Perspectives on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Days 2-4
~ 6 minutes read
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week have been widely debated on social media.
On Monday, we wrote about the conversation on the first day of hearings. Below, we review the discussion surrounding the last three days of the hearings.
The bottom line: Our brains are primed to pay attention to and remember information that confirms our worldview going into Judge Jackson’s hearings, and instinctively dismiss information that contradicts it.
Below, we break down how different people are interpreting this event, and what values or information inform this perspective. Our goal isn’t to change your mind — it’s to show how rational people can understand this same event so differently.
NOTE: THE TWITTER CONVERSATION AROUND JACKSON’S CONFIRMATION WAS DOMINATED BY SUPPORTERS OF HER NOMINATION.
What does each side see as fact?
To those who support Jackson’s confirmation…
- Judge Jackson is qualified.
- Judge Jackson is much more professional than Justice Kavanaugh.
- Mitch McConnell packed the court when he refused to confirm Merrick Garland.
- Republican senators are unprofessional and ignorant.
- During the hearings, Republican senators have come out against legalizing contraceptives, gay marriages, and interracial marriages.
To those who oppose Jackson’s confirmation…
- Jackson can’t define what a woman is.
- Jackson has a record of being lenient towards pedophiles.
- The media is biased in their coverage of Supreme Court hearings.
- Jackson was stunned by senators’ questions.
- Biden is withholding Jackson’s sentencing records.
The Narrative
To those who support Jackson’s confirmation, Republican Senators’ behavior and questions are disgraceful and absurd – a prime example of political theater. Seeing the stark difference between Judge Jackson’s competency and the Senators’ childishness makes one wonder if the Senators are fit to serve.
To those who oppose Jackson’s confirmation, Jackson’s questionable record and inability to answer the Senators’ questions show she’s a poor fit for the Supreme Court. A person who protects pedophiles and lacks the common sense to define what a woman is doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court.
How could a reasonable person come to think this?
Jackson’s supporters are confident President Biden can pick a great candidate for the Supreme Court, and highlight aspects of her record and exchanges during the hearing which prove she is suitable to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Jackson’s opposition is confident President Biden has made a characteristic, poor decision in nominating her, and emphasizes aspects of her record and exchanges during the hearing which call her suitability to serve on the Supreme Court into question.
What does each side see as fact?
To those who support Jackson’s confirmation…
- Judge Jackson is qualified.
- Judge Jackson is much more professional than Justice Kavanaugh.
- Mitch McConnell packed the court when he refused to confirm Merrick Garland.
- Republican senators are unprofessional and ignorant.
- During the hearings, Republican senators have come out against legalizing contraceptives, gay marriages, and interracial marriages.
To those who oppose Jackson’s confirmation…
- Jackson can’t define what a woman is.
- Jackson has a record of being lenient towards pedophiles.
- The media is biased in their coverage of Supreme Court hearings.
- Jackson was stunned by senators’ questions.
- Biden is withholding Jackson’s sentencing records.
The Narrative
To those who support Jackson’s confirmation, Republican Senators’ behavior and questions are disgraceful and absurd – a prime example of political theater. Seeing the stark difference between Judge Jackson’s competency and the Senators’ childishness makes one wonder if the Senators are fit to serve.
To those who oppose Jackson’s confirmation, Jackson’s questionable record and inability to answer the Senators’ questions show she’s a poor fit for the Supreme Court. A person who protects pedophiles and lacks the common sense to define what a woman is doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court.
How could a reasonable person come to believe this?
Jackson’s supporters are confident President Biden can pick a great candidate for the Supreme Court, and highlight aspects of her record and exchanges during the hearing which prove she is suitable to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Jackson’s opposition is confident President Biden has made a characteristic, poor decision in nominating her, and emphasizes aspects of her record and exchanges during the hearing which call her suitability to serve on the Supreme Court into question.
Takeaways
Our view of President Biden’s decision-making and competency influences how we initially perceived Judge Jackson, as well as what we notice in her confirmation hearings. That’s because our brains pay more attention to information that confirms what we already believe than information that contradicts our point of view. And because we also often view our contra partisans as brainwashed, stupid, or evil, our brains are primed to notice patterns in these hearings which confirm that idea.
Similarly, if we already believe President Biden nominated a competent candidate, our brains will perceive questions and people which challenge that perspective as absurd and disgraceful. And if we instead believe that President Biden is unable to pick a competent candidate, our brains will perceive Jackson’s hesitation or failure to answer those same questions as confirmation that we’re right.
But we can challenge this unconscious process in our brains by keeping tabs on these instincts. For example, we can notice when we automatically accept new information while mindfully considering any new information that contradicts our position. When we take an extra second to examine how we are processing new information, we can better evaluate it based on its own merits, not our subconscious instinct. Engaging in this process doesn’t mean we have to change our perspective, but it helps us take charge of the opinion formation process rather than allowing our brain to automatically decide what we should think.
