Consistent standards needed for Supreme Court

The Gazette's editorial critical of Sen. Chuck Grassley's vote against Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson raises an interesting question. What should be the criteria for assessing a judicial nominee? Should senators look only at a nominee's education, qualifications, and character? Or is judicial philosophy and prior rulings fair game? Does The Gazette's editorial pass what Professor Alan Dershowitz calls the "shoe on the other foot" test?

In 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was deemed well-educated, highly qualified, and of good character. Yet, many senators voted no on her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Some expressed concern about how she might rule on hot button issues. I do not recall The Gazette denouncing senators who voted no on Barrett. Also, please put to rest the idea that tough questioning of a judicial nominee is an attack on gender and race. Nothing Judge Jackson faced compares with the outrageous questioning of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Jackson is well-educated, highly qualified, and of good character. So are other recent additions to the high court. If that is the only legitimate criteria, then that standard should be consistently followed.

Mike Streb

Iowa City