Ketanji Brown Jackson could be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Augusta University experts can answer your questions

Feb 28, 2022

3 min

Martha Ginn, PhD

It’s official — President Biden has selected Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee to the Supreme Court.


If confirmed, she will the first Black woman to sit on the highest court in the nation.



This is a momentous occasion for American history and reporters are clamoring to learn more. Our experts are ready with answers to help with your stories.


Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. She discussed Jackson's credentials and the significance of her nomination.


What is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background and what credentials would bring to the Supreme Court? Why is she President Biden's top choice?


President Biden made a campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the SCOTUS if he had a vacancy to fill. While he had several strong contenders, Judge Brown Jackson is an obvious choice for many reasons.

Like all current Justices, excluding Justice Barrett, Judge Brown Jackson has an Ivy League education. She has also clerked at the Supreme Court for Justice Breyer (whom she would replace).

Interestingly, Justice Kavanaugh clerked for the Justice he replaced (Justice Kennedy) as well.

Background and experience: Judge Brown Jackson was a federal district court judge for eight years (appointed by President Obama) and was just confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals last summer. The DC circuit court is seen as a training ground of sorts for Supreme Court Justices, as many nominees serve there first.

What makes Judge Brown Jackson different is her experience as a public defender and then vice chairman of the sentencing commission. Bringing that experience to the Court will provide a much needed perspective on the rights of the accused. The Court recently heard a case regarding implementing the First Steps Act retroactively and it was apparent in the oral argument that some Justices did not appreciate the realities and complexities of sentencing in our criminal justice system. Judge Brown Jackson’s background will help fill that void.




What does her appointment signify, seeing as she would be the first Black woman (but only third Black justice) in the history of the Supreme Court, as well as the first former public defender?


Having four women on the Court at the same time will be important. More women than men attend law school now but the higher ranks of the profession are still male dominated, so having near parity in the nation’s highest Court is meaningful. Her race is also significant, since she will be only the third Black member of the Court and this would be the first time we have two Black members serving together.

It’s likely she and Justice Thomas will be very different ideologically but regardless, demographic representation matters. More than ever the Supreme Court is deciding very controversial matters that impact everyone. Having a Court that represents all voices is significant in maintaining its legitimacy and making sure opposing viewpoints are considered in decision-making.


With everything going on currently the nation and world, when do you project a vote will happen, and do you see it going through?


Even with all that is going on in the world right now, this will be a top priority to the Democratic Party, particularly with President Biden’s low polling numbers and the upcoming midterm elections.

With the slimmest of voting margins possible, the sooner the vote occurs, the better for the Democrats. The Republicans set the precedent with the Barrett nomination that the process can be done in weeks rather than the months taken in previous nominations. I anticipate the Democrats will follow that expedited model. It will be interesting to see if the three Republican senators who voted for her Court of Appeals appointment less than a year ago will oppose her nomination here.

Justice Breyer conditioned his retirement on the successful appointment of his replacement. He intends to retire at the end of this year’s term (likely early July), so I would anticipate her confirmation vote by then at the latest.



If you are a journalist covering this story, that’s where our experts on this topic can help.



Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Ginn is available to speak with media about this topic — simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.



Connect with:
Martha Ginn, PhD

Martha Ginn, PhD

Professor

Dr. Martha Ginn is a political expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

PoliticsJudicial PoliticsThe U.S. Supreme CourtConstitutional LawPolling

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Augusta University

2 min

Can you benefit in transferring high-interest credit card debt?

