Negative tropes being used to critique President Biden’s decision to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Black woman, to the Supreme Court may be missing the point (“Biden demonstrating his racism again,” Feb. 19, TribLIVE).
In these bitterly divisive times, when our self-serving legislative and executive branches are increasingly irrelevant, the court may be our Constitution’s best hope for survival.
The court has maintained its preeminence throughout our history because no jurist’s background or presidential patron is a reliable barometer of how they will rule. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor proved far more moderate than Ronald Reagan.
In the same vein, a historic appointment does not guarantee political payback. Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Thurgood Marshall lost the Democratic South. O’Connor’s appointment did not close the GOP’s gender gap. More Latinos voted Republican in the last election, even though a Democratic president nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
While Marshall may not be remembered for authoring landmark opinions, his presence on the court helped other justices understand the struggles of Black Americans. The lived experiences of O’Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were essential in advancing greater equality for women.
A diverse court’s rulings have more integrity than those from a polarized, overwhelmingly Ivy League and Catholic court. Those whose everyday lives are affected by its opinions must have confidence in the court’s relevance. Subsequent nominees should be of eastern and western Asian descent, Muslim, Native American and LGBTQ+.
To preserve democracy, every president should commit to taking an affirmative action to see that the court reflects America.
Peter Busowski
Jeannette