Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) played the “Nazi card” yesterday.
“You know, the last Judge Jackson left the Supreme Court to go to Nuremberg and prosecute the Nazis,” he said, referring to the late Robert Jackson. Then, referring to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, he asserted: “This Judge Jackson may have gone there to defend them.” (Read story here.)
The Nuremberg war crimes trials began on Nov. 20, 1945, and ended on Oct. 1, 1946. Ketanji Brown Jackson was born Sept. 14, 1970, nearly 24 years after the last day of the Nuremberg proceedings.
She couldn’t possibly have defended Nazis at Nuremberg, because she wasn’t born yet. Cotton smeared her with a “Nazi” label by speculating what she might have done if she’d been born, say, 50 or 60 years sooner.
Cotton’s smear is not only barnyard-nasty, but intellectually dishonest. As a Harvard-educated lawyer, he knows perfectly well that America’s legal system entitles even the vilest criminals legal representation, and if they can’t afford it, a public defender will be provided at taxpayer expense. That’s so all defendants get fair trials, and is mandated by the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Gideon v. Wainwright.
Cotton also understands, perfectly well, that defense lawyers aren’t responsible for their clients’ crimes and representing them is no reflection on their character or professional reputation. It’s their job.
This specific smear is dishonest and ironic on another level: The Nazis were white supremacists who persecuted and murdered not only Jews, but also minorities, and appointing a black woman to defend an accused Nazi war criminal would have been a real slap in the face to such a defendant.
Adding to the irony is the fact that Cotton, as a Republican, is a member of a political party that has become associated with white supremacists, seeks to suppress black votes, and vociferously opposes the Black Lives Matter movement against police mistreatment of black people. While Cotton himself may not be a racist, his party is.
What he just did is filthy demagoguery, everyone who isn’t Republican recognizes it is, and the reaction was swift. The ADL called it “absolutely shameful conduct” and “reprehensible.” The DNC’s chair didn’t mince his words: “Tom Cotton is the lowest of the low” and “a little maggot-infested man,” he told MSNBC this morning. (Read that story here.)
That’s a bit colorful, although appropo. Putting it more gently, besides its dishonesty, he crossed red lines of civility and decency.
Republicans don’t like Ketanji Brown Jackson because she’s a liberal, not a conservative. Fair enough, as far as it goes. But Republican presidents routinely appoint people of their own ideological persuasion to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and Democratic presidents do the same. It’s been that way forever.
What’s not been this way forever is (1) voting against Supreme Court nominees because they’re “liberal” or “conservative,” and (2) smearing them in Senate speeches. That’s new.
Antonin Scalia, a very conservative Supreme Court justice, was confirmed 98-0; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal justice, was confirmed 96-3. There are many other such examples. In the past, confirmation votes were close, or nominees were rejected, only because of doubts about their abilities or personal conduct. There are no such issues with Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Republican attacks on her are motivated purely by partisanship.
But even for today’s hyperpartisan politics, Cotton’s attack is stunningly vicious. It’s also further evidence that the Republican Party has gone far downhill from what it used to be. This isn’t a party I can vote for anymore. How about you?