Biden Supreme Court Nominee Decisions Reversed for 'Judicial Overreach' and Other Troubling Facts

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

As I wrote the headline and selected the feature image for this article, two names simultaneously popped into my head: Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy and “Texas Ted” — the new nickname assigned to Sen. Ted Cruz after he was sophomorically called “Lyin’ Ted” by one of Cruz’s fellow Republican candidates throughout the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, but I digress.

The reason Kennedy and Cruz came to mind, of course, is because I await with bated breath their respective shellacking of Biden nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson before the Senate Judiciary Committee during Supreme Court nomination hearings. #ProTip: Popcorn. Lots of popcorn.

As reported by Fox News, Jackson will likely be grilled by Kennedy and Cruz, along with the other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a judicial track record that includes multiple decisions overturned by higher courts. Even better, as distinguished law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox, the majority of Jackson’s overturned decisions were deemed by higher courts to constitute judicial overreach.

She has some opinions as a district court judge. They’re quite lengthy opinions. She has been reversed, and the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] reversed her for basically judicial overreach in a couple of cases.

As noted by Fox, a 2019 case involved an order that expanded the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) definition on which noncitizens could be deported. Another overturned case involved three orders from Jackson on federal employees’ collective bargaining power.

Jackson’s DHS ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court, which said after reviewing the DHS policy that it did not fall under the Administrative Procedure Act. Then Jackson’s ruling on the three collective bargaining orders was overturned unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that she did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

And this, from Turley, which is equally troubling if not more so:

She’s only actually published a single decision as an appellate judge, and that came out in the last 24 hours. [This is] a win for unions against a change by federal agencies.

Four words to consider (so far), if you’re keeping score at home: legislating from the bench.

Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino previously told Fox News Digital “Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” as transcribed by Fox.

Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice.

In a mini tweetstorm in which she correctly accused Biden of promising “unity and moderation” but delivering “radical extremism,” Servino tweeted after Biden announced Jackson’s nomination:

Expect to hear from Biden and his supporters that Judge Jackson is “in the mainstream.” That’s liberal speak for a judge who will deviate from the text of the constitution and statutes without hesitation to ensure the Left’s preferred policy outcomes.

Bingo.

As Jonathan Turley, Carrie Severino, and other reputable, knowledgeable, legal experts are aware (although many of them don’t come right out and say it), those earlier four words — legislating from the bench — are paramount to the left’s support of any judicial nominee, particularly a nominee to the highest court in the land.

Remember: everything the Democrat Party supports, opposes, proposes, or rejects can be connected to the ballot box with no more than two dots.

The fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson is both female and black is secondary to the Democrats and Biden, despite their disingenuous protestation to the contrary. Demonstrably so, by a very simple question:

How many conservative black female judges were on Biden’s list?

Rhetorical question. Don’t bother.