The American Bar Association has deemed Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, a "well qualified" choice to serve on the nation's highest court.
The association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Jackson its highest marks on Friday in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and ranking Republican member Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
The association typically evaluates and issues a qualifications rating for Supreme Court nominees just ahead of Senate confirmation hearings.
All three of former President Donald Trump's picks were given the same rating. ________________
So, Ch, Jackson is "arguably" just as "well qualified" as Trump's three nominees.
Because she was a defense attorney, the right wing nutjobs like you hate her. Despite being one of the most educated attorney, from an elite college, Scott believes that she was in brainwashed into being a liberal and underneath is a communist..
You have joined The John Birch Society of this decade.
Indy is absolutely correct about you. In effect you are crypto fascist.
She has the support of police officers across the United States
Dozens of the nation’s top law enforcement officials have signed a letter released Monday urging the U.S. Senate to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
“As members of the law enforcement community, we write in recognition of Judge Jackson’s strong, effective and long-standing role in criminal justice issues,” wrote 63 officials from around the country.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) praised Jackson as a “distinguished nominee with an unassailable record” in testimony that sought to knock down Republican criticism of Biden’s Supreme Court pick as the hearing got underway Monday.
“Judge Jackson is no judicial activist. She is not a puppet of the so-called radical left,” Leahy said. “She’s been praised by Republican appointed judges for her jurisprudence, lawyers from the right and the left who appeared before her in court … Judge Jackson is not anti-law enforcement. She hails from a law enforcement family. She’s also won the support of preeminent national law enforcement organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police. And no, she’s not soft on crime.”
Citing his own experience as a prosecutor, Leahy cast Jackson’s background as a former public defender as a positive, saying it would bring an “informed perspective” on the criminal justice system to the Supreme Court.
“I’m proud of being a former prosecutor,” Leahy said. “But confidence in my prosecution of a case was strongest when I knew the defendant had the best possible representation. When both sides and the presiding judge have a real grasp of our criminal justice system, that’s when justice is most likely to be done.”
The police support her despite not white enough for Scott
That statement alone shows how much of a Kool-Aid slurper Ch has become.
Well Reverend...
That is not an opinion.
She is an appellate court Judge with less than a year experience. There are over 175 appellate court Judges and most all of them have more experience.
Gorsuch had over 10 years of Appellate court experience Kavanaugh had over 15 years of Appellate court experience Amy Comey Barrett had four years of Appellate court experience
I have interviewed hundreds of potential employees and hired dozens in my life. Someone with 10 years of "tech experience" for instance is better qualified than someone with 6 months unless there are serious differences in other aspects.
Almost everyone of the Appellate Court Judges graduated with honors from some prestigious law school. Many were editors of the law review or student body president or whatever. Whatever "qualifications" she has are likely seen with dozens of other Appellate Court Judges... and those Judges will have the same thing, but with more experience.
She also has a pretty high degree of being overturned by higher courts.
At the end of the day...
Imagine a director being promoted to a Vice Presidency level... and then about a year later being promoted to President and CEO over all of the Vice Presidents that had been there much longer and had more experience. That sort of stuff doesn't happen in private industry.
Only when you have predetermined that you are going to disqualify literally 98% of all other candidates, does Brown Jackson become the most qualified.
She will become as accepted a part of the Supreme Court as Obamacare [is] Becoming a Fact of Life March 21, 2022 at 1:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard
John Harwood: “Russia’s assault on Ukraine has united America’s political parties, as war abroad often does.
"It’s more surprising to see diminishing conflict on a hot-button domestic issue — but recent developments at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue tell that story on health care.
“More specifically, they show that the Affordable Care Act, signed into law 12 years ago this week, keeps growing more deeply embedded in American life.”
Exactly, IF she was any good then allow her to compete with all.
"Only when you have predetermined that you are going to disqualify literally 98% of all other candidates, does Brown Jackson become the most qualified."
Why public defenders matter, including on the Supreme Court When Jackson responded to Sasse’s questions last year, she likened her intent as a public defender to that of the framers of the Constitution: “In order to guarantee liberty and justice for all, the government has to provide due process to the individuals it accuses of criminal behavior, including the rights to ... competent legal counsel.”
