What does “respect” mean in a discussion of precedent in which precedent itself gets overturned? This exchange between Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) provides a deliciously circular argument that ends up saying nothing — but which might make the nominee’s progressive advocates a bit nervous.

Blackburn refers to Dobbs, a case that will get decided one way or the other before Jackson joins the court. Her future colleagues are crafting a decision that will either bolster Roe or strike it down entirely. What will Jackson do if it’s the latter? The nominee offers a pretty crafty answer, but perhaps not crafty enough:

Sen. Blackburn: "Do you commit to respecting the Court's decision if it rules that Roe was wrongly decided and that the issue of abortion should be sent back to the states?

Judge Jackson: "Whatever the Supreme Court decides in Dobbs will be the precedent of the Supreme Court…" pic.twitter.com/chzWeyVnUY

— CSPAN (@cspan) March 23, 2022

BLACKBURN: Do you commit to respecting the Court’s decision if it rules that Roe was wrongly decided and that the issue of abortion should be sent back to the states?

JACKSON: Whatever the Supreme Court decides in Dobbs will be the precedent of the Supreme Court. It will be worthy of respect in the sense that it is the precedent. I commit to treating it as I would any other precedent.

I see what you did there. The only way this could have been said with a little more bite would be to pledge to commit to treating precedent as the current court treats it. If they overturn a 50-year precedent in Roe, which would then moot Casey as well, then Jackson is arguing that she can treat precedent the same — as a significant but hardly insurmountable obstacle. The smarter answer in this case, however, would have been a resort to the Ginsburg Rule while noting that Jackson likely will have to rule on such cases in the future, and run out the clock on objections from Blackburn.

John McCormack also notes the circularity of this response, but points out the political concession it represents:

Jackson’s response doesn’t tell us much—every decision is precedent worthy of respect until the Court has the case and the votes to overturn it. But “worthy of respect” is not a message that’s helpful to advocates of a constitutional right to abortion a couple months before the Court issues its ruling in Dobbs.

That’s the big takeaway here, and neither side of the debate will forget it — assuming the court strikes down Roe in Dobbs at all. If that happens, progressives will freak out and declare the Supreme Court hopelessly politicized. Pro-life advocates will play this clip right back at them and say, “Hey, the Supreme Court justice you promoted says this decision is ‘worthy of respect’.” Jackson will end up owning that outcome to some extent without even yet being on the court — even though we all know perfectly well that any mention of Dobbs in later cases will include argument from Jackson about how it was wrongly decided.

Do you think there may be a bit of buyer’s remorse at Demand Justice this morning anyway?

This won’t change the outcome of the confirmation, of course. If anything should be disqualifying, it’s Jackson’s answer on defining a woman, which is absurd both biologically and legally, but that won’t move the needle. Harmeet Dhillon explored that briefly but effectively today as well:

2/Defense counsel: “Security guard, at the time did you say it was a man, or a woman, driving the getaway car?”
Witness: “I’m not a biologist. 🤷🏽‍♀️”
Would that answer fly in District Judge Jackson’s courtroom? It would not. And the witness would have no credibility. Case closed.

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) March 23, 2022

And last night too:

I mean, as we now know, biology has nothing to do with being a "woman," so even from a Marxist/nihilist perspective, this is the wrong answer.

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) March 23, 2022

Even so, this exchange on Roe and precedent will make a very interesting footnote in a few months. Bookmark it accordingly.