The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
KBJ Veers Into RBG Territory With "Hope" Comment About Harris
There was some cross-talk on The View, but Jackson seems to have said that Kamala Harris's nomination "‘gives a lot of people hope."
Last night I wrote that Court watchers could safely skip Justice Jackson's new book tour. My comments were premature. Today, Justice Jackson appeared on The View. If you haven't watched The View (and you would have good reason not to), this program features five female hosts who interview guests. There is often a lot of cross-talk, and it is not always possible to track a clear thread. But there was one colloquy that could be problematic, though I'm not sure that Justice Jackson so intended.
At the 27:45 mark, the segment resumes with a question about Vice President's Harris's nomination.
Sarah Haines: Politics aside, the upcoming election marks another significant milestone for women of color with Vice President Harris at the top of the ticket. One, what do you make of her historic candidacy and as far as potential redos of 2020 go, are you confident our courts will faithfully uphold the votes if contested.
Jackson begins by not actually answering the question asked about the Court, and deftly reframes it to another question that is completely anodyne:
Jackson: I am confident that the Courts will faithfully uphold the law because that is our duty, what we do.
You see what she did? Haines asked about upholding the votes, and Jackson said she would uphold the law. Very crafty. I wonder if that messaging was rehearsed, or done on the fly. I've done a lot of media training, and these sorts of question-reframings are generally practiced.
But then Jackson answered the question about Harris.
Jackson: And I know a little bit about being a first. I think a lot of people were very happy about my appointment in part because they saw it as progress for the country. That there was a time in which black women wouldn't have had this opportunity. And so I am not only so honored but whenever we someone moving into a position where no one has ever been, it gives a lot of people hope.
Was Jackson only talking about herself? Or was she also talking about Harris? If Harris loses, would that be bad for hope?
At that point, Joy Behar, another host jumps in.
Behar: Like Obama is the perfect example.
Jackson: It gives a lot of people hope.
It isn't clear if Jackson was repeating her "hope" line about Obama or about her own "first" or about herself and Harris. I've watched the video a few times, and I can't tell for sure.
Given that this was a fast-moving interview, I would give Justice Jackson the benefit of the doubt. But I think a reasonable person watching this interview could see Justice Jackson as saying that the "first" nominations of Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, like her own nomination, gave a lot of people hope. Hope was a huge theme of Obama's 2008 campaign. Indeed, you might recall the iconic Obama "Hope" poster.
Jackson's comments brings to mind remarks that Justice Ginsburg made in 2016. No, not calling Trump a "faker" and saying she would move to New Zealand if he won. Instead, this was a comment about the other candidate in the race, Hillary Clinton. She told Mark Sherman of the AP:
"It's likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make," Ginsburg said, smiling.
Three things jump out. First, pronouns matter. Ginsburg said "she," a clear reference to Clinton. She may have been trying to be coy, but she clearly signaled her preferred candidate. Second, Ginsburg also clearly signaled that she would step down if Clinton was President. Slate aptly observed that Ginsburg "hints she wants Clinton to name her successor." In hindsight, that plan didn't work out. Third, Ginsburg was smiling. Dare I say, she joyful about a Clinton victory? Dare I say, hopeful?
Justice Ginsburg smiled when asked about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming President. And Justice Jackson seems to have said the prospect of Kamala Harris becoming President brings a lot of people "hope." And Jackson was beaming widely when she said it.
I'll let others judge how they read this interview. I think the better answer for Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Jackson, would have been "I cannot comment on a political race." This interview was far more problematic than any flag Martha-Ann Alito ever flew. Perhaps Justice Jackson should be grateful there is no enforceable ethics code that could compel her to recuse from all election-related cases.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Up until a few months ago Kamala was widely regarded as dipshit moron. She's is given the nomination by the elites, all of sudden every Democrat completely loses their memories and Kamala is transformed into the second coming.