Public defenders, who are appointed by the courts to represent people who cannot afford a lawyer, uphold one of the most basic rights afforded by the Constitution: that people put on trial for a crime will have the assistance of counsel to defend themselves. They do not have the power to choose the indigent criminal defendants whom they represent, and they must take any and every case given to them.
“One of the unique things about the public defender role is it’s really one of the only jobs that’s guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Vida Johnson, a professor of law at Georgetown University and former public defender at the federal public defender’s office. “The Sixth Amendment provides that people who can’t afford a lawyer will be given one. Public defenders play this enormously important role in the legal system, and without it, the system couldn’t function.”
Jackson worked for DC’s Office of the Federal Public Defender from 2005 to 2007, when she left for the corporate law firm Morrison & Foerster.
A.J. Kramer, the current federal public defender and the federal public defender who assigned Jackson’s cases, said she had no choice in who she represented. But when Jackson applied for the role, she specifically requested to work on appeals — seeking relief for people who had already been convicted in federal court.
“I think she believed it was her strength, where she could best use her writing abilities and her ability to analyze,” Kramer said. Like any other public defender, her responsibility was to look at the record of the case and decide what issues needed to be raised before a higher court. She ultimately argued before the appeals courts about 10 times.
“Being a public defender and working from within the system gives someone a full grasp of how the criminal justice system works because you get to see the people involved on both sides, from the prosecutor’s perspective and the client’s,” Kramer said. “You really get to see that clients are human beings.”
There’s very little reason to doubt Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed and become the first Black woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She doesn’t need to garner any Republican support in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and her ascension in place of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer won’t shift the ideological makeup of the court.
But this week’s hearings to vet the historic nominee will provide a platform for both Democrats and Republicans to send political messages, and that’s what they’re signaling they will do.
For Democrats, it’s an opportunity to confirm a historic new member to the Supreme Court, help President Joe Biden deliver on a big promise he made to Black voters during the campaign, and make the case for some Republicans to support her, too. For Republicans, it’s a chance to use Jackson’s nomination, and the support she’s gotten from liberal groups like Demand Justice, to question whether Democrats are too far to the left and “soft on crime.”
“I think [Republicans’] focus is going to be trying to accuse Democrats and Biden of being pro-crime, to try to obscure the dark money history of their last three nominees with a lot of smoke about her supposed dark money history,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Vox. “I think she’s less going to be the target than us, and they’ll be pivoting off her to make points for November.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) signaled as much in a recent floor speech about Jackson’s nomination. “We need to explore why the farthest-left activists in the country desperately wanted Judge Jackson in,” McConnell said. “Liberals are saying that Judge Jackson’s service as a criminal defense lawyer and then on the US Sentencing Commission give her special empathy for convicted criminals.”
Mon, March 21, 2022, 9:02 AM·5 min read Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson open this week amid a flurry of misleading allegations by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley that the nominee has a "long record" of letting child porn offenders "off the hook" during sentencing.
"In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child porn offenders," Hawley tweeted Thursday, highlighting nine cases from her time as a federal District Court judge.
While court records show that Jackson did impose lighter sentences than federal guidelines suggested, Hawley's insinuation neglects critical context, including the fact that the senator himself has voted to confirm at least three federal judges who also engaged in the same practice.
Federal appeals court Judges Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit and Andrew Brasher of the Eleventh Circuit, both Trump appointees, had each previously sentenced defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to prison terms well below federal guidelines at the time they were confirmed with Hawley's support, an ABC review of court records found.
Hawley's office did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the votes. ABC News asked Sen. Hawley directly on Monday morning for any comment on support for confirmation of other federal judges who delivered similar sentences, and he responded: "Not for this job I sure haven't, not for this job."
"If and when we properly contextualize Judge Jackson's sentencing record in federal child porn cases, it looks pretty mainstream," wrote Doug Berman, a leading expert on sentencing law and policy at The Ohio State University School of Law.
"Federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the [child porn] guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases," Berman noted on his blog, and "when deciding to go below the [child porn] guideline, typically impose sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum."
District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump-appointee who served alongside Judge Jackson on the U.S. Sentencing Commission for a time, also issued below-guidelines sentences in at least four child porn cases, records show.
Hawley accused Jackson of advocating "for drastic change" in sex offender sentencing by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for child porn while on the Commission. But he failed to mention that the panel's Republican appointees – including Judge Friedrich – also supported revising the sentences in a unanimous vote.
"There were three Republicans on the Commission at the time including Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit, Ricardo Hinojosa, a judge in a border district, and Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump," said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former Sentencing Commission member. "I don't think the three of them would be labeled soft on crime."
Multiple independent fact-checkers, including AP and the Washington Post, have debunked the bulk of Hawley’s claims. The White House has called them "toxic and weakly-presented misinformation."
"As far as Senator Hawley is concerned, here's the bottom line: He's wrong," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin said on ABC News "This Week." "He's inaccurate and unfair in his analysis. Judge Jackson has been scrutinized more than any person I can think of. This is her fourth time before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and three previous times, she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support."
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson vowed Monday in her opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would be an impartial justice on the high court if she is confirmed.
“I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously,” Brown told members of the committee. “I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.”
Jackson, 51, is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a post she was confirmed to last year with bipartisan support. Her nomination by President Joe Biden is historic: She would be the first Black woman and first public defender on the Supreme Court.
Monday marked the first day of Jackson’s four-day confirmation hearing.
“During this hearing, I hope that you will see how much I love our country and the Constitution and the rights that make us free,” she said. “I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African American woman to be appointed to the federal bench ― and with whom I share a birthday.”
Jackson was joined Monday by friends and family, including her husband and two young daughters. She was introduced by Thomas Griffith, a conservative former U.S. appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, and Lisa Fairfax, a former college roommate at Harvard who now teaches law.
Griffith echoed Jackson’s vow to be apolitical if confirmed, calling her “an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and the law and not as a partisan.”
Fairfax, who has been friends with Jackson for 35 years, called her “a woman of deep faith in God and unyielding love of family” and “the rock” for their circle of friends.
“Even though we are the same age, she is the role model who makes you believe in what she said: ‘You can do it, and here’s how,’” she said. “And she showed us how, by the power of her example of hard work, preparation and excellence that transforms the seemingly impossible into the achievable.”
“We knew early on that she could be anything she chose to be,” Fairfax added, “but also, that she seemed destined to be a judge because of her ability to see all sides and render fair and level-headed decisions.”
Monday’s hearing consisted mostly of pleasant introductory remarks. But starting Tuesday, members of the committee will begin asking Jackson questions about her record and judicial philosophy. Republicans have already signaled plans to attack her for being “soft on crime,” citing her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees and her tenure on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Durbin has previously, and bluntly, accused Republicans of being unfairly hostile toward Black, female nominees who come before the committee. He told reporters this month that he is “very concerned” about how they’ll treat Jackson, noting that a previous Black female nominee received death threats after particularly hostile treatment by GOP members of the committee.
WP Judge Jackson’s hearings, unlike Judge Kavanaugh’s, will be focused at least in part on the issue of race, which Mr. Graham addressed in unusually unvarnished language on Monday.
He noted that Democrats had opposed judicial nominees of color appointed by Republicans, couching their objections as matters of political and legal philosophy.
“Bottom line here is, it is about philosophy when it’s someone of color on our side — it’s about we’re all racist if we ask hard questions,” said Mr. Graham, a former chairman of the committee.
“It’s not going to fly with us,” added Mr. Graham.
The senator, who has already signaled his opposition to Judge Jackson’s nomination, went on to criticize President Biden for not selecting J. Michelle Childs, a federal judge from his state who is also Black, instead of Judge Jackson.
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, held up her phone to record as Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey spoke about the sheer joy he felt on the historic first day of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings, one that he called, simply, “not a normal day for America.”
Ms. Lee had no formal role in the proceedings, and the House of Representatives was out of session. She was simply attending as a supporter witnessing history.
