Analysis: Judge Jackson's Judicial Philosophy

Elections have consequences, and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, is testifying at confirmation hearings in the United States Senate today. If confirmed, Judge Jackson will be ruling on monumental cases as soon as this term.
In today’s hearing, Judge Ketanji Jackson tried to describe her judicial philosophy to Senator Dick Durbin:
"Over the course of my almost decade on the bench, I have developed a methodology that I use in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that I am adhering to the limits on my judicial authority. I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system, I have limited power. And I am trying in every case to stay in my lane."
Additionally, when asked by Senator Chuck Grassley about how she would go about deciding what a “fundamental right” is based on the Constitution, Judge Jackson responded:
"There is precedent in the Supreme Court related to various rights that the Court has recognized as fundamental. The Court has some precedents about the standards of determining whether or not something is fundamental. The Court has said the 14th Amendment – substantive due process clause – does support some fundamental rights, but only things that are implicit in the ordered concept of liberty or deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this country, the kinds of rights that relate to personal individual autonomy. They have recognized a few things in that category and that is the tradition of the Court of determining whether something is fundamental that way."
ACLJ Director of Policy Harry Hutchison gave his take on why Judge Jackson was beating around the bush when questions like these were presented:
"I think they came up with an exquisite dodge for her because they did not want her to fully engage in that particular debate. If you think about that debate from a policy perspective, that debate if you aren’t incredibly conversant, it is filled with landmines, and it could indeed blow up. So, I think at the end of the day they simply settled for a kind of bland answer because I think at this point the assessment . . . is this particular nomination is hers for the taking. More likely than not she will indeed be confirmed, so let’s not raise any hackles. The last point I would make is that if she answered some of those questions on fundamental rights in depth, those words might come back to haunt her when she rules on significant constitutional cases."
Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with even more in-depth analysis of Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearings as well as a potential Russian cyber-attack.