After watching the hearing of Judge Jackson...

Reading through comments under NYT’s SCOTUS nomination reports made me realize how people lack the understanding of the constitutional role of SCOTUS: Always construe the composition of the Supreme Court as back-and-forth pushes between “the liberal” and the “the conservative.”

Defining the Justices’ work with their ideological affiliation, not only distorts the nature of the court system but falls exactly into the pitfall Trump created when he called G.W. Bush’s nominee, Chief Justice Roberts “not doing his job.”

That the job of the Supreme Court is essentially different from that of the political branches of the government is constitutionally stipulated, and to uphold it is part of what defines the competence of the Supreme Court. By not doing whoever else’s job, the justices are exactly doing the job.

Some interesting examples under the news report Sen. Collins determined to vote for Judge Jackson show common misinterpretations of the role of the Supreme Court:

“Collins is actually liberal because she voted no to the conservative ACB but said yes to the liberal KBJ”— this is wrong because Sen. Collins voted no based on the reason that the nomination of ACB was too close to the election. And this again shows how easily people tend to see the nomination of the Supreme Court as the battleground for liberal values and conservative values. 

Another issue that popped up in my mind when I watched KBJ’s hearing and rewatched ACB’s is the question of “judicial philosophy” brought out by Sen.

Sasse. It is convenient and clever for ACB to claim “Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy is mine,” while I don’t find KBJ saying “my judicial philosophy is my methodology” unconvincing. Apparently, the question is leading to a pitfall of “activism v.s. originalism,” and if we bear in mind that the misleading term fundamentally differs from “the philosophy of law,” which we usually call “jurisprudence,” KJB’s answer is practical and not dodging at all. 

I totally understand when NYT used the headline that the GOP wished to be on board at the historic moment and highlighted the identity politics of the nomination, which was also an essential part of the debate in the judicial committee. To me, it exactly illustrates that the function of the legislature is a political one, as is constitutionally required. And the same constitution requires the non-political nature and the impartial role of the Supreme Court. I wish we all be clear about that.