“We’re not supposed to do this,” Ms. Lee said to Judge Jackson during a brief break, approaching her for a handshake. “But I’m so proud of you.”
The excitement of two Black members of Congress, both Democrats, underscored a strange duality of the day. History was unfolding as the Senate opened its hearings to confirm the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court. But at the same time, there was a somber mood to the proceedings.
Judge Jackson’s background and experience — she was rated “well qualified” for the job by the American Bar Association — made it difficult to assail her fitness for the job. Her confirmation would not change the ideological composition of the court, which is tilted 6-3 toward conservatives, and still would be if she were confirmed to succeed Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a liberal who has announced he will step down when the current term ends this summer. And Republicans have promised a more dignified review than has unfolded in the past.
But the lack of political drama on Day 1 — when Judge Jackson’s role was mostly to sit silently and listen to long statements read by senators — didn’t take away from the excitement among her supporters in the room.
The witness section of the audience was filled with mostly Black faces, including White House officials, elected officials, family members of Judge Jackson and a handful of attorneys, many of whom watched with glassy eyes when Judge Jackson gave her opening remarks at the end of a long day.
Janette McCarthy Wallace, the general counsel for the N.A.A.C.P., who attended the hearing, said she was “overjoyed” to be in a room where history was unfolding. She said she came prepared for the criticisms from Republicans, who said they planned to drill down on Judge Jackson’s background as a public defender.
“I think that they are distractions from the basic fact that this is a person who is qualified to sit on this bench and who should be the next Supreme Court justice,” she said.
When Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in next, Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be the first Black woman to sit in the hot seat of a Supreme Court nominee. Comments from some GOP senators suggest that her confirmation hearings will be less contentious than other recent ones, in part because many Republicans do not want to be seen attacking a historic nominee and in part because adding her to the court would not shift its ideological balance.
33 comments:
A black vagina with a history of being overturned, and someone who is pro-pedophile.
There's a lot to like here.
By the way, have the victims of her beer-swilling gang rapes come forward yet?
We need to hear from these folks.
And just so everyone is aware, "Ketanji" is Swahili for 'black vagina'.
What's the over under for how long it will take for the first charge of racism against whomever is critical og her record?
"Arguably one of the least qualified candidates for the USSC in decades"
That statement alone shows how much of a Kool-Aid slurper Ch has become.
The American Bar Association has deemed Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, a "well qualified" choice to serve on the nation's highest court.
The association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Jackson its highest marks on Friday in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and ranking Republican member Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
The association typically evaluates and issues a qualifications rating for Supreme Court nominees just ahead of Senate confirmation hearings.
All three of former President Donald Trump's picks were given the same rating.
________________
So, Ch, Jackson is "arguably" just as "well qualified" as Trump's three nominees.
Because she was a defense attorney, the right wing nutjobs like you hate her. Despite being one of the most educated attorney, from an elite college, Scott believes that she was in brainwashed into being a liberal and underneath is a communist..
You have joined The John Birch Society of this decade.
Indy is absolutely correct about you. In effect you are crypto fascist.
First pedo on the Court.
Social win
Yep
"rrbMarch 21, 2022 at 10:46 AM
A black vagina with a history of being overturned, and someone who is pro-pedophile.
There's a lot to like here"
Affirmative action Jackson
She has the support of police officers across the United States
Dozens of the nation’s top law enforcement officials have signed a letter released Monday urging the U.S. Senate to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
“As members of the law enforcement community, we write in recognition of Judge Jackson’s strong, effective and long-standing role in criminal justice issues,” wrote 63 officials from around the country.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from her rape accuser(s).
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) praised Jackson as a “distinguished nominee with an unassailable record” in testimony that sought to knock down Republican criticism of Biden’s Supreme Court pick as the hearing got underway Monday.
“Judge Jackson is no judicial activist. She is not a puppet of the so-called radical left,” Leahy said. “She’s been praised by Republican appointed judges for her jurisprudence, lawyers from the right and the left who appeared before her in court … Judge Jackson is not anti-law enforcement. She hails from a law enforcement family. She’s also won the support of preeminent national law enforcement organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police. And no, she’s not soft on crime.”