It's fascinating. We saw similar behavior by Democrats with COVID. Whatever message the elites pressed, every Democrat dutifully absorbed and came to believe.
Talk about morons….She was “given” the nomination by the delegates.
Was there some primary process that I missed? Or did the delegates just organically decide amongst themselves to vote for her over the primary winner?
Do you have some esoteric knowledge about how she got nominated? I'm open to revising my beliefs if given counter facts.
The delegates did indeed decide amongst themselves (or individually) to vote for her, but not "over the primary winner," since — assuming you mean Biden — he had already withdrawn from consideration.
No commie boy, they were compelled for a number of considerations to nominate the selected candidate exactly 0 people actually voted for in the primary.
OMG I had no idea there were ~considerations~ on the line!
Good lord I hope they're all OK!
What happened to your wide-view mirror? Sold it to the fun house?
Up until and including now, JHBHBE is regarded as a dipshit moron. And liar.
If one were to analyze sentiment of Kamala prior to a few months ago, what do you believe the consensus would be?
The same as the current Democrat sentiment, or closer to how I described it?
Unimpressive. But not a "dipshit moron."
It’s the job of a Vice President to play second fiddle to the President, and not to garner lots of attention to themselves. Until his break with Trump after January 6, Mike Pence took a similar approach, not getting into the public view a whole lot.
But nobody thought he was a “dip shit moron” for doing so. At least, nobody did before January 6.
You think Harris' nomination was somehow procedurally or otherwise improper? If so, how?
You would have preferred another D nominee? Who?
Or is neurodoc just being silly by engaging with your offensiveness?
Was it normal or abnormal? How would you characterize it?
This fuckin' guy.
Mr. Manager cares deeply about perceptions.
Sometimes.
They need a "mute a contributor" feature.
The most straightforward reading is that she said the nomination of a black woman for President for the first time in the history of a nation riddled with restrictions on both blacks and women gives a lot of people hope. Ginsburg’s comment isn’t really like that much at all.
I am somewhat tired of the absurd pretense that judges don’t have opinions, and we all need government subsidized fainting couches when they express them.
I am perfectly fine with RBG and Jackson having opinions, same as I am Alito and his wife and Clarence Thomas and his wife having opinions.
I don’t think there is any benefit in everyone pretending we don’t know what we all already know.
I largely agree with this.
Presidential candidates routinely campaign on appointing judges who will do this or that, and then suddenly the nominees, in their hearings, deny that they have any opinions whatsoever.
It's complete horseshit, an embarrassment
Thanks for that Bernard, we don't agree on much, but people honest in their opinions can find more common ground than people reflexively picking a side.
Having political opinions is fine. What we need to see from judges and potential judges is the ability and especially the desire to set their personal opinions aside and rule objectively.
I’d say that we start by noting that most of the current Supreme Court justices had partisan government roles during their careers prior to being on the bench. This also doesn’t disqualify them any more than having political opinions does. But it does warrant much greater scrutiny and considerable skepticism that they won’t bring that partisanship to the bench with them during the confirmation process.
The conduct of Clarence and Ginny, especially re 1/6/21 and the run up thereto, was/is simply shocking to any capable of being shocked by such (not Josh Blackman). Not comparable in kind or degree to the others cited.
"This interview was far more problematic than any flag Martha-Ann Alito ever flew."
Go fuck yourself, Josh.
Go easy on Josh. He still entertains hopes of being rescued from South Texas if he sucks up vigorously enough.
The Hoover Institution is holding tryouts?
You are just a one note, Jason.
You certainly know how to marshall a convincing argument.
I can imagine you as a toddler throwing your bottle and screaming "go fuck yourself mom".
But hey it must of worked well for you, because you've never had to upgrade your argumentive skills.
Do I need to elaborate on the sycophancy and partisan bullshit that Blackman's posts have consisted of for the last several years? Do you really need to have my disgust spelled out for you? You can't genuinely be that obtuse.
Blackman does not deserve a more verbose response.
It's a valid point, penis breath.
