Meredith Stafford, staff writer

Currently, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is widely expected to be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court as the court’s 116th justice. This vote is historic as Jackson would be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. The full Senate vote will occur later this week. 

Abbie Vegter, assistant professor of political science, explained the nomination process that Jackson has gone through. President Joe Biden had the constitutional authority to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. During his campaign trail, Biden made promises to nominate a black woman for the position. After receiving the nomination, Jackson has been undergoing a hearing process organized by the Senate Judiciary Committee, wherein members of the committee are able to question her. 

NPR stated that prior to becoming a judge, she worked as a public defender. Before her nomination, Jackson served eight years as a federal trial court judge and has also received confirmation for a seat in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Jackson is expected to join the Supreme Court at the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. 

Jackson needs a majority vote in the full Senate vote in order to be confirmed. According to Vegter, if the vote is a tie, then it would fall to U.S. Vice President Harris to break that tie. 

“The Democrats and President Biden’s administration generally are really hoping to avoid that, given the historic nature of Judge Jackson’s nomination,” Vegter said. “She would be the first woman of color to serve on the Supreme Court, which they have been pretty vocal—it seems like a very long overdue diversification of the court.”

Vegter said that this nomination process was different than that of nominations prior. 

“We’re living in a little bit of an interesting time in which these nomination hearings in recent years have been more contentious, more polarizing than they have been in the past,” Vegter said. “We’ve had some controversial Supreme Court nominations obviously with Justice Kavanaugh. Even with Justice Coney Barrett, there was a lot of contention and debate around those nominations and this one has been a little bit more contentious than I think maybe the Biden administration anticipated.”

Vegter cited the approaching midterm elections as a possible reason for the nomination’s heavier contentiousness. 

“To have these hearings take place relatively close to the midterm elections means it’s an opportunity for them to kind of signal to constituents where they’re standing on these issues, what their concerns are, and to kind of emphasize some of these positions and some of their concerns about Judge Jackson a lot of people would say maybe as a reelection technique,” Vegter said. 

The New York Times also reported that Democratic senators believe that the “attacks” against Jackson are both a result of the midterm elections as well as of disagreements with Jackson herself. As of Monday, two more Republicans stated support for Jackson’s nomination, solidifying a more bipartisan backing. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Mitt Romney, R-Utah are joining Sen. Susan Collins R-Maine in adopting a stance opposite of the rest of the G.O.P. 

The Washington Post further stated that Murkowski praised Jackson’s qualifications and rejected the “politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees.” Similarly, Romney applauded Jackson as a “well-qualified jurist.”

Previously on Monday, all 11 Judiciary Committee Republicans voted in opposition to the proposed nomination. All of the 50 members of the Democratic caucus supported the nomination in an unusual procedural vote of 53 to 47. 

The deadlocked vote followed the rigorous questioning of Republican senators about Jackson’s record as a trial judge and past decisions. According to the Washington Post, the sentencings focused on were mainly ones involving her decisions on several child sex abuse cases, with the senators criticizing her interpretation of the law. Following the questioning, Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin criticized senators who “repeatedly interrupted and badgered Judge Jackson,” but did not state who he was referring to. 

In response to the heightened disputes during the nomination process, Vegter said that the idea behind a Supreme Court nomination is not to serve a senator’s individual or political interests.

“You’re supposed to assess the judge’s capability and qualifications for serving on the court, not whether or not this judge will serve your own interest on the court and so it’s supposed to be a process that just assess qualifications, assesses that this particular judge meets the standard of a Supreme Court Justice and it’s become a more political process in recent years,” Vegter said.