Graham Rips Dems’ Treatment Of Past Republican Nominees In Jackson Hearing

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked several personal questions to Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji brown Jackson during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing. This was not to ask for her answers but to point out that they are irrelevant despite having been used in the past by Democrats to nominate Republican nominees.

Graham asked Jackson about her faith and level of belief, but she quickly realized that such a questioning was not appropriate for a judicial nomination. The Republican referred to the confirmation of Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Justices John Kennedy, whose religious beliefs were made an issue by the media and raised by senators at her Seventh Circuit confirmation hearing.

Graham stated, “We’re tired and it’s going to happen to us.” It just annoys me that America can have such a system that conservative women want to be heard and say that they love their family just as much as yours. And that my faith means the same to me as yours.

Graham also inquired about Jackson’s affiliation to the Black Law Students Association at Harvard. The group had brought in a speaker who held controversial views, even though she wasn’t part of the group. Graham said that it was wrong for her or anyone else to hold those views or statements against Jackson, even though Democrats brought up similar situations during Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation.

Graham also noted that President Biden had specifically nominated a Black woman for the Supreme Court, but he “actively filibustered her” when she was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court was created by President George W. Bush, 2005.

“So I guess that’s why I bring all this up. It gives me the chance to remind America’s congressional committee of two standards. You can have your life turned around if you are an African American conservative woman. If you are a conservative and express your faith, you will be a f’ing nut.

Since Jackson’s nomination, Republicans have repeatedly made it clear that they would rigorously examine her judicial record as well as her philosophy, but not her personal life.