USA TODAY International Edition
No good reason for ‘ no’ votes on Jackson
A ‘ yes’ could be beneficial for a few GOP senators
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who always was seen as the most likely Republican to vote in favor of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson‘ s confirmation to the Supreme Court, formally announced her support Wednesday – meaning the Senate’s final vote to confirm Jackson technically will be bipartisan.
It’s unclear how many of Collins’ GOP colleagues, if any, will join her in backing President Joe Biden’s nominee, despite the minimal political risks.
Why would Republican senators erect a phalanx of opposition to Jackson’s nomination so formidable that perhaps only one of them would cast a vote in her favor? The solid GOP opposition to Jackson becomes even less defensible when we consider Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s role.
McConnell has said he would vote against Jackson’s confirmation. That was the remark that grabbed the attention of journalists. What most journalists failed to pick up on was that McConnell didn’t then utter the phrase, “and I encourage everyone to vote ‘ no’ as well.”
McConnell was telling his GOP colleagues that he would not “whip the vote” against Jackson. He was reassuring them that they were free to ignore his own opposition to Jackson and could vote their conscience.
McConnell is obviously out of favor with the members of the Senate Republican Conference who most ardently support former President Donald Trump, but he enjoys the wholehearted support and respect of most Republican senators – and he was sending a message to his loyalists that they would not suffer any penalties from him if they supported Jackson.
McConnell was giving them that most precious of gifts: political cover.
But that green light seems unlikely to reassure any significant number Republican senators that a vote for Jackson would yield political benefits.
Who needs McConnell’s go- ahead?
McConnell’s free pass will have no impact for a number of Republican senators. It would be difficult to imagine Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama or Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana casting a vote for Jackson – that’s to say nothing of the Judiciary Committee members such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas or Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have been outspoken in their opposition.
For another group of Republican senators, the consequences of a vote to confirm the nation’s first Black woman justice are negligible. These are the GOP senators who are retiring: Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Roy Blunt of Missouri. ( I exclude Richard Shelby of Alabama, who is backing a candidate to replace him and would avoid anything that might jeopardize her nomination.)
But the vote on Jackson’s confirmation could prove consequential for the handful of Republican senators who have been known to break ranks with their party, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who voted to convict Trump after his second impeachment.
There is a vanishingly small number of Republican senators for whom a vote for Jackson’s confirmation would be an unqualified benefit. Collins is the most obvious. She has an electorate fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and Maine has in recent years seen substantial growth in the number of people of color.
Collins has been something of a unicorn in the Senate. Even Republicans from states such as North Carolina who are regarded as competitive do not seem to calculate with such exactitude the risks and benefits of votes. Collins has colleagues in her party who admire her balancing act but few who need to dare or care to emulate it.
Collins is among the Republican senators who will not have to face voters again until 2026, but Murkowski is up for reelection this year in the state’s first ranked- choice election.
While Alaska is essentially a GOP stronghold – it has not supported a Democrat from president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 – Murkowski’s name is so revered that she won a write- in election in 2010 after losing a GOP primary. The racial minority vote in Alaska is predominantly Alaska Natives, not African Americans. If Murkowski backs Jackson, it will be because the senator likes to poke her finger in the eye of the GOP from time to time.
Why oppose a popular nominee?
Aside from the small number of voters who are blinded by racism or buying into fringe theories, most constituents of Republican members of the Senate would probably not at all be bothered by the prospect of a Black woman serving on the Supreme Court.
Although a majority of Republican voters oppose Jackson’s confirmation, just 20% said they feel Jackson is not qualified to sit on the court, according to a Monmouth University poll. A majority of Americans support Jackson’s confirmation.
So why is it that on the day the senators vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as a justice of the Supreme Court, an appointment that will not upset the conservative advantage on the bench, that there will be little Republican support for her even though some ground could be gained with conservative Black voters?
Some will concoct arguments that she should be rejected on the merits. But most have no good reason to reject a history- making nominee who stood up well in the hearings despite efforts to pick at her cloak. GOP senators who have their leader’s grant of immunity to vote their conscience should do so.