lone-court judge demonstrate a commitment to make new law rather than interpret the Constitution as originally written.”

In his final sentence, Risch at least had the honesty to admit that he treats the court as a political prize to be contested on a partisan basis.

“Her past pro-abortion and pro-labor union rulings make clear she will not decide cases before the Supreme Court in a conservative manner,” Risch said. “As such, I cannot support the lifetime appointment of Judge Jackson to the United States Supreme Court.”

So there are at least two explicit policy positions a justice must hold to gain Risch’s nod: They must oppose abortion and labor unions. These two positions fall within a greater policy demand: Judges must decide cases in a conservative manner, and this means support for the policy positions of the Republican Party.

Long gone are the days when the Senate kept politics at a further remove from the court — the days when former Justice Antonin Scalia could be confirmed 98-0.

So, in truth, it is clear why the nation’s first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court was opposed by Idaho’s Senate delegation: They require a Republican judge who will legislate from the bench.

The substance of the objection is simple partisanship and nothing beyond that.