Dear Editor:

On Feb. 25, President Biden fulfilled a campaign pledge to put a black woman on the Supreme Court by nominating Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Ten days previously, the Powell Tribune published a political cartoon by Wayne Stroot depicting Biden near a Supreme Court chair with an “affirmative action booster seat.” This obviously implied that Biden’s nominee would be less qualified than white male candidates. 

The 22-member Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Ms. Jackson on March 22 and 23. While most members were respectful and asked standard questions for Supreme Court nominees, some Republicans used the forum to grandstand for the GOP base by asking absurd, hostile questions and interrupting the nominee. Ms. Jackson maintained incredible composure and responded with great intellect and restraint.

On March 31, Stroot drew another cartoon depicting Justice Jackson as a ditzy “In a League of Their Own” baseball player who strikes out with “softball” questions.

The American Bar Association, which evaluates the qualifications of federal court nominees, reported that Jackson’s education and legal experience were excellent.  This included about nine years as judge in district and, more recently, U. S. appellate courts. She is the best qualified Supreme Court nominee in several decades and has the support of more than 60 law enforcement agencies.  They concluded that “Judge Jackson meets the highest standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament” and they gave her a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating.

On April 4, the Judiciary Committee deadlocked 11-11 on Jackson’s nomination along party lines. For the first time in modern history, the Senate had to resort to a “discharge petition” to advance the nomination to the Senate floor. On April 7, the full Senate voted 53-47 for confirmation. Both Sens. Barrasso and Lummis voted no.

Sen. Barrasso stated that while Jackson was highly qualified, he opposed her “judicial philosophy” based on her “unwillingness to rule based on the law and not legislate from the bench.” Barrasso lacks the credentials to even have a judicial philosophy and is woefully ignorant of the role of the judiciary and the law. Use of the trope “legislating from the bench” has a long complex history that goes back nearly a century and is the subject of scholarly debate. Barrasso, of course, is too sophomoric to realize this. 

Sen. Lummis, who is an attorney but has never practiced law except as a politician, noted her “serious concerns” about some of Jackson’s answers to the Judiciary Committee.  She regurgitated the debunked GOP complaint that Jackson “gave much more lenient sentences (for child pornography possession) than recommended by prosecutors.” She intentionally avoided mentioning that Jackson’s sentences were well within the mainstream guidelines for federal judges.  Therefore, Lummis willfully and unfairly spewed disinformation to attack Ms. Jackson’s judgment. She stated that it was her “duty” to vote no because Jackson’s judicial philosophy “is not faithful to the text and original meaning of the Constitution.” This “originalist” ideology has historically been used to justify white supremacy. Whether Lummis is aware of this fact is unknown. 

Barrasso, Lummis, and the GOP never intended to confirm Justice Jackson. They instead attacked her by using tropes such as “child pornography” and “legislate from the bench” to inflame the electorate ahead of the midterms. These actions are clearly an example of racism and sexism, whether done consciously or not.  This is also why Stroot’s cartoons are highly offensive. 

Why did the Powell Tribune publish them? 

Jim McEvoy

Powell