This past week, I met with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in my office to discuss her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. I entered that meeting with serious concerns about her record and judicial philosophy, having voted against her appointment to a federal appeals court just last year. Our meeting was cordial, and I appreciated hearing about her professional journey and her family. Yet she did not alleviate my concerns that she has a far-left judicial philosophy and would legislate from the bench. I will be voting “no” on her confirmation.

Jackson Would Not Disavow Court Packing

President Biden has pledged to appoint activist judges, and Judge Jackson has given us no reason to doubt she is that kind of judge. Throughout the Senate confirmation process, she has refused to answer basic questions about her record and her approach to the law. At one point, she indicated that she would restrict religious freedom when it comes to same-sex marriage. She was also totally unable to define what a “woman” is, a sign that she is likeminded with the far left on issues involving the transgender movement.

Significantly, she would not reject the idea of court packing. Left-wing groups have been pushing Congress and President Biden to add seats to the Supreme Court to guarantee favorable rulings, even though liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg have openly opposed the idea. When asked directly about court packing, Judge Jackson dodged the question entirely. This was troubling, but not surprising, given that she was the top choice of extreme left groups who are pushing to rig the courts.

Jackson’s Record Is Too Thin

Judge Jackson has an unusually thin judicial record for someone being appointed to our nation’s highest court. In her brief time as an appellate judge, she has authored only two opinions, providing almost no insight into her thinking. By comparison, President Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees had authored more than 200 opinions each during their time as appellate judges. Making matters worse, much of Jackson’s record from her time as Vice Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission is sealed and has not been disclosed to Congress. Senate Democrats have long acknowledged the importance of examining a nominee’s record, yet this nominee’s paper trail is largely hidden. Americans should not be left guessing as to how Judge Jackson will do her job as a lifetime member of our highest court.

A Pattern of Judicial Overreach

Brief as it is, Judge Jackson’s record raises serious red flags. It is telling that some of her most significant rulings have been reversed by the D.C. Circuit Court, hardly a bastion of conservatism. In one instance, Judge Jackson ruled that House Democrats could force President Trump’s chief counsel to testify before congressional investigators. That ruling was promptly overturned. She also blocked the Department of Homeland Security from expanding deportation efforts, a ruling that was dismissed out of hand. Additionally, she struck down parts of President Trump’s executive orders aimed at making it easier to fire poorly performing federal employees. When she was unanimously overruled, the appeals court said she had “no power” to wade into the matter. These cases indicate that Judge Jackson does not appreciate the limits of her role as a judge.