Can Biden’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson, defend the Constitution? According to constitutional lawyer Keisha Toni Russell, the answer is “no.”
Russell said as much during her testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, testimony in which she hit Judge Jackson for her support of CRT and arguing that her support of that radical ideology meant she couldn’t defend the Constitution. As she put it in her opening statement:
I’m here to explain how critical race theory may impact a judge’s judicial philosophy including the fulfillment of her oath to uphold the Constitution, as well as to remain impartial and uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
At another point in her statement Russell explained why Russell’s CRT position is at odds with the Constitution and makes it impossible for her to defend it, saying:
Ultimately, we cannot expect a critical race theorist to defend and protect the Constitution, because CRT asserts that the Constitution is not worth defending. Such a view completely contradicts the oath every judge takes. This is an especially problematic view for a justice who will sit on America’s highest court, which often has the last word on the liberty the Constitution guarantees. If we adopt the anti-American views of CRT, we will see the eradication of the principles that made America the freest and most successful republic in history.
Attacking CRT yet again later in her speech, Russell explained how the CRT ideology makes it near impossible for a judge to hold someone accountable for their actions, saying:
CRT does not consider how cultural upbringing, mindsets, or family and community involvement can change the trajectory of people’s lives and ultimately address the racial disparities that exist in our society. CRT does not acknowledge that regardless of the struggles that people face in life, we are all individually responsible for the lives we live and the success we attain. Instead, CRT makes race the predominant relevant factor.
A judge must maintain independence and the integrity of the law. To do so, she must acknowledge that people are responsible for their actions, despite the racism or setbacks they may have experienced, and that people deserve justice even if CRT defines them as “privileged.”
Concluding her speech with a final explanation of her position, she then said:
“Every lawyer and judge promises to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, but she cannot uphold this oath if she believes that the Constitution and the principles of America’s foundation are racist and inherently flawed. Neither can a judge remain impartial and administer justice independently if she holds a philosophy that correcting racism requires affording privileged classes less justice than oppressed classes.”
Not stopping there, she went on to explain her view of history and how judge Jackson’s view of history makes it impossible for First Liberty to support her, Russell said:
“Ultimately, a judge should consider America’s history as a lesson and a blueprint for why and how we must constantly seek to uphold and protect America’s founding promises. For these reasons First Liberty has concerns about Judge Jackson’s jurisprudence and First Liberty cannot support her nomination.”
Russell is right. CRT is a pernicious ideology that’s at odds with the Constitution. One who believes in it, as Jackson does, can’t be trusted to maintain and defend the Constitution.
By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.
This story syndicated with permission from Will, Author at Trending Politics
"*" indicates required fields
