The fact that Sen. Joe Manchin (D.W.Va.) and Senator Susan Collins (R.Me.) indicated that they would vote for Ketanji brown Jackson following her questioning at congressional hearings practically ensured that she would get confirmed.
They may have not seen her answer to Sen. Ted Cruz’s written question. It’s common practice to send the nominee written questions, in addition to grilling her during hearings. But her response is getting a lot of attention — and it’s not hard to see why.
Cruz asked, “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?”
One would ask a simple question. That is, if you believe the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. But if you thought Jackson’s answer about not being able to define a “woman” was a bad answer, this response was even worse.
It was, in fact, not a good response. “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies: “I don’t hold any position as to whether individuals possess natural right.” (From post-hearing responses to written questions. pic.twitter.com/NwH9vjsTLr
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) April 1, 2022
Here’s the full response, in which she even says she has no position, after recognizing it’s part of the Declaration of Independence.
15. Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable.
RESPONSE: The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: “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.”
16. Is your position that individuals have natural rights either yes or no?
RESPONSE : I don’t believe that individuals have natural rights.
a. Do you agree?RESPONSE – Please refer to my reply to the Question 16.
17. Your understanding of the difference between natural and constructive law is important. Please state whether each of these are applicable to the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
RESPONSE Positive law is a legal text that has been enacted, including the Constitution and federal statutes. Federal law is interpreted according to methods used by the Supreme Court. This includes resolving disputes or cases based on relevant history and precedents.
So, she doesn’t believe in the Declaration of Independence that we were created with “inalienable rights”? She doesn’t know what it is that the Constitution claims to protect. What does she think the first 10 Amendments are about — the Bill of Rights? It’s important to note that the Constitution doesn’t give those rights to you — it recognizes that you already have them.
If she believes in the right to an abortion — which isn’t even contained in the Constitution — upon what is she basing that right, if she doesn’t have an opinion on whether people are endowed with natural rights?
If she doesn’t even have an opinion on natural rights, from where does she believe “rights” stem – simply by leave of the government and the passage of laws? Natural rights are one of the fundamental underpinnings of our system, and if you don’t accept them, how can you say that you can uphold our system? This should not be taken as a disqualifying response.
Perhaps this is why she ducked questions about her “judicial philosophy” during her hearing because that would have revealed the problem. Because if this is your belief and you don’t believe that Americans have rights apart from those granted by the government, you can justify the government taking away all kinds of rights.
That’s certainly going to catch the attention of Sen. Cruz and many others who are already “no” votes. Will it impact Collins and Manchin’s votes?
About Post Author
