FreedomWorks Releases 25 Questions That Senators Must Ask Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson at Next Week’s Confirmation Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, FreedomWorks released twenty-five questions that Senators must ask Judge Jackson at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next week.

Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks President, commented:

“One of the most important roles Senators have is to exercise their constitutional duty of advice and consent when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Senators must closely examine Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy, how she will approach the court’s precedents, and her previous decisions. At her confirmation hearing to the D.C. Circuit, Jackson told Senator Cruz (R-Texas) that she had not developed a theory of constitutional interpretation. If Jackson repeats this, or refuses to embrace originalism, the theory that the justices are bound by the original meaning the Constitution had when it was ratified, she should be rejected.”

“While Jackson heard over 500 cases as a federal district judge, one case raises serious concerns. Judge Jackson held that the House Judiciary Committee could enforce its subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn in federal court, rejecting 200 years of history that showed the political branches settled these disputes on their own. Her opinion showed a deep misunderstanding of the separation of powers. FreedomWorks critiqued her opinion here.”

“Before nominating Judge Jackson, President Biden said he wanted a nominee that believes in unenumerated rights and that ‘all the Amendments mean something, including the 9th Amendment.’ FreedomWorks previously detailed Jackson’s background and what President Biden wants from her if she is confirmed. If Jackson embraces President Biden’s theory of constitutional interpretation, she must be rejected.”

“Senators must proceed with extreme caution over a nominee who gives carefully scripted answers that do not remotely attempt to answer the question. Senators should make clear at the outset of the hearing that if Judge Jackson refuses to engage in a substantive dialogue about her judicial philosophy, they cannot proceed with her nomination.”