CNN NewsNight anchor Abby Phillip interviewed liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Friday and repeatedly tried to get her to attack her colleagues, first as sexists and second for undermining public confidence in the Court by overturning “precedent,” by which she just meant Roe v. Wade.
Phillip recalled how, “other women who actually have reached your heights, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in 2009. She told our colleague Joan Biskupic that even in spite of all of her extensive experience, her accolades, she didn't always feel like her male colleagues on the Court heard her voice. She said, ‘When I will say something and I don't think I'm a confused speaker, it isn't until someone else says it that everyone will focus on the point.’ I wonder, I mean, do you feel heard now?”
Perhaps disappointedly for Phillip and CNN’s audience, Jackson answered, “Yes, I do actually, and maybe that's just because I'm asserting myself. No, I haven't had that same experience on the Court.”
Phillip then marveled, “And you are asserting yourself, asking more questions than many of your colleagues, writing forceful opinions. Is that -- is that intentional to assert yourself in this moment?”
Jackson affirmed it was, “If I have a point I want to make, if I'm trying to ask my colleagues to consider an issue, then I feel very strongly that it's my obligation to speak up because this is an important seat and role, and I'm going to take full advantage of it.”
The interview with Phillips was just the latest stop on Jackson’s book tour, which Phillip referenced when she tried to get Jackson to attack her conservative colleagues again, “You write in the book about this idea of precedent, which is coming up a lot lately. You talked about how your mentor, Justice Breyer, emphasized that judges are obligated to observe precedent. This Court has overturned precedent in some very significant ways. Is there a risk that in doing so, they could lose the confidence of the public?”
Jackson replied that, “precedent is very important. It is actually one of the constraints on judicial authority that has existed since the beginning of the Court. The idea that judges have limited power… Alexander Hamilton, for example, talked about, and I talk about this in the book a little bit, is that the judiciary would not be the most dangerous branch. In fact, it would be the least dangerous branch, in part because it was constrained in certain ways. And one of them is by understanding that when you get an issue, you're not looking at it cold.”
By “precedent,” Phillip really meant abortion, “If years from now the composition of the Court were to change substantially and the issue of women's reproductive rights and abortion came back up, would it be appropriate for the court to revisit and perhaps even overturn the Dobbs decision?”
After Jackson refused to discuss hypotheticals, Phillip tried again, “Part of the reason I'm asking these questions is, in this moment, so many Americans are looking at the courts. They see 6-3 decisions being handed down along what seems to be ideological lines. Do you have concerns about that perception that the public might think that legal differences are aligning so closely with political differences?”
Jackson claimed “it is a concern for the Court… but at a sort of institutional level, the entire Court is concerned about that.”
Earlier in the interview, Jackson discussed how race has impacted her life and her family living in Georgia under segregation, but segregation was a long-standing Supreme Court precedent that was also, rightly, overturned. Phillip should’ve asked about that, not just softballs about Roe.
Here is a transcript for the September 13 show:
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
9/13/2024
10:31 PM ET
ABBY PHILLIP: Other women who actually have reached your heights, for example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in 2009. She told our colleague Joan Biskupic that even in spite of all of her extensive experience, her accolades, she didn't always feel like her male colleagues on the Court heard her voice. She said, "When I will say something and I don't think I'm a confused speaker, it isn't until someone else says it that everyone will focus on the point." I wonder, I mean, do you feel heard now?
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: In the Court?
PHILLIP: Yeah.
JACKSON: Yes, I do actually, and maybe that's just because I'm asserting myself. No, I haven't had that same experience on the Court.
PHILLIP: And you are asserting yourself, asking more questions than many of your colleagues, writing forceful opinions. Is that -- is that intentional to assert yourself in this moment?
JACKSON: Well, you know, I was a judge for seven, eight years before I joined the Court. And for most of that time, I was a district judge, which is at the trial level. And you have your own courtroom. It's been a challenge, I think, to have that translate into the collective decision-making model of the Court. If I have a point I want to make, if I'm trying to ask my colleagues to consider an issue, then I feel very strongly that it's my obligation to speak up because this is an important seat and role, and I'm going to take full advantage of it.
…
PHILLIP: You write in the book about this idea of precedent, which is coming up a lot lately. You talked about how your mentor, Justice Breyer, emphasized that judges are obligated to observe precedent. This Court has overturned precedent in some very significant ways. Is there a risk that in doing so, they could lose the confidence of the public?
JACKSON: Yes, I mean, you know, precedent is very important. It is actually one of the constraints on judicial authority that has existed since the beginning of the Court. The idea that judges have limited power.
And one of the things that Alexander Hamilton, for example, talked about, and I talk about this in the book a little bit, is that the judiciary would not be the most dangerous branch. In fact, it would be the least dangerous branch, in part because it was constrained in certain ways. And one of them is by understanding that when you get an issue, you're not looking at it cold.
PHILLIP: If years from now the composition of the Court were to change substantially and the issue of women's reproductive rights and abortion came back up, would it be appropriate for the court to revisit and perhaps even overturn the Dobbs decision?
JACKSON: Oh, I'm not going to predict what would happen in the future. I can't say whether or not it's appropriate in the abstract.
PHILLIP: Part of the reason I'm asking these questions is, in this moment, so many Americans are looking at the courts. They see 6-3 decisions being handed down along what seems to be ideological lines. Do you have concerns about that perception that the public might think that legal differences are aligning so closely with political differences?
JACKSON: I think it is a concern for the Court, as an institution, because public confidence is basically all we have. You know, the Court does not have the power of the purse, it does not have an army, it can't make people enforce or follow its opinions.
And so, it's really important for maintenance of the rule of law that people believe in the justices and their rulings especially in these very contentious cases. So, you ask me do I have a concern? Yes, but at a sort of institutional level, the entire Court is concerned about that.
