Politically-Charged KBJ Opinion Boosted "Dark Money" Support

Since the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, we've heard about the extensive support she has received from leftist "dark money" groups like Demand Justice. But where did this support originate? Earlier today, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained how a "politically charged" opinion she issued while serving as a District Court judge seems to have boosted her profile with the "dark money" Left:

“Before the 2020 election, one far-left dark-money group put Judge Jackson on their Supreme Court shortlist.

“Well, not at first. She was left off their first version. But shortly thereafter, the Judge published a fiery 118-page opinion in a politically-charged case that won attention and praise from liberal pundits.

“One cable TV host observed that Judge Jackson’s opinion was not standard legal writing, but was written with, ‘a broader audience in mind.’

“Not long after, Judge Jackson was added to the next version of the activists’ short list.

The opinion referred to by Leader McConnell was issued by Jackson in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn. The New York Times explained:

In 2019, she ordered Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, to testify about what House Democrats said was a pattern of presidential obstruction of justice. She said federal courts could resolve clashes between the other branches and rejected the administration’s argument that close advisers of the president had “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas.

“Presidents are not kings,” she wrote, adding, “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”

The article further notes that Judge Jackson issued multiple charged rulings against the Trump Administration which were overturned by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit.

The correlation between the support for Judge Jackson by leftist "dark money" groups should be heavily scrutinized during her confirmation hearings.

Support for a Supreme Court nominee by an organization that advocates for radical changes to the judiciary and shows little respect for the Constitution should raise alarm bells for anyone who cares about judicial independence and the rule of law.