Advocacy / Advocating for You / AMAC Action On Capitol Hill

AMAC Opposes Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Nomination to US Supreme Court


AMAC and its members are concerned that, based on her record and testimony, Judge Jackson would become a judicial activist on behalf of the left and attempt to legislate policy from the bench.


March 30, 2022

The Honorable Charles Schumer
Senate Democratic Majority Leader
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Republican Minority Leader
S-230, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court of the United States

Dear Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell,

The Association of Mature American Citizens – AMAC, a 2.3 million-plus member association of Americans committed to faith, family, and freedom strongly opposes the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the responsibility of the Judiciary is to apply the Constitution and rule of law, not to make it up and effectively legislate policy from the bench. In other words, a judge’s role is to neutrally apply the rule of law, within the confines of the authority given to the Article III judiciary by Congress subject to the Constitution. An Article III nominee’s judicial philosophy should reflect deep awareness of these limits and the scope of Article III authority. It is clear from her record and testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Jackson would be a judicial activist on behalf of the left and seek opportunity to attempt to legislate policy, if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

We agree with the assessments of Senate Republican Leader McConnell on Judge Jackson’s lack of fitness to join the Supreme Court. Leader McConnell concluded:
• “First, Judge Jackson refuses to reject the fringe position that Democrats should try to pack the Supreme Court.
…Judge Jackson was the court-packers’ pick. And she testified like it.”
• “Second — for decades, activist judges have hurt the country by trying to make policy from the bench.
…President Biden said he would only nominate a judicial activist. Unfortunately, we saw no reason to suspect he accidentally did the opposite.”
• “Third, and relatedly — we are in the midst of a national violent crime wave and exploding illegal immigration. Unbelievably, the Biden Administration has … launched a national campaign to make the federal bench systematically softer on crime. …This is one area where Judge Jackson’s trial court records provide a wealth of information. …The Judge regularly gave certain terrible kinds of criminals light sentences that were beneath the sentencing guidelines and beneath the prosecutors’ requests. …Judge Jackson declined to walk Senators through the merits of her reasoning in specific cases. She just kept repeating that it was her discretion, and if Congress didn’t like it, it was [Congress’] fault for giving her the discretion.”

In March 24 testimony, Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, advised that “…Judge Jackson’s statements indicated willingness to extend beyond constitutional text in the evaluation of individual rights described as within the “substantive due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Moreover], there is a lack of evidence suggesting [Judge Jackson’s] commitment to exclusive reliance on originalism and textualism [of the Constitution] as … traditionally applied. Senators who understand originalism and textualism as the constitutionally appropriate methods for discerning legal meaning, and who are committed to voting on nominees on the basis of judicial philosophy, could conclude there is reason to oppose the nomination here.”

Accordingly, AMAC strongly urges the Senate to reject Judge Jackson’s nomination.


Bob Carlstrom

President, AMAC Action

Print Opposition Letter

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2 months ago

She was going to be confirmed no matter what. Even, without the three RINO’s, the Democrats could have put her in without a single Republican vote. The Senate is split 50/50 then Kamala would have been the tie breaker. Funny, I don’t recall Mike Pence ever participating in Senate votes. Then again, I didn’t pay that much attention to anything he did.

Kenneth Wiezer
2 months ago

I would like to share this article information.

John Funder
2 months ago

She is just a freak. She might be a nice person but I think she would be terrible on the supreme court. Pedophiles are really screwed up people. And she lets him off every time. I think any Democrat

Lynn Gathright
2 months ago

I oppose this nomination… A person who can not Define a Woman and has a record of being soft on Child Pornographic Offenders has no place as a Supreme Court Justice.

2 months ago

How is it possible,the same (3) Dems in disguise, Murkowsky, Collins and Romney vote to nominate Biden’s SCOTUS pick! With judicial decisions being based more and more on personal philosophy rather than constitution or law, it’s obvious that she is a left-leaning liberal! But to the same attention grabbing Dems in disguise, who rear their ugly heads on key votes, it makes no difference! Alaska, Maine and Utah please vote them out!

2 months ago
Reply to  Richard

These three people should be replaced in their jurisdictions but the same fools in their states insist on sending them back to Washington time after time after time….there is no hope

Janet Scott
3 months ago

I don’t understand the second paragraph in point 2. You say Biden accidentally nominated the opposite of a judicial activist. But she is an activist. Please clarify.

Robert Zuccaro
3 months ago

I’m confused: if she can’t answer the question “what is a woman?” during WOMAN’S HISTORY MONTH because she’s “not a biologist”, how did she get to the hearing in the first place since she’s obviously not a “limosine driver”? If this is the finest jurist the left can produce, kiss America goodbye.

Dan W.
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Zuccaro

These hearings have devolved into Senators being clever and nominees being evasive.

The only relevant factor seems to be which party did the nominating. If it’s our party’s nominee, vote “yes”, if it’s their party’s nominee, vote “no”. Simple.

Bill on the Hill
3 months ago

This is why I renewed for another year with AMAC, whether or not people agree with or not with the AMAC writers on their wording for politically based articles without mentioning any names or pen names for that matter, matters not to me…I firmly believe AMAC is fighting the good fight & I am 100% behind their assessment on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the nominee for the next justice of the SCOTUS…After ( 15 ) months now, Jackson clearly represents what the Biden administration was all about from day ( 1 ). Every single move by this administration has had NOTHING to do with what is best for the American people, in fact every single move thus far by Biden & his miscreants has been to deliberately keep the people of the United States in a state of constant fear with one crisis after another in deliberate never-ending fashion…
Make no mistake, the Nov. midterms will deal the Democrat Party a shellacking the likes of which they have never experienced, however, with their help from the RINO’s, we will still be stuck with this potus until Jan. of 2025…The amount of damage that has already occurred & what this demented man can do over the next ( 3 ) years I find very troubling, despite the fact whether or not the GOP controls both houses, that particular argument is almost academic at this stage of the game, sadly enough…
So sticking with the narrative of this article, AMAC, keep on ” fighting the good fight ” in Washington, DC, it does represent America in her best light…
Bill… :~)

Dan W.
3 months ago

With apologies to the writers of A Few Good Men:

“I object to the nominee” “Overruled” “No, no. Then I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.”

But seriously folks, what is our end game here ? Hope that Biden will withdraw the nomination and nominate a conservative or perhaps hope that the Senate can hold out until January 2025 when Biden is no longer President ?

3 months ago
Reply to  Dan W.

“But seriously folks, what is our end game here ?” I could ask the same thing with multiple articles staying essentially the same thing. The reality is she was already guaranteed to be approved by the Senate before her hearings even began. I could list off at least half a dozen reliable Senate RINOs that would vote for anyone Biden would nominate to the Court. So the hearings and the actual floor vote are just theater and a formality.

Scott A.
3 months ago

Biden is just trying to get an African American woman on the bench so he can be a hero. Of course, he wants a leftist as well and has one in his nomination. One African American woman that would be a stellar choice, would be Condi Rice. She may not come down on the conservative side of every case, but she would come down on the side of what is fair. She would sure be one HELL of a lot better than the hack little Joey wants…..

3 months ago
Reply to  Scott A.

The only reason Biden selected a black woman for the Court is because he promised the Democrat base that that would be his selection criteria in 2020. Remember the Party we’re talking about is fixated on identity politics, not merit or adherence to the Constitution. Biden could have just as easily said black, gay, born on the first Tuesday in May and that would have been who he would have to end up nominating. Elections have consequences.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x