Citing his own experience as a prosecutor, Leahy cast Jackson’s background as a former public defender as a positive, saying it would bring an “informed perspective” on the criminal justice system to the Supreme Court.
“I’m proud of being a former prosecutor,” Leahy said. “But confidence in my prosecution of a case was strongest when I knew the defendant had the best possible representation. When both sides and the presiding judge have a real grasp of our criminal justice system, that’s when justice is most likely to be done.”
The police support her despite not white enough for Scott
That statement alone shows how much of a Kool-Aid slurper Ch has become.
Well Reverend...
That is not an opinion.
She is an appellate court Judge with less than a year experience. There are over 175 appellate court Judges and most all of them have more experience.
Gorsuch had over 10 years of Appellate court experience
Kavanaugh had over 15 years of Appellate court experience
Amy Comey Barrett had four years of Appellate court experience
I have interviewed hundreds of potential employees and hired dozens in my life. Someone with 10 years of "tech experience" for instance is better qualified than someone with 6 months unless there are serious differences in other aspects.
Almost everyone of the Appellate Court Judges graduated with honors from some prestigious law school. Many were editors of the law review or student body president or whatever. Whatever "qualifications" she has are likely seen with dozens of other Appellate Court Judges... and those Judges will have the same thing, but with more experience.
She also has a pretty high degree of being overturned by higher courts.
At the end of the day...
Imagine a director being promoted to a Vice Presidency level... and then about a year later being promoted to President and CEO over all of the Vice Presidents that had been there much longer and had more experience. That sort of stuff doesn't happen in private industry.
Only when you have predetermined that you are going to disqualify literally 98% of all other candidates, does Brown Jackson become the most qualified.
Only when you have predetermined that you are going to disqualify literally 98% of all other candidates, does Brown Jackson become the most qualified.
PRECISELY.
Not very precise.
She will become as accepted a part of the Supreme Court as
Obamacare [is] Becoming a Fact of Life
March 21, 2022 at 1:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard
John Harwood:
“Russia’s assault on Ukraine has united America’s political parties, as war abroad often does.
"It’s more surprising to see diminishing conflict on a hot-button domestic issue — but recent developments at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue tell that story on health care.
“More specifically, they show that the Affordable Care Act, signed into law 12 years ago this week, keeps growing more deeply embedded in American life.”
Not sure why Harwood would be surprised that after 12 years, something would embed itself into society. We've all seen it many times.
Exactly, IF she was any good then allow her to compete with all.
"Only when you have predetermined that you are going to disqualify literally 98% of all other candidates, does Brown Jackson become the most qualified."
Obama care promised lower rates for all Americans, it failed.
Harwood, like Capehart and Brooks, is an assclown.
Hence, they're quoted by the pederast.
Pederast supports Pedo Jackson.
Fellow travelers.
Why public defenders matter, including on the Supreme Court
When Jackson responded to Sasse’s questions last year, she likened her intent as a public defender to that of the framers of the Constitution: “In order to guarantee liberty and justice for all, the government has to provide due process to the individuals it accuses of criminal behavior, including the rights to ... competent legal counsel.”
Public defenders, who are appointed by the courts to represent people who cannot afford a lawyer, uphold one of the most basic rights afforded by the Constitution: that people put on trial for a crime will have the assistance of counsel to defend themselves. They do not have the power to choose the indigent criminal defendants whom they represent, and they must take any and every case given to them.
“One of the unique things about the public defender role is it’s really one of the only jobs that’s guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Vida Johnson, a professor of law at Georgetown University and former public defender at the federal public defender’s office. “The Sixth Amendment provides that people who can’t afford a lawyer will be given one. Public defenders play this enormously important role in the legal system, and without it, the system couldn’t function.”
Jackson worked for DC’s Office of the Federal Public Defender from 2005 to 2007, when she left for the corporate law firm Morrison & Foerster.
A.J. Kramer, the current federal public defender and the federal public defender who assigned Jackson’s cases, said she had no choice in who she represented. But when Jackson applied for the role, she specifically requested to work on appeals — seeking relief for people who had already been convicted in federal court.
