A Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation-Hearing Preview

Summary

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts

Episode: A Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation-Hearing Preview
Date: March 19, 2022
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern

Episode Overview

This episode of Amicus focuses on the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Host Dahlia Lithwick and Slate legal correspondent Mark Joseph Stern preview the themes and political dynamics likely to dominate the hearings. They also discuss the opposition’s strategies, the significance of Jackson’s public defense work, and the use of political attacks surrounding her nomination.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Significance of the Confirmation

• Jackson’s nomination is described as historic, both for the high court and America at large.
  • “Next week is set to be a historic week for America, for the high court and for the Senate Judiciary Committee as it holds confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman to be nominated to serve on the highest court in the land.” (Lithwick, 00:15-00:39)

2. Lack of Coherent Opposition

• The podcast highlights that there hasn't been a clear or substantive opposition to Jackson’s nomination.
  • “There has not been a really coherent opposition to her.” (Lithwick, 00:52)
• Most objections reuse themes from her previous confirmation hearings.

3. The "Guantanamo Defense Lawyer" Attack

• Stern outlines the recurring conservative attack line: criticizing nominees who previously served as public defenders or who represented unpopular clients, such as Guantánamo detainees.
  • “This is an age old tactic that goes way back before then. Conservatives do it way more to liberals than I think liberals do it to conservatives. … We will always see this with any nominee…who served as a criminal defense lawyer and especially a public defendant, which KBJ did and did so quite admirably.” (Stern, 01:36-02:18)
• Stern vigorously defends Jackson’s service, tying it to constitutional obligations:
  • “She was effective. She was direct. And if Republicans claim that that is somehow disqualifying for a judgeship or for the Supreme Court, they are not really attacking Ketanji Brown Jackson. They are attacking the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment that they claim to love so much.” (Stern, 02:41-03:02)
• He dismisses GOP criticism as “cynical and so stupid to be a supposedly constitutional conservative and then lay into a nominee for enforcing the Constitution.” (Stern, 03:07-03:18)

4. The "Guilt by Association" Attack

• Lithwick and Stern discuss Mitch McConnell's remarks critiquing Jackson via indirect association with progressive or "fringe" groups:
  • Mitch McConnell (clip): “But curiously, the same radicals who want to turn Democrats into the party of court packing also badly wanted Judge Jackson for this vacancy…so I intend to explore why groups that are waging political war against the court as an institution decided Judge Jackson was their special favorite.” (03:36-04:08)
• Lithwick characterizes this as “the transitive property of badness,” mocking the logic that because “bad” groups support Jackson, she must therefore be “bad” herself. (Lithwick, 04:08-04:30)
• Stern wryly comments: “I mean, I don't see the flaw in that logic. I think we just gotta go with Mitch here and say thank you. Next.” (04:30-04:37)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Public Defense Work:
  • “That I think is one of the best and noblest uses of a law degree. Those individuals are in desperate need of legal counsel. They are guaranteed legal counsel under the Constitution. She provided that counsel zealously, as she was obligated to by the Sixth Amendment.”
    (Mark Joseph Stern, 02:23-02:38)
• On Conservative Attacks:
  • “It’s cynical and so stupid to be a supposedly constitutional conservative and then lay into a nominee for enforcing the Constitution and standing by it for those who are most in need of its protections.”
    (Mark Joseph Stern, 03:07-03:18)
• On Opposition Logic:
  • “This is, I guess, the transitive property of badness in which Judge Jackson is not bad, but says Mitch McConnell, Bad. People support her and therefore she must be bad by association.”
    (Dahlia Lithwick, 04:08-04:30)
• On Mitch McConnell’s Reasoning:
  • “I mean, I don't see the flaw in that logic. I think we just gotta go with Mitch here and say thank you. Next.”
    (Mark Joseph Stern, 04:30-04:37)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:15 — Introduction to Jackson’s historic nomination
• 00:52 — Discussion of lack of coherent opposition
• 01:36 — Breakdown of the Guantanamo/public defender attack line
• 02:41 — Defense of Jackson’s constitutional obligations
• 03:36 — Mitch McConnell’s comments on “radical” support for Jackson
• 04:08 — Lithwick’s analysis of “guilt by association”
• 04:30 — Stern’s quip on McConnell’s logic

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is sharp, knowledgeable, and at times wryly humorous, especially in dissecting partisan attacks and illogical arguments. Stern is emphatic in his defense of constitutional principles, while Lithwick brings an incisive, slightly sardonic edge in summarizing political rhetoric.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides an accessible yet nuanced preview of the confirmation hearings, prepared listeners for main lines of criticism against Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and offered a forceful rebuttal grounded in constitutional principle. The hosts combine legal insight with sharp critique of political theater, making it an essential listen for anyone interested in the Supreme Court nomination process.

