Cato Senior Vice President for Legal Studies Clark Neily:
There are plenty of reasons to celebrate Judge Jackson’s nomination, and one of the most important is the professional diversity she would bring to the Supreme Court. Unlike eight of the nine sitting Justices, Judge Jackson has never served as a prosecutor or other courtroom advocate for government, and she would be the first Justice since Thurgood Marshall with criminal defense experience. As Cato’s research has shown, the federal judiciary is wildly imbalanced in favor of former government lawyers versus former public defenders and public interest lawyers. Some of the most important cases the Supreme Court hears involve individuals squaring off against police, prosecutors, and other public officials in criminal and civil rights cases. The government’s perspective is already well‐represented among the Justices in those cases—a Justice Jackson would provide a new and refreshing point of view.
Cato Research Fellow Thomas Berry:
The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is an opportunity for a national conversation on the proper role of the judiciary. Every Supreme Court justice is entrusted with an immense responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. The Senate should use the upcoming confirmation hearings to learn how Judge Jackson would wield that authority. Does she believe in judicial deference to the political branches, or judicial engagement when constitutional limits are ignored? That is the single most important question for any nominee to the highest court, and it is my hope that this process will yield insight into Judge Jackson’s views on that question.
Judge Jackson joined the Cato Institute on an amicus brief in Al‐Marri v. Spagone in 2009.