“I think she believed it was her strength, where she could best use her writing abilities and her ability to analyze,” Kramer said. Like any other public defender, her responsibility was to look at the record of the case and decide what issues needed to be raised before a higher court. She ultimately argued before the appeals courts about 10 times.
“Being a public defender and working from within the system gives someone a full grasp of how the criminal justice system works because you get to see the people involved on both sides, from the prosecutor’s perspective and the client’s,” Kramer said. “You really get to see that clients are human beings.”
Her final comment were inspiring about her parents
Tomorrow morning we will see them
There’s very little reason to doubt Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed and become the first Black woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She doesn’t need to garner any Republican support in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and her ascension in place of retiring Justice Stephen Breyer won’t shift the ideological makeup of the court.
But this week’s hearings to vet the historic nominee will provide a platform for both Democrats and Republicans to send political messages, and that’s what they’re signaling they will do.
For Democrats, it’s an opportunity to confirm a historic new member to the Supreme Court, help President Joe Biden deliver on a big promise he made to Black voters during the campaign, and make the case for some Republicans to support her, too. For Republicans, it’s a chance to use Jackson’s nomination, and the support she’s gotten from liberal groups like Demand Justice, to question whether Democrats are too far to the left and “soft on crime.”
“I think [Republicans’] focus is going to be trying to accuse Democrats and Biden of being pro-crime, to try to obscure the dark money history of their last three nominees with a lot of smoke about her supposed dark money history,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Vox. “I think she’s less going to be the target than us, and they’ll be pivoting off her to make points for November.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) signaled as much in a recent floor speech about Jackson’s nomination. “We need to explore why the farthest-left activists in the country desperately wanted Judge Jackson in,” McConnell said. “Liberals are saying that Judge Jackson’s service as a criminal defense lawyer and then on the US Sentencing Commission give her special empathy for convicted criminals.”
She is amazing and follows the law
Mon, March 21, 2022, 9:02 AM·5 min read
Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson open this week amid a flurry of misleading allegations by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley that the nominee has a "long record" of letting child porn offenders "off the hook" during sentencing.
"In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child porn offenders," Hawley tweeted Thursday, highlighting nine cases from her time as a federal District Court judge.
While court records show that Jackson did impose lighter sentences than federal guidelines suggested, Hawley's insinuation neglects critical context, including the fact that the senator himself has voted to confirm at least three federal judges who also engaged in the same practice.
Federal appeals court Judges Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit and Andrew Brasher of the Eleventh Circuit, both Trump appointees, had each previously sentenced defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to prison terms well below federal guidelines at the time they were confirmed with Hawley's support, an ABC review of court records found.
Hawley's office did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the votes. ABC News asked Sen. Hawley directly on Monday morning for any comment on support for confirmation of other federal judges who delivered similar sentences, and he responded: "Not for this job I sure haven't, not for this job."
"If and when we properly contextualize Judge Jackson's sentencing record in federal child porn cases, it looks pretty mainstream," wrote Doug Berman, a leading expert on sentencing law and policy at The Ohio State University School of Law.
"Federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the [child porn] guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases," Berman noted on his blog, and "when deciding to go below the [child porn] guideline, typically impose sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum."
District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump-appointee who served alongside Judge Jackson on the U.S. Sentencing Commission for a time, also issued below-guidelines sentences in at least four child porn cases, records show.
Hawley accused Jackson of advocating "for drastic change" in sex offender sentencing by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for child porn while on the Commission. But he failed to mention that the panel's Republican appointees – including Judge Friedrich – also supported revising the sentences in a unanimous vote.
"There were three Republicans on the Commission at the time including Judge Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit, Ricardo Hinojosa, a judge in a border district, and Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump," said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former Sentencing Commission member. "I don't think the three of them would be labeled soft on crime."
Multiple independent fact-checkers, including AP and the Washington Post, have debunked the bulk of Hawley’s claims. The White House has called them "toxic and weakly-presented misinformation."