Transcript

[A]

Hi. And this is Amicus, Slate's podcast about the Supreme Court and the law and the rule of law. I'm Dahlia Lithwick. I host this podcast and I cover those things for Slate magazine. And next week is set to be a historic week for America, for the high court and for the Senate Judiciary Committee as it holds confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman to be nominated to serve on the highest court in the land. Now over on Slate plus, my jurisprudential wingman Mark Joseph Stern and I are having a curtain raiser conversation, looking ahead to what to expect, what to watch and listen for, and thinking through the implications of this hearing for the court and for our constitutional democracy. Here's a brief snippet of our conversation. There has not been a really coherent opposition to her. Let's talk about some of the pieces of it and as you say, some of it we can just pull from. We heard this at her prior confirmation hearings. So one piece is the always effective Guantanamo, as though Americans still are riled that occasionally lawyers wrote briefs on behalf of Gitmo detainees. So that's one strand of you're rolling your eyes on the zoom. So why don't you go ahead and sick your fangs into that one if.

[B]

You walk with me. Way back to 2016, when Obama was considering nominating Jane Kelly to the Scalia seat, the conservative judicial lobbying groups put out attack ads that laid into Jane Kelly for being a public defender who defended people accused of crimes who did not have the money to pay for lawyers. This is an age old tactic that goes way back before then. Conservatives do it way more to liberals than I think liberals do it to conservatives. You just don't see these kinds of attacks in the other direction. Part of that is because conservatives rarely do public defense work. Maybe if there were more level playing field, it'd be different. But we will always see this with any nominee to any federal position who served as a criminal defense lawyer and especially a public defendant, which KBJ did and did so quite admirably. But just to get it off the plate, you know, yes, she represented Guantanamo detainees. That I think is one of the best and noblest uses of a law degree. Those individuals are in desperate need of legal counsel. They are guaranteed legal counsel under the Constitution. She provided that counsel zealously, as she was obligated to by the Sixth Amendment. She was effective. She was direct. And if Republicans claim that that is somehow disqualifying for a judgeship or for the Supreme Court, they are not really attacking Ketanji Brown Jackson. They are attacking the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment that they claim to love so much. And there's not a lot of other conversation we can have about this because it's cynical and so stupid to be a supposedly constitutional conservative and then lay into a nominee for enforcing the Constitution and standing by it for those who are most in need of its protections. And I think that's like, all I have to say about that.

[A]

Well, I will see you're cynical and stupid and praise you. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader. Let's have a listen to Mitch McConnell, who thinks she's eminently qualified.

[C]

But curiously, the same radicals who want to turn Democrats into the party of court packing also badly wanted Judge Jackson for this vacancy. It's a matter of record that this nominee was anointed favorite of these fringe groups at this time last year. They were already spending dark money to raise her profile. So I intend to explore why groups that are waging political war against the court as an institution decided Judge Jackson was their special favorite.

[A]

Okay, so, Mark, here we have it. This is, I guess, the transitive property of badness in which Judge Jackson is not bad, but says Mitch McConnell, Bad. People support her and therefore she must be bad by association. Discuss.

[B]

I mean, I don't see the flaw in that logic. I think we just gotta go with Mitch here and say thank you. Next.

[A]

If you are not a Slate plus member, but you'd like to hear more, you can always head to slate.com amicusplus for more details on how to join us. Slate+ members get access to bonus segments from lots of Slate's podcasts, like Slow Burn, this Show, Political Gabfest, or the waves. Slate plus members can access unlimited reading on Slate.com, they never hit a paywall. And most crucially, Slate plus members power and support all of the work that we do here at the magazine, and we are ever so grateful for that always. So go to slate.com amicus plus to find out more, and thank you. And we'll be back with another episode of Amicus in just one short week.