By: Mark Glennon*
Both Illinois Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin are outspoken supporters of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the United States Supreme Court. The Senate will vote on her confirmation soon.
As part of the confirmation process, Jackson was asked, “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?”
Her answer: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
Let that sink in. Most every school kid in the nation is taught the words of the Declaration of Independence, which its authors premised on natural rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” At least for those fundamental freedoms, the notion that they are natural rights is accepted almost universally here and in much of the world. Or so we would hope.
Jackson herself, in the preceding question, acknowledged the Founding Fathers’ theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights, which is reflected in the Declaration. (See questions 15 and 16 and her answers here.)
Yet she says she does not hold a position on whether we do, in fact, hold those rights.
That’s an astounding dismissal of the importance of what should be a key insight into a nominee’s judicial philosophy, as well as her awareness, or lack thereof, about a legal topic that’s as big as they come.
Aside from the foundational importance of natural rights to the Declaration, broader debates about natural rights fill volumes of law and philosophy journals, year after year. Should natural rights beyond those codified in the Bill of Rights be recognized in law? Are decisions recognizing rights not expressed in the Constitution, such as privacy, justified by a theory of natural rights? What’s the complete list of natural rights?
Those questions and many more go on and on and comprise what is probably the largest and most persistent topic in legal philosophy. Knowing her views on natural rights would indicate whether she intends to legislate from the bench, as is feared, or whether she has seriously thought that matter through. You would think Supreme Court nominees would at least be conversant on the topic and have some opinions. Better yet, you would hope they’d be scholars on the matter.
Yet Jackson holds no position on any of it and, from her answer, seems unaware of its importance. It’s a far more important matter than her refusal to define “woman,” which has gotten all the press.
Is this of no concern to her supporters? The question should now be put to them.
From Duckworth I would expect an answer as empty as Jackson’s. But Durbin does not have ignorance for an excuse. He’s a lawyer and chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. He knows full well the profound importance of the question Jackson won’t answer.
Will a reporter somewhere please put this question to them? Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, how can you support a candidate for the United States Supreme Court who holds no position on the existence of natural rights?
*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.
Hopefully, all media will get the message, in Illinois, too.
Ted joined Tom Miller of WJPF to talk about Illinois’ highest-in-the-nation property taxes, why lawmakers don’t want to touch the tax’s cost drivers, just how much Illinoisans’ tax burden has grown over the decades, why Gov. Pritzker failed to meet his promise to reform property taxes, and more.
Ted joined Dan and Amy to talk about the free speech controversy brewing in Wilmette due to the city’s refusal to fly a religious freedom flag, the city’s left-wing excesses and the growing culture war, the latest money spent on the illegal immigrant crisis, and more.
Weekly crime statistics from the Chicago Police Department: Report through 4/14/2024.
Did anyone ever hear the term “As useless as teats on a bull”? Here is a photo of two useless teats.
“Senators Duckworth and Durbin, how can you support a nominee to the Supreme Court who holds no position on whether people possess natural rights? – Wirepoints”
It obvious these senators believe all rights to citizens come from the government.
She has obviously been coached and told what to say and what not to say. The nomination hearings have entirely become a defense-only posture where the nominee says as little as possible. The potential reward for answering a question is much less than the possible risk. Her answer to defining a woman has received more press because it betrayed her real positioning: which is that she is a partisan actor who answers to the Far Left, not the law or the Constitution. That is her judicial “philosophy.” She will be no better than Sotomayer. The Left has no non-ideological rooted… Read more »
And the mainstream media has become their mouthpiece—with a megaphone !
I’ve challenged Durbin and Duckworth on a variety of topics to justify their positions. What I get in return, after weeks of waiting, is a staffer’s bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. D and D likely never lay eyes on responses and requests from their constituents, so they are even further removed from “the people.” When did either of them last conduct a set of town hall meetings?
That’s what you get when the state always votes blue, no matter who!
That is more of a response I get from my “conservative” Texas house member. She replaced a useless fat SOB, another “conservative” Texas house member. The only time a got a response was when I complained about the 21% pay increase. I got a call from a sycophant staff member saying it wasn’t a pay increase but more funding for committees or some such B.S. The only emails I get from her are mass mailings about how many award ceremonies she attends for citizens of Texas’s 24th congressional district. She is just so happy to be part of the… Read more »
You should have some perspective. At least your rep hasnt adopted the farthest right craziest agenda you’ve ever seen in your life. The state of IL is run by cruel, evil people who want to transition your children.
