Why the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings are really all about Roe v. Wade


A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
Thank you for signing up to TheWeek. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.
The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson got to the point on Tuesday. President Biden's pick was asked for her thoughts on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 ruling that upheld its core with some modifications.
Jackson cleverly invoked two of former President Donald Trump's appointees to the high court, justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, in telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that she agreed with them "Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy."
It's an evasion, to be sure, but one that lets liberal Supreme Court nominees be a little more honest than their conservative counterparts about how they would vote on abortion if confirmed. Biden pledged during the 2020 campaign to nominate a justice who would defend abortion rights.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

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.
Most voters who care deeply about the Supreme Court on both sides view it chiefly as a social issues super legislature. They expect their senators to vote, and their president to select, accordingly. The most important and enduring of those social issues is abortion, which remains as polarizing as when the justices first tried to "settle" it almost 50 years ago.
Since the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 and subsequent close votes in favor of justices Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh, Democrats have sought to keep anti-Roe justices off the court. Republican presidents have been less consistent on this issue than Democratic chief executives, leaving the court perennially at least one vote short of overturning Roe. The last time the liberal abortion precedent was seriously challenged, four of the five votes to uphold it came from Republican appointees (as well as three of the four votes against Casey). One of President Ronald Reagan's picks, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote the opinion.
Every controversy about the personal character or judicial philosophy of the nominees has, to some extent, been related to abortion for decades. Paradoxically, Jackson may be confirmed to a court that gets out of the abortion policymaking business, however temporarily, with a decision this summer sending the issue back to the states. Her confirmation wouldn't alter the 6-3 conservative majority.
If Roe survives again, expect it to remain the subtext of each round of grilling the next Supreme Court prospect receives.
Continue reading for free
We hope you're enjoying The Week's refreshingly open-minded journalism.
Subscribed to The Week? Register your account with the same email as your subscription.
Sign up to our 10 Things You Need to Know Today newsletter
A free daily digest of the biggest news stories of the day - and the best features from our website
W. James Antle III is the politics editor of the Washington Examiner, the former editor of The American Conservative, and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?.
-
Biden's first rodeo
cartoons
By The Week Staff Published
-
Biden's stumble
Cartoons
By The Week Staff Published
-
The daily gossip: Travis Kelce chats about Taylor Swift's Chiefs game visit, Hollywood writers thrilled with details of new contract as strike ends, and more
The daily gossip: September 27, 2023
By Brendan Morrow Published
-
Rebuilding Ukraine: What would it take?
In Depth Russia continues to raze large sections of Ukraine, but that gives Kyiv a unique opening to build a better country — if somebody is willing to pay
By Peter Weber Published
-
Is it time the world re-evaluated the rules on migration?
Today's Big Question Home Secretary Suella Braverman questions whether 1951 UN Refugee Convention is 'fit for our modern age'
By The Week Staff Published
-
A Ukraine election in 2024: how it would work
The Explainer Zelenskyy hints that country is ready for March polls but logistical, security and democratic obstacles remain
By Harriet Marsden Published
-
How Ukraine's claimed kill of Russia's top Black Sea Fleet admiral could affect the war
Speed Read Ukraine says it killed Russian Adm. Viktor Sokolov and 33 other senior commanders in an audacious and expertly timed strike in Crimea
By Peter Weber Published
-
Azerbaijan attacks disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, breaking cease-fire
The 'local anti-terrorist' strikes in the ethnic Armenian enclave threaten to reignite a war with implications for Russia, Turkey and the West
By Peter Weber Published
-
Canada's Trudeau accuses India of role in assassination of Canadian Sikh leader
Canada expelled a senior Indian diplomat after going public with explosive 'credible allegations' that Indian agents helped kill a Canadian citizen
By Peter Weber Published
-
US-Iran prisoner swap: has Biden given in to blackmail?
Republicans condemn $6bn deal but it could help de-escalate rising tensions
By The Week Staff Published
-
Russia and Ukraine face off in The Hague over genocide case
Kyiv is hoping court will rule Russia's actions illegal but Moscow wants the case dismissed
By Rebekah Evans Published