Editors at Issues and Insights explain why they would cast “no” votes in the latest Supreme Court confirmation.

Anyone who truly cares about the Constitution and the rule of law should reject Jackson.

Jackson has a winning smile and pleasant demeanor. Those are nice personal traits, but not ones that necessarily elevate you to the Supreme Court.

Still, she’s also a Harvard Law grad, clerked for Justice Steven Breyer, worked as a public defender, served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just last year.

But do those credentials really matter? Maybe they should, but unfortunately they’re mostly political window dressing.

As both President Joe Biden and the Democrats have made clear, Jackson was selected because she was, 1) African-American, 2) a woman, and (most important of all) 3) a leftist. Unfortunately, none of those things are actual qualifications for the Supreme Court.

Despite her superficially sparkling resume, under tough questioning this week, she showed why she shouldn’t be privileged with a seat on our nation’s highest court. On issue after issue, she whiffed, at times pretending not to have an opinion, or acting as if she didn’t really know much about certain landmark legal cases and current controversies.

Indeed, it became very clear under questioning that Jackson has been disingenuous about her legal philosophy and extreme political beliefs that encompass race, gender, crime and culture, among other things. …

… Jackson also came under close questioning for what can only be called her lax attitude as a judge toward sentencing those convicted in child porn cases.

Lax may be an understatement. In a “Note” in the Harvard Law Review, she even once argued that our judicial system was “unfair” to those who sexually prey on children.