U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “From the moment President Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has been the likeliest pick. And that is who he nominated Friday to fill retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s seat, The Washington Post reports. “Here’s what you need to know.”
The two most important points for gun owners to understand:
“Liberals really like her: A dozen liberal groups sent a letter to Biden championing Jackson — without mentioning her by name [and] Democrats seemed totally united behind her, elated even.”
Where they stand on citizen disarmament is a matter of record. They’re for it, big time.
So where is Biden’s Supreme Court nomine, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, on our Second Amendment Rights?
NRA’s reaction is (unsurprisingly) limp, and fails to account for a host of compelling circumstantial clues:
“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual, fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or others. Consequently, the NRA is concerned with President Biden’s decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court of the United States at a crucial time when there are vital cases that will determine the scope and future of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights in our country. As we always do, the NRA will monitor her statements during the confirmation process and advise our members accordingly.”
Right, like judicial nominees aren’t given a pass on answering tough questions, and as if “affirming” the Second Amendment will tell us a thing about what infringements she would impose regardless. Plenty of Democrats (and no shortage of Republicans) will acknowledge that it’s an individual right — right before turning around and showing everyone their big “buts.”
NRA’s feeble response is a far cry from “Hell no, and any Republican who doesn’t do everything in his power to torpedo this nominee will see his rating with us suffer accordingly.”
Is that fair? After all, we merely have reason to suspect Judge Jackson won’t be a Second Amendment true believer. Without some kind of corroborating evidence, how can gun owners expect them to take a non-negotiable stand?
To anyone asking that, grow up. You want corroborating evidence?
How about this welcoming statement from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown?
“Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action Applaud President Biden’s Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court”
Read the whole thing. Then read what Giffords has to say:
“Giffords Law Center Lauds Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Succeed Justice Stephen Breyer on US Supreme Court”
Why do you think they sound so sure of themselves?
Want more corroborating evidence on Judge Jackson’s bent for “progressive” judicial activism?
“She has been reversed, and the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] reversed her for basically judicial overreach in a couple of cases,” Fox News quoted law professor Jonathan Turley.
“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino elaborated.
“[I]t’s not clear whether any Senate Republicans would support her now,” the WaPo article continues, nonetheless pointing out past support and/or statements of praise from the “usual suspects,” Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and former Speaker Paul Ryan.
“If all 50 Senate Democrats support her, Biden doesn’t need any Republican votes to get her nomination confirmed by the Senate,” the WaPo piece claims. “But, given how Biden had prioritized bipartisanship, he may like for his nominee to get some Republican votes.”
So that’s it, though? Bottom line, no matter what Republicans do, they can’t stop Jackson from being confirmed?
Not so fast, Rachel Bovard, The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute writes:
“The Senate of 2022 is tied, with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, which presents Republicans with an interesting procedural option: denying a quorum in the Senate Judiciary Committee, thus preventing the nomination from being reported out of committee and placed on the calendar, and ultimately moved to the Senate floor.”
That alone won’t be foolproof, but it’s a great opening salvo, and political realities mean overriding such a bold move is not assured.
“Democrats, of course, always have the option to use the nuclear option to ignore this rule,” Bovard admits, but notes they can’t count on that to happen. “Presumably, this would be viewed with suspicion by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who recently opposed using the nuclear option on Democrat-led legislation to federalize the election system.”
What this means is there is one chance to deny a quorum and that rests with the Republican members of Senate Judiciary, beginning with ranking member Chuck Grassley (IA), and including Lindsey Graham (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Tom Cotton (AR), John Kennedy (LA), Thom Tillis (NC), and Marsha Blackburn (TN).
Being political creatures of the establishment above all else, don’t look for any of them to act with courage on this. Instead, they’ll need to perceive the political costs of not doing so outweigh the costs of doing it. No doubt those costs will be considerable, beginning with every Democrat and media group out there foaming at the mouth and loudly condemning them as racists (as if that card won’t be played anyway whenever the left finds it useful).
So expect “conservative influencers” (including most “gun groups”) to say there’s no chance this tactic could work under pressure like that, so a member mailing campaign to press the senators (and remind them who voted for them) would be “a waste of political capital.”
It’s a shame that’s the reality, because the courage needed here is nothing compared to what Ukrainians, suddenly rediscovering their right to arms as a deterrent to tyranny, are exhibiting right now. It’s nothing compared to what we as gun owners will have to muster if the Supreme Court sides with the Democrats on guns.
To anyone who falls back on the “politics is the art of the possible” excuse and says this can’t be done, of course, it can: All those in a position to do something about it need is the will.
What have we got to lose if we do? More to the point, what have we got to lose if we don’t?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