Photo credit: paulaveryevans According to Lendingtree, Americans have over $1 trillion in credit card debt. The average American has around $6,500 in credit card debt. When you factor in the high interest that credit cards charge, it can be a daunting task to get the balance to zero. Many cards offer 0% APR on balance transfers for certain length of times. But is it worth it if you don’t plan on paying off the entire balance during the promotional period? Wendy Habegger, PhD, senior lecturer in the James M. Hull College of Business, said you need to be careful when taking advantage of such offers. “The benefit one would get in this situation is short-lived,” said Habegger. “While one might enjoy no interest for the promo period, when that period is over, the interest rate they are charged could be more than the credit card from which they transferred. My recommendation is that if one does a balance transfer, then only do so if you are able to pay off the balance before the period ends.” Some may think of doing a second balance transfer but Habegger said that it is not a good idea and could have a negative impact on a person’s credit score. It also gives the appearance the customer is at increased risk of default, which could trigger an even higher interest rate and higher fees. Not only may one incur higher rates, it could certainly impact their credit score, which can have a long-lasting financial impact. Even a large purchase on a 0% APR card will affect someone’s credit score. “A large purchase indirectly impacts one’s credit score based on credit utilization,” she added. “If one uses more than 30% credit utilization, it could impact credit scores.” Personal debt and credit are trending and important topics in America today - and if you're looking to know more, we can help. Wendy Habegger is a respected finance expert available to offer advice on making the right money moves during volatile times. To arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now.

1 min

#ExpertSpot: How Does the Ukraine/Russia War Finally End?

With the war between Russia and Ukraine now approaching two and a half years - there's no end in sight. How does it end? Check out this ExpertSpot from Augusta's Dr. Craig Albert for some insight and perspective. Craig Albert, PhD, is director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. He is a leading expert on war, terrorism and American politics. AI and the upcoming election is a serious topic. Albert is available to speak with media – simply click on his name to arrange an interview today.

3 min

Changes in college football continue to be driven by dollars (and sense?)

The landscape of college sports, and particularly that of college football, has changed significantly in recent years. First, we have seen an almost constant realignment of collegiate athletic conferences, resulting in a few major mega-conferences, such as the SEC and ACC, Big  Ten and Big 12, and the disintegration of a former major conference, the Pac 12. Most of the other changes related to the athletes, such as the ease with which student-athletes could transfer from one school to another and the ability for them to be paid for their name, image and likeness. All of these issues were potentially pointing to new business models in college sports, but within the last week, that landscape was shaken even further. Last week, the NCAA and its five major conferences settled multiple lawsuits to pay past and present student-athletes a total of $2.8 billion. The settlement also laid the foundation for the payments of college athletes starting in fall 2025. “The major unresolved questions are who will get paid and how much,” said Rick Franza, PhD, professor in the Hull College of Business at Augusta University. “If we ‘follow the money,’ we see that football and basketball (particularly men’s basketball) generate almost all of the revenues, and most of the revenues comes from major conferences. Therefore, most of the player payments are going to go to football and basketball, and given the size of the relative rosters, football teams will be much more costly.” Franza added that the settlement will further exasperate the revenue and cost differences between major conferences and their smaller conferences as well as between football and the so-called Olympic sports which generate little, if any revenue. It was always clear that from both a revenue and cost perspective, college football is very different from other sports. Revenues are much higher for the major conferences in football, and there is not the same extent of revenue sharing as there is in basketball due to the NCAA Tournament. On the cost side, with the new realignment of the mega conferences and expanded geographic footprints, there is a significant increase in travel costs for the Olympic sports. “While those expanded conferences were mainly driven by football revenues, they are also making all other sports more costly. Therefore, the time has come to separate football from other sports,” said Franza. One solution was first proposed by Chip Kelly, former Oregon and UCLA head football coach and now Ohio State offensive coordinator. He proposed a 64-school football conference in which the members would share all revenues, including television, which would more easily cover the NIL, and player pay costs. In recent months, similar proposals have been made for a college football “Super League,” which would include up to 80 schools. “This makes too much sense not to happen,” Franza said. “It allows the bigger football schools to share the plentiful available revenues while being able to pay the players what they will demand. At the same time, the other college sports would be able to revert to their traditional, geographical conferences and reduce travel costs driven up by the realigned mega- conferences.” He added that two conferences, the SEC and Big Ten, the most successful under the current alignment, could delay the implementation. Franza also predicts that an agreement taking the first steps toward such a structure will be reached sometime in 2024. “While it makes a lot of sense to go in this direction prior to the player settlement, it makes even more dollars and ‘sense’ now given the settlement,” said Franza. “While  the SEC and BigTen currently make more money than any other conference, I think they will see the light for what is best for the future of college football.” Covering the business of sports and looking to know more? Then let us help. Richard Franza, PhD, is available to speak with media about trending issues like inflation, small business and the economy – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

View all posts