In fact, there is a minor distinction you are missing -- Martha-Ann Alito isn't a SCOTUS Justice, this Bimbo is.
I think she should be impeached for merely being ON The View....
Only impeached? Not murdered? Did you take a valium or something?
Ha. "My Hope" A Memoir.
In bookstores September 10th!
Good Lord! Does this guy Blackman ever think before he writes? First of all, most if not all the conservative members of the Court don't have to tell us their political preferences because their rulings, the immunity case, for example, make that very clear. (Does anyone doubt that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are going to vote for Trump?) Second, to equate what Jackson said to what Martha-Ann and Ginni have done -- and continue to do -- is laughable and invalidates pretty much everything else Josh wrote.
Well how about Trump v Anderson then, i was asdired that was a slam dunk, and only partisan hacks would rule against Colorado.
But it was 9-0 against states unilaterally executing section 3.
Quite an edit to reality. We were all there. No one thought Trump would be disqualified, much less as a slam dunk. Some thought he should be.
You had your own persona legal analysis, and you were assured that was slam dunk wrong. And indeed no one on the Court adopted your take.
Last night I wrote that Court watchers could safely skip Justice Jackson’s new book tour.
No you didn’t. You said this:
Court Watchers Can Safely Skip Justice Jackson’s New Book
To reaffirm the point, you said this:
I bought a Kindle copy of the book so you don’t have to.
To be fair, I guess, you did mention the book tour.
I cannot imagine anyone is pretending they can make sense out of a segment of 'the view'.
It is a daily argument against being left wing.
Worse than that, it's an argument against the 19th Amendment.
I haven’t logged in to post a comment on Reason in several years (probably since before VC was here) and I’m generally closer to a Gorsuch than the lockstep left voting block, but this is some absolutely ridiculous parsing bullshit.
What is she supposed to say? “Courts will uphold the law and I’m proud to be the first black woman on the court” is as benign and inoffensive as possible.
Well yeah, that is a pretty deft rephrasing of a stupid question to what the courts focus actually should be. Not counting actual votes but the law as it applies to counting votes.
Not every vote counts, but every legal vote counts.
“and you would have good reason not to”
So we’re doing TV criticism now? Care to expand, Josh— or are we going to stick with drive-by ankle biting? At least these female (as you so tartly point out) hosts have had a lot professional success in their lives. Sad, low energy, and pathetic dig, and “carefully chosen” (per your next post) at that! Your next book should be titled lunatic Supreme Court wives and the law profs who love them. Water carrying doesn’t even begin to cover it and let me remind you that in this great future you are yearning for, watch your back. These kinds of movements have a way of consuming their own, most sycophantic, members.
They should make "Watching the View" an alternative form of Capital Punishment (I'd take the Chair) Megan McCain was once the token "Conservative" if that tells you anything.
I'll watch November 6, just to enjoy them eating shit.
Frank
Except that the Dems are going to rig this election -- they have to.
Hush; the grownups are trying to speak.
Maybe you should get your ass off the couch and do something about it, Finnicum fanboy?
If we’re doing that then comparing oneself to Faulkner should be 30 lashes followed by a hot salt bath
She was asked about the significant milestone for women of color of having the first women of color at the top of the ticket, and her response was that these firsts give a lot of people hope. How is that remotely unethical? It isn't even partisan. When we have the first Jewish candidate at the top of the ticket, won't that give you some hope?
"there was a time in which black women"
Isn't this the person who sat in front of the Senate and the American people and said that she doesn't know what a woman is? So how is she sure she is one?
Recent boxer-related confusion on the right makes this bit of nonsense even less convincing.
Uh, my dude, you already posted this yesterday
The question still stands though, what does she mean by woman here, and was she lying under oath when she said she can't define it?
I think she should have said "A woman is any person who covers their drink in a bar when JonFrum walks by."
It's hard to be upset about political appointees having a preference for the party that appointed them.
They are people, not robots.