I refer to an article by John Daniel Davidson in the July 14, 2021 on-⎌line edition of The Federalist in which he quotes Yale Prof. Jason Stanley as saying natural law is “a dog whistle to white Christian Nationalism.” If true, and I strongly suspect it is, based on personal experience, it is understandable that neither of the far left of center Senators from Illinois will ever ask Ketanji Brown Jackson that question. This didn’t play into Joe Biden’s grilling of Justice Clarence Thomas on that subject during Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearing. Duckworth and Durbin—2 more reasons to leave Illinois… Read more »
Everything they don’t like is white supramacy.
I’m glad to see the Republicans are growing a spine, and every Democrat we don’t like is now a groomer.
WHy is it that politicians are allowed professionally taken photographs instead of everyday photos that show what they really look like?
Calling the Supreme Court “diverse” is laughable because four members are Harvard Law graduates and four are Yale Law grads. The lone exception is Barrett from Notre Dame Law. If this swap goes through, Breyer will be exchanged for Jackson, one Harvard grad for another. Regardless of the president selecting a Supreme Court nominee, each is a Tiffany shopping bag filled with Dollar General purchases. The exterior is all that matters. Concentrating on the exterior evaporates the pool from which to choose because the importance of getting the candidate across the finish line requires a candidate who’s already been approved… Read more »
When you’re Godless, the only rights that exist are what the government gives you.
So naturally those believing their birthright is political office will assume the role of God to be theirs.
This is what they believe. Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense.
Belief in certain natural rights is not limited to believers in God. Most of the Founders, many of whom were Deists, would certainly say that. In the Declaration and elsewhere, they capitalize Nature and refer to Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, and use the word Creator, which can mean what you want. For some of us, God IS, among other things, the sanctity and beauty of natural rights we all hold.
Yes, the Godless can embrace natural rights. But how are those rights defined and by whom? Are they mutable subject to scientific evidence?
If the science says global warming is a threat to mankind, would you be violating the natural rights of citizens by not embracing the green agenda?
Point being, the further removed God is from the discussion of natural rights the more subject those rights are to the manipulations of Godless men.
Those are among the many questions debated in those volumes written on the subject. That, in my view, is why it’s inexcusable for a Supreme Court nominee to have nothing to say on the issue.
The unfortunate situation is that people like Justice Jackson have a vision of America that entails you having less rights. Progressives like what they see in Europe and Asian and want to make an American hybrid of the two. The constitution is an impediment to their transformed vision of America. It really is. Democrats want European style gun control, expanded welfare states, criminal justice leniency and affirmative action racial set asides, along with Asian social control including limitations on freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, and they want to emulate the authoritarian top down control (i.e. all hands on deck… Read more »
Oh, yes, yes !
The left has a vision of society that doesn’t involve your freedoms. Judges who uphold the constitution are really the only line of defense between you and tyranny. However, the next Rubicon to be crossed will be when the a Democrat president openly refuses to abide by a Supreme Court ruling calling it an illegitimate court. Democrat Andrew Jackson did this with the Indians 200 years ago. But in today’s political climate, it’s just a matter of time before a Democrat president says “NO” a mostly Republican SCOTUS’s decision. That’s going to be the real constitutional crisis because no Democrat… Read more »
After paying close attention to a variety of issues, I’ve concluded lawlessness is an intentional outcome of Democratic rule.
As others have written, what would you do differently if you were intentionally trying to harm those you claim to represent?
They truly are Marxists in all but name. Stone cold radicals.
Two more worthless grifters pretending to represent this state.
Grifters indeed. Especially Duckie. How can someone who earns $174k a year not pay property taxes?
Military service or not. I served in the British Army during the Falklands War in 1982. Should I get a freebie as well?.
All taxes should be means tested.
I am subsidizing her. Makes me sick. PIGS in trough all of them.
Asking those two dopes a question like that is as good as talking to a post
Why bother asking them? Duckworth wouldn’t understand the question and I wouldn’t trust anything that mealy mouthed Durbin says.
Tammy Duckworth—the Kamala Harris of Illinois.