The GOP laid a trap for Ketanji Brown Jackson. Don't fall for it!
![Ketanji Brown Jackson.](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HpzqXzNqTbT4ynZZwMeVE7-415-80.jpg)
What does Ketanji Brown Jackson think about packing the Supreme Court?
It doesn't matter in the slightest.
Senate Republicans are expected to make court-packing an issue at confirmation hearings for Jackson, President Biden's nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the high court. (The hearings begin today.) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been signaling his interest in the issue for weeks. When asked if she would "defend the court" by announcing her opposition to adding seats, McConnell said, "she wouldn't do that."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
![https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516-320-80.jpg)
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Over the weekend, Adam J. White of the conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, saying Jackson's views on the matter are critical to defending the court's legitimacy. "Senators should take time to explore her view of the sources of the court's legitimacy, and to confirm that she shares Justice Breyer's belief that court-packing would be constitutionally ruinous," White wrote. "Together senators and the nominee can remind Americans what distinguishes judges from politicians — and why that difference matters."
But pressing Jackson on court-packing would do the opposite of what White intends: It would force her to take a stand on a topic that's best left to politicians.
Why? Because the Supreme Court can't pack itself. It's widely understood by now that the number of seats on the court can be changed — the current number of nine has been in place since 1869 — but that can only be done by Congress and the president working together. It's a political question for the political branches to settle. The only reason to press Jackson on the issue is to draw her into a political battle that isn't in the purview of the job that she's seeking. It's a trap.
Some recent justices, including Breyer and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have argued against packing the court, and that was their prerogative. Maybe Jackson will choose to weigh in sooner or later — and maybe she even has an opinion — but given how much Supreme Court nominees avoid expressing their views at confirmation hearings, there's no real reason she should feel required to do so.
If she's confirmed, Jackson will be the third liberal justice on a Supreme Court dominated by six conservatives. She won't change the balance of the court at all, which presents something of a political problem for her critics. Republicans have spent generations making political hay out of court appointments, but now they have everything they want — a right-leaning supermajority and, soon, the effective end of Roe v. Wade — it may be more difficult for them to generate voter enthusiasm with such fights. Court-packing remains a salient issue among voters. That doesn't mean Jackson has to play along.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Why the UK phone signal is so poor
Under The Radar Having trouble connecting? A lack of investment, planning rules and even your home could be to blame
By Elizabeth Carr-Ellis, The Week UK Published
-
Battleground states to watch in the 2024 election
In Depth These seven states could end up deciding who wins the White House this year
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Leave the crowds behind at these 7 sensational hotels
The Week Recommends Traveling in September means more room to explore
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
What are the lessons from Ukraine's Russia incursion?
Talking Points And what do they mean for Putin's red lines?
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Trump hit with revised charges, cemetery complaint
Speed Read The indictment updates reflect a recent Supreme Court decision about presidential immunity
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
RFK Jr.'s Trump endorsement: GOP windfall or minor jolt?
Talking Points Some believe RFK Jr. abandoning his presidential bid could be game-changing — others aren't so sure
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
A brief history of third parties in the US
In Depth Though none of America's third parties have won a presidential election, they have nonetheless had a large impact on the country's politics
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
How will Kamala Harris' ban on grocery price gouging work?
Talking Points And can it bring down prices?
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
North Korea to begin admitting foreign tourists (again)
Under the Radar For the first time in five years, the isolated dictatorship is inviting large groups to visit the city of Samjiyon — and possibly beyond
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Thailand: heading for a 'political inferno'?
Talking Points Hopes of change fading as establishment moves to dismantle reformist Move Forward party
By The Week UK Published
-
Slash taxes on tips? Harris and Trump agree.
Talking Points Vegas workers might benefit. Will anybody else?
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published