As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson goes through her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week, there seems to be little in her legal background or in her personal past that should derail her from joining the high court.
The biggest “concern” raised prior to the start of hearings was whether she is “soft on crime” largely because she worked for a couple of years as a federal public defender, which included representing four alleged Islamic terrorists.
Apparently Jackson did her job well, or the case against the four Guantanamo Bay detainees was weak. None of the four was convicted by the secret military commissions created to try detainees, and all were eventually released.
According to The Associated Press, some members of the Republican Party have suggested Jackson was too “zealous” in her defense of the four alleged terrorists instead of being simply “competent.”
We’re not sure how such a distinction could be objectively determined when it comes to providing a defendant with legal representation. Are the competent defense attorneys the ones who go through the motions of putting on a defense but don’t really put their heart into it? Are the zealous attorneys the ones who believe their client is innocent, or at least act as if they do? If so, those accused of a crime would certainly hope to have a zealous attorney in their corner, rather than a simply competent one.
Justice in the American system is based on the premise that those who are charged with a crime will have a fair shake in court. In order to guarantee such fairness, the lawyers either hired or assigned to defend the accused are thus obligated, if the defendant claims innocence, to do their best within the law to get the charges dismissed or to secure a verdict of not guilty. It doesn’t matter how unpopular the accused are or how grievous the crime they are alleged to have committed, their attorneys are expected to insulate themselves from public opinion and put their clients’ interest first.
It can be hard for the public to understand that principle, particularly if the accused are believed to be guilty. But those in Congress, especially those with a law degree, should.
Criminal defense attorneys serve an often thankless but critically important role in maintaining the public’s trust in the fairness of the court system. Their skills and the presumed impartiality of the judges and juries are what distinguish American courts from the kangaroo courts of dictatorships, where the outcomes are predetermined by those in power.
If Jackson was effective as a defense attorney, that should be considered an asset in her qualifications for the high court, not a liability.
