Letter: What’s not to like about Brown-Jackson?

Published 12:00 am Thursday, March 31, 2022

Will Rogers famously said I am a Democrat and I don’t belong to either party. That in many ways speaks about me. I am a Will Rogers Democrat, but I am also a patriot that served in our military. I hold this country dear to my heart and I take my oath to serve and defend my country very seriously. To be able to have differences of opinion makes this country great.

But B-movie politics, like those exhibited during the confirmation hearing for Ms. Brown-Jackson, represent a travesty of the process. Why did Republicans feel it necessary to avoid proper debate regarding fitness to be a jurist on the SCOTUS and instead make the world watch a poor B-movie sequel to a previous horrible election-fraud B minus movie.

We witnessed paint-by-numbers senators question an individual with a legal skill-set equal to a “Da Vinci” and then suggest flaws only with her sentencing of social predators. What the world saw was Republican cry babies, complaining that though Ms. Brown-Jackson’s qualifications were stellar, and though she received endorsements from liberal and conservative groups alike (including the American Bar Association) they still don’t want to believe she understands what a competent jurist should do when sentencing some serious sex offenders and this despite her more than sufficient and eloquent answers to their question-by-flogging approach.

Picture this, Senator Cruz to Leonardo Da Vinci — “Hey, Da Vinci, This Mona Lisa pic just has too much pigment. Do you totally not understand the value of color? Lighten it up OK. So, Ms. Brown-Jackson, while you have great potential, you just don’t meet our standard. You’re too independent and you plainly don’t understand the (our) playbook for a SCOTUS spot. But hey, we appreciate your interest in the job though.”

Ms. Brown-Jackson — smart, well-educated, independent thinking, greatly respected in all corners of our judicial society, what’s not to like? Maybe, too much pigment.

— Mitchell Siegel

Salisbury

Comments