Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejects America's very foundation

America has two seminal documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The former states the fundamental predicates justifying America's creation as an independent nation.  The latter is a contract that sees the federal government and the People define the government's function and limit its powers.  Both articulate principles that Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejects.  Her rejection should instantly disqualify her.

In the prelude to the Declaration of Independence (the bulk of which is concerned with the wrongs George III had inflicted on the colonies, justifying their separation from Great Britain), Thomas Jefferson wrote some of the most famous words in the English language (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Those emphasized words are the fundamental premise underlying America's entire constitutional political system: all people have inherent rights upon which government cannot infringe.

When the Founders enacted the Constitution, they were originally concerned solely with setting out a system of government.  However, within a few years of the Constitution's ratification, they were so concerned that future governments might destroy those "unalienable Rights" that they ratified the first ten amendments, now known as the Bill of Rights.  None of those amendments expands the government's power, nor does any of them discuss mere privileges, which are revocable.  Each, instead, defines rights each person is born with, upon which the government cannot infringe or may infringe upon only in the least intrusive, most limited way.  The Fourteenth Amendment extends these principles to state governments.

Each new Supreme Court justice swears an oath that begins "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same[.]"  With that oath, the justice affirms his acceptance that people have unalienable (i.e., inherent) rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; freedom of speech, worship, assembly, and the press; the right to bear arms; the right to a swift trial and one by jury; and the whole panoply of inherent rights that their federal and state governments can deny them only if they demonstrate an overwhelming, legitimate need that cannot be met in any other way.

Image by Andrea Widburg using a YouTube screen grab.

For a judge to deny these unalienable, inherent rights should instantly disqualify him from sitting on a federal bench, especially the Supreme Court.  Yet deny those rights is exactly what Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson did.

Sen. Ted Cruz served her with a set of written questions, two of which revealed Jackson's constitutional nihilism.  The first question asked her to explain the Founders' belief in natural rights.  Jackson responded, not in an intelligent, substantive way, but simply by quoting Jefferson's language that "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."  It was a silly, shallow response from someone who studied for the exam only the night before.

It was the next question-and-answer that revealed that Jackson has no place on the Supreme Court (emphasis added):

Question: Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?

Response: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.

Jackson's answer is the judicial equivalent of a priest seeking a bishopric while disclaiming a belief in God — it renders the person unfit for the position sought.  You cannot "support and defend the Constitution ... [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same" while refusing to accept its core premise.

A person who claims to be a woman yet has no idea what a woman is ("I'm not a biologist") and who desperately wants to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution while refusing to acknowledge its most basic principle doesn't even belong on a Democrat city's municipal court.  She most certainly does not belong on the United States Supreme Court to which Chief Justice Marshall long ago assigned the power (unstated in the Constitution) to determine constitutional questions.

Given this response, Sen. Susan Collins would do well to reconsider her previously voiced support for Jackson, and every other Republican senator needs to get on board with a resounding "NO."  Sadly, we already know that the Constitution means nothing to Democrat senators, who rely upon it and dismiss it based solely on their political needs.  They've already locked in their votes for this dismal excuse for a federal judge.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com