The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her ability to objectively rule on an affirmative action case coming before the Court during the 2022-2021 term involving Harvard University where she serves as a member of the board of overseers:

After Justice Stephen Breyer retires from the bench later this year, the Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments this fall in one of the most significant cases before the court regarding race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. If the Senate does confirm Jackson to succeed Breyer, her involvement on Harvard's board of overseers would raise questions regarding the Judicial Code of Conduct, which instructs judges to "avoid even the appearance of conflicts or bias," Turley wrote in an op-ed for the Hill on Tuesday.

At Tuesday's State of the Union, President Joe Biden will no doubt try to distract from his disastrous presidency by hailing the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court as a "mainstream" pick to the Court. But what really is her judicial philosophy? As Professor Jonathan Turley points out, Judge Brown Jackson has evaded prior questioning about her judicial philosophy:

Liberals want a justice who is willing to expand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments. President Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a "living constitution" approach, including a broad view of “unenumerated rights.” When asked if she supported such an approach, Childs answered "no." Jackson, in contrast, has been far more obscure and conflicted in her response.

On Friday, President Joe Biden officially announced the nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Brown Jackson has long been seen as the frontrunner to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Court.

Happening Now: President Biden delivers remarks on his nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. https://t.co/kfVZTKYjTb

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 25, 2022

On Monday, The Washington Post published a puff piece on Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, lauding him for potentially presiding over the confirmation of the first Black female Supreme Court Justice. But as RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen points out, Durbin has a long history of "abuse and bigotry" against judicial nominees during his time on the Committee, the most recent example being how he grilled Justice Amy Coney Barrett about her Catholic beliefs.

And contrary to WaPo’s claim he “cement[ed] his status as a player” for “racial advancement,” @dickdurbin’s history on the Judiciary Committee is rife with anti-Catholic & anti-Hispanic attacks. He asked Justice Barrett if she was an “orthodox Catholic”3/5 https://t.co/sVjOuwiFrT

— Michael Thielen (@MB_Thielen) February 22, 2022

When Justice Clarence Thomas was going through the confirmation process, Democrats orchestrated false allegations that Thomas had harassed a former employee, Anita Hill, in an effort to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court. The character assassination was led by none other than then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden. The remarkable thing is that Biden did not even believe Hill, but he chose to use her testimony anyways. Mark Paoletta, who worked on Justice Thomas' confirmation, recalled one specific instance where then-Senator Biden pressured Hill to change her testimony to fit the Democrats' attacks on Justice Thomas:

Hill, who had been discussing in detail alleged conversations with Thomas and others that happened many years earlier, told Specter she could not remember any such conversations. According to Specter:

Another poll has shown that Americans would prefer President Joe Biden pick the "most qualified" person to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court as opposed to strictly sticking with his pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Court:

[J]ust 36 percent of Americans say Biden’s pledge was a "good idea," while the rest say it was either “a bad idea” (32 percent) or “neither good nor bad” (32 percent). And just a third of Americans say they have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence that Biden will select "the right kind of person" to replace Breyer on the court (33 percent), or that they themselves expect to support the nominee Biden puts forward (34 percent) — noticeably lower than the 39 percent who said they expected to support "President Trump's Supreme Court nominee" in September 2020, just before he nominated Amy Coney Barrett.

Ever since Joe Biden became President, the Left has pressured Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire through a campaign spearheaded by "dark money" groups like Demand Justice:

After President Biden’s election, Demand Justice started bullying Justice Stephen Breyer into retirement. It ran aggressive ads and drove a mobile billboard around the Supreme Court that said: “Breyer, retire. It’s time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice. There’s no time to waste.” 

On Wednesday, the news broke that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire at the end of this year's term. The National Review reported:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire at the end of the Court’s current term after serving for 27 years, providing President Biden his first opportunity to appoint a justice to the High Court.

The problems continue with President Joe Biden's judicial nominees. Of particular concern is Nancy Abudu, who Biden recently nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Concerns with her nomination should come as no surprise considering Abudu currently works as the Southern Poverty Law Center's Strategic Litigation Director. Some of Abudu's most outlandish remarks concern her opinions on election integrity measures.

By a 49 to 50 vote, the U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Sung to the 9th Circuit on Wednesday. Her nomination drew criticism from Republicans for a letter she signed on to calling U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh an "intellectually and morally bankrupt ideologue" during his confirmation process.