GOP Sen. Roy Blunt Praises 'Historic' Nomination Of Ketanji Brown Jackson, Will Vote Against Her

For totally NOT racist reasons, obvs.

Republican senators' reactions to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson have run the gamut from filthy to shameful. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, both of whom supported her elevation to the DC Circuit, have gone out of their way to spread Josh Hawley's filthy lies about Judge Jackson favoring sex offenders. But they, like Ted Cruz, are soulless fucking ghouls — you never expected any better from them.

It's the squishes that really shock the conscience. The Romneys, the Cassidys, the Burrs ... the ones who bloody well know that the way the GOP is treating Jackson is disgusting and could not possibly be justified even if everything they claimed about Democrats' treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh were true. Which it is not .

Take Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, who sat down with ABC's George Stephanopoulos this weekend to explain that, although Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court will be "a high point for the country," he still intends to vote against it.

Roy Blunt on ABC says Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirming to SCOTUS will be "a high point for the country," but he won't support her. Asked why by Stephanopoulos, he offers a word salad.pic.twitter.com/QLjE4sDcMR

— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1648998526 

Here's how the retiring Missouri senator explained his decision:

BLUNT: You know, I've thought -- initially, my sense is that the president certainly had every good intention and every right in the campaign to talk about putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen. I was hoping that I could be part of that. I had a great conversation with her.

Really, there are two criterias, I said immediately. One is, is the person qualified for the job? And two is, what's her judicial philosophy?

She's certainly qualified. I think she's got a great personality, I think will be a good colleague on the court. But the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and the Constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to try to look at the Constitution as a more flexible document, and even the law. And there are cases that show that that’s her view.

Note that he did not name any cases, choosing in spectacularly cowardly fashion to wave his hands generally in the direction of Hawley's vile attacks, without sullying his gentlemanly demeanor by mentioning them himself.

Just look at this spineless jellyfish of man trying not to look like a racist POS, telegraphing his appreciation of "the importance of the moment," while simultaneously insisting that he'll have no part of it:

BLUNT: I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court, but I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the Court.

And I won't be supporting her but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment.

It takes a lot to make Susan freakin' Collins look brave by comparison, but this guy handles it with ease.

So far Collins is the only Republican who says she'll vote for Jackson's nomination. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney, the only other Republicans who haven't completely killed off their inner Jiminy Cricket (although they usually keep him locked in a closet), are still unaccounted for. But the clock is ticking down, with Democrats looking to move the nomination out of committee today, with a final confirmation vote set for Friday or Monday.

Hang tight, this thing is pretty much a done deal. But gawdalmighty that was repulsive.

[ Transcript via ABC ]

Follow Liz Dye on Twitter!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons .