Connect with us

Laws & Rights

2A Report Card: Biden’s SCOTUS Pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Published

on

Image courtesy NSSF

 

When a spot opens on the Supreme Court, wise Second Amendment activists keep careful score.

Who is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? Biden’s Supreme Court nominee is meant to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer–a left-leaning Justice who views the Second Amendment as a “collective right”–so many 2A activists are thinking of the open SCOTUS spot as an “automatic loss.” That’s not necessarily so.

Supreme Court Justices tend to follow some guiding principles in the way they deliberate, but anyone who thinks they can count on what a Justice will rule in a given case isn’t thinking straight. Supreme Court Justices serve for life, and are not beholden to any one particular party. That means, sometimes, you get a surprise ruling. Judge Jackson recently spent some time being questioned closely by the U.S. Senate on her views relating to the Second Amendment; here’s her report card, as evaluated by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)’s Larry Keane.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

MARCH 25, 2022

JUDGE JACKSON AFFIRMS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BUT QUESTIONS LINGER


By Larry Keane

Anyone expecting Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing to be a firework show when it came to gun rights was disappointed. President Joe Biden’s nominee answered questions posed by probing U.S. senators, but some of those answers gave reason for pause.

Although Judge Jackson noted the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, her full testimony was revealing. Judge Jackson demurred on questions surrounding concealed carry, spoke of the importance of Court precedent and refused to define her judicial philosophy.

Individual Rights

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

“Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

Sen. Grassley pressed further asking the judge to describe how she would decide what a fundamental right is under the Constitution. Judge Jackson pointed to Court precedent that serves as a guide for how justices would discern fundamental rights. She added that those precedents set the standards for determining if rights are fundamental, including the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as it applies to liberty and personal autonomy.

“That’s the tradition of the Court for determining if something is fundamental in that way,” she added.

Later, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) pressed the question to Judge Jackson again, particularly when it came to whether local governments can enforce subjective standards in order to actually bear arms outside the home. Judge Jackson demurred, indicating that question is pending a decision before the Supreme Court. That question is at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that challenges New York’s “may issue” policy of requiring law-abiding citizens to show “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

“The Second Amendment, that right to keep and bear arms, is enumerated in the text of the Constitution,” Sen. Blackburn said. “So, the question would be ‘why should it have to have an extra burden?’”

Judge Jackson held firm that it would be improper for her to offer an answer to a case yet undecided.

The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski rightly noted that the question goes beyond those posed by NYSRPA v. Bruen. “Several states also require licensing for buying handguns, and Hawaii requires them for shotgun and rifle purchases as well,” Gutowski wrote. “The Court may hear numerous gun permitting cases in the years ahead, and Jackson’s view of how far Second Amendment protections extend may play a significant role.”

Judge Jackson closed the question with this answer.

“Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home,” she said.

That answer was curious, and wrong. Tom Knighton of Bearing Arms pointed out that the final three words – “in the home” – isn’t a qualifier for the Second Amendment. Knighton correctly wrote that Heller addressed Dick Heller’s challenge to Washington, D.C.’s laws that prohibited him from keeping a firearm in his home, but there is no mention of that restriction in the text of the Second Amendment. And Heller explains in detail that “bear” means to carry arms outside the home for lawful purposes.

Precedent

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) pressed Judge Jackson on the importance of Court precedent when it comes to deciding cases. This is particularly important as there are gun-related cases that are being petitioned to the Supreme Court now, including Young v. Hawaii, which presents the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home and if the denial of a handgun carry license for self-defense violates Second Amendment rights. Duncan v. Bonta challenges California’s ban on standard capacity magazines. Bianchi v. Frosh challenges Maryland’s ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs).

Sen. Cornyn revisited Judge Jackson’s affirmation of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and whether Judge Jackson viewed the precedent set by that case to be on equal footing with Roe v. Wade.

“I’m not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis,” Judge Jackson replied.

That might suggest that should any of the pending petitions before the Supreme Court Justice Jackson would be guided by Heller’s precedent. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both similarly testified during their confirmation hearings they would be bound by Heller’s precedent too, but that wasn’t apparent from their questions during oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Justice Kagan posed the question whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

Philosophy

Unlike Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch, who all clearly identified their judicial philosophy of originalism – that the words of the law mean what was meant at the time of their writing – Judge Jackson refused to apply a label to her judicial line of thought.

Judge Jackson was asked if she adhered to a philosophy of a “living constitution” or that the meaning of the law is applied to modern understanding. She didn’t answer the question saying only that she is “bound by the methods of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has adopted, and I have a duty not to opine on the Supreme Court’s chosen methodology or suggest that I would undertake to interpret the text of the Constitution in any manner other than as the Supreme Court has directed.”

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney, in a Fox News opinion column wrote that her answer was confusing because justices are permitted to have guiding philosophies and have testified to it. In fact, Judge Jackson previously answered the question “no” when she was nominated for the district court.

Turley pointed out that it was then-Sen. Biden who told the late-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Senate confirmation hearings were meant to discuss judicial philosophies.

But we do have a window into Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy, however, and the view is deeply troubling for Second Amendment rights. Judge Jackson, who clerked for retiring-Justice Stephen Breyer, testified in essence that he is her mentor and testified, “I would hope to carry on his spirit.” Of course, Justice Breyer authored a dissent in Heller setting out an interest-weighing analysis for the Second Amendment. Despite being expressly rejected by the majority in Heller, most federal courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases have applied Judge Jackson’s mentor’s interest-weighing analysis where the government nearly always wins. This has not gone unnoticed by conservative members of the Supreme Court who have at times dissented in denials of petitions for a writ of certiorari in Second Amendment cases.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to vote on Judge Jackson’s nomination April 4. All expectations are that the committee vote will be tied, which would mean Judge Jackson’s nomination would be required to be discharged to the full Senate. If the vote is tied evenly there, Vice President Kamala Harris could be tie-breaking vote to seat Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court.

5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Fred Philibert

    March 31, 2022 at 10:23 am

    “Current Supreme Court precedent…” scares me, as does her addition of “…in the home”

    But with the left’s control of the Senate, I fear that she might be the best we can hope for. If only we could get one ‘Democrat’ to say no, we could stand a chance of delaying this until after the 2022 election, when things could change.

  2. Ned

    March 28, 2022 at 8:31 pm

    Ketanji is a great name for a dog or a monkey, not a Supreme Court Justice. This woman is another liber loser the country will be much better off without her anywhere near a court room

  3. Buckminster Fulton

    March 28, 2022 at 1:19 pm

    Sure why not hire her to do the job. Just look at the Vice-President, she is doing one helluva job, and she is a Black woman, I know this because she reminds us 3 times a day she is a black woman.

  4. DIYinSTL

    March 28, 2022 at 12:29 pm

    I’m concerned that Senator Schumer wants to confirm her before Breyer retires. Is it possible for her to be sworn in as an associate justice and cast votes as the 10th justice? Congress may have set the limit at 9, for now, but that could be changed just as easily as SCOTUS telling Congress to butt out.

  5. GreatGrandpa

    March 28, 2022 at 9:59 am

    No! My vote is No! Last person we need is another Leftist, socialist as a Scotus judge. MAGA! Ya’ll seen enough yet? Ya’ll know what needs to be done, Git r Dun! NCSWIC, WWG1WGA, P.A.N.I.C. Let’s Go Brandon, FJB and all satan’s demon spawn minions, they deserve dirt naps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. Guns & Gadgets Daily is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.