In defence of defending Nazis in court

If Justice Jackson would have done so at Nuremberg, good for her.

As embarrassing as the freak-out over Tom Cotton’s send-in-the-troops New York Times op-ed piece was, this is the kind of thing that makes you wonder what Cotton would do if he had unchallenged power:

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has been criticised for claiming that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson would choose to defend Nazi war criminals.

In a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Cotton renewed attacks on Jackson's work as a public defender, a recurrent theme for Republicans during her nomination hearings. 

In the speech he criticised her for representing four men detained under anti-terrorism laws in Guantanamo Bay.

He omitted to mention that they were cases she was assigned as a public defender, rather than clients she chose to defend. 

"Judge Jackson has also shown real interest in helping terrorists," Cotton stated.

"You know, the last Judge Jackson left the Supreme Court to go Nuremberg and prosecute the case against the Nazis," he said. "This Judge Jackson might've gone there to defend them."

Cotton was referring to Robert H Jackson's role in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials in 1945. 

Legal experts told Vox that scrutiny of her work as a public defender is not merited, as she had no choice about the cases she took on. Everyone had the right to legal representation in the US, so even those accused of terrorism, rape, and murder can get a public defender to argue their case.

I have to take issue not just with Cotton’s remarks, but the Insider headline for this story:

Although the piece strongly criticises Cotton, it inadvertently agrees with his point, that there is something shameful about acting as defence counsel for horrendous people charged with horrendous crimes.

My thinking is, if Jackson was acting as a defence lawyer at the Nuremburg trials, that would have been all the more reason to appoint her the Supreme Court.