For Jackson, we’ll take one confirmation hearing with a side of civility, please

Today, members of the Senate will begin to exercise their constitutional duty to consider and ultimately vote on the nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.    

As counsel to President George W. Bush and later as attorney general, I had the responsibility to study and evaluate the qualifications and character of numerous individuals for possible appointment to the court. My job primarily was to determine whether a potential nominee is qualified by virtue of experience, temperament, judgment and education to serve on the court. Most importantly, I worked to discern how the individual would likely approach or decide cases, in other words, their judicial philosophy.  

How would the individual interpret words and passages in our Constitution and in the laws passed by Congress? Was the individual a disciple of precedent or would he or she abandon a prior court decision based on the belief the language of the Constitution or federal law required a different outcome? How would changing American societal norms or the customs and practices of other nations influence the individual’s perspective and decisions? Finally, did the individual possess the discipline and commitment to consistently employ these principles when deciding cases? Not just for the next decade, but for decades to come.   

Judge Jackson has been a federal judge for approximately eight years. She is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School and she clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court. Just a year ago and with bipartisan support, she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, regarded by many as the second most powerful court in the land. She served as vice-chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and, if confirmed, she would be the first Black female to sit on the court and the first justice to have worked as a federal public defender.   

Presidential elections have consequences, and a Republican president likely would have nominated someone else to succeed Justice Breyer on the court. I have not done an exhaustive review of her decisions and writings. However, based on what I have seen Jackson appears to be generally in the mainstream of American jurisprudence and appears to be qualified for this appointment. Will I agree with every vote cast by a Justice Jackson if confirmed? No, surely not. But I do not agree, nor would I expect to agree, with every decision rendered by the justices nominated by Republican presidents, including those I recommended to President Bush.   

Of course, senators have the discretion to consider whatever factors they deem important in assessing whether to consent. Vigorous questioning of someone seeking a lifetime appointment to our highest court is not only appropriate, it is essential. Too often senators outside of the president’s political party use confirmation hearings as a platform to score political points at the expense of the president and his party. Recently we have witnessed confirmation hearings devolve into political arenas of personal attacks devoid of humanity or dignity.   

With this nominee, Republicans and Democrats have an opportunity to rise above past bickering. Voting against a nominee based on personality or politics hurts the federal judiciary by suggesting the justices are part of a political institution whose decisions reflect the political or personal views of the individual justices. Although it is within their right, senators who engage in political grandstanding do not help the process, do not further civility and do not advance the rule of law.  

Some have suggested that Republicans should vote to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, perhaps to help the Republican Party court support in future elections with moderates and the Black community. Others argue that confirming Judge Jackson would do relatively little harm to our jurisprudence because of the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court. These are possible reasons to support her nomination if you are a Republican.  

However, I respectfully suggest the Senate should vote to confirm Jackson based on her qualifications and her promise to God and country that she will uphold the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution.   

Alberto Gonzales was the 80th Attorney General of the United States and Counsel to the President in the George W. Bush administration. He is now the Dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.