"As far as Senator Hawley is concerned, here's the bottom line: He's wrong," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin said on ABC News "This Week." "He's inaccurate and unfair in his analysis. Judge Jackson has been scrutinized more than any person I can think of. This is her fourth time before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and three previous times, she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support."
Get ready for defeat Ch
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson vowed Monday in her opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would be an impartial justice on the high court if she is confirmed.
“I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously,” Brown told members of the committee. “I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.”
Jackson, 51, is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a post she was confirmed to last year with bipartisan support. Her nomination by President Joe Biden is historic: She would be the first Black woman and first public defender on the Supreme Court.
Monday marked the first day of Jackson’s four-day confirmation hearing.
“During this hearing, I hope that you will see how much I love our country and the Constitution and the rights that make us free,” she said. “I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African American woman to be appointed to the federal bench ― and with whom I share a birthday.”
Jackson was joined Monday by friends and family, including her husband and two young daughters. She was introduced by Thomas Griffith, a conservative former U.S. appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, and Lisa Fairfax, a former college roommate at Harvard who now teaches law.
Griffith echoed Jackson’s vow to be apolitical if confirmed, calling her “an independent jurist who adjudicates based on the facts and the law and not as a partisan.”
Fairfax, who has been friends with Jackson for 35 years, called her “a woman of deep faith in God and unyielding love of family” and “the rock” for their circle of friends.
“Even though we are the same age, she is the role model who makes you believe in what she said: ‘You can do it, and here’s how,’” she said. “And she showed us how, by the power of her example of hard work, preparation and excellence that transforms the seemingly impossible into the achievable.”
“We knew early on that she could be anything she chose to be,” Fairfax added, “but also, that she seemed destined to be a judge because of her ability to see all sides and render fair and level-headed decisions.”
Monday’s hearing consisted mostly of pleasant introductory remarks. But starting Tuesday, members of the committee will begin asking Jackson questions about her record and judicial philosophy. Republicans have already signaled plans to attack her for being “soft on crime,” citing her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees and her tenure on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Durbin has previously, and bluntly, accused Republicans of being unfairly hostile toward Black, female nominees who come before the committee. He told reporters this month that he is “very concerned” about how they’ll treat Jackson, noting that a previous Black female nominee received death threats after particularly hostile treatment by GOP members of the committee.
This is why you really have lost your mind
rrb liked it today.
WP
Judge Jackson’s hearings, unlike Judge Kavanaugh’s, will be focused at least in part on the issue of race, which Mr. Graham addressed in unusually unvarnished language on Monday.
He noted that Democrats had opposed judicial nominees of color appointed by Republicans, couching their objections as matters of political and legal philosophy.
“Bottom line here is, it is about philosophy when it’s someone of color on our side — it’s about we’re all racist if we ask hard questions,” said Mr. Graham, a former chairman of the committee.
“It’s not going to fly with us,” added Mr. Graham.
The senator, who has already signaled his opposition to Judge Jackson’s nomination, went on to criticize President Biden for not selecting J. Michelle Childs, a federal judge from his state who is also Black, instead of Judge Jackson.
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, held up her phone to record as Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey spoke about the sheer joy he felt on the historic first day of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings, one that he called, simply, “not a normal day for America.”
Ms. Lee had no formal role in the proceedings, and the House of Representatives was out of session. She was simply attending as a supporter witnessing history.
“We’re not supposed to do this,” Ms. Lee said to Judge Jackson during a brief break, approaching her for a handshake. “But I’m so proud of you.”
The excitement of two Black members of Congress, both Democrats, underscored a strange duality of the day. History was unfolding as the Senate opened its hearings to confirm the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court. But at the same time, there was a somber mood to the proceedings.
Judge Jackson’s background and experience — she was rated “well qualified” for the job by the American Bar Association — made it difficult to assail her fitness for the job. Her confirmation would not change the ideological composition of the court, which is tilted 6-3 toward conservatives, and still would be if she were confirmed to succeed Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a liberal who has announced he will step down when the current term ends this summer. And Republicans have promised a more dignified review than has unfolded in the past.
But the lack of political drama on Day 1 — when Judge Jackson’s role was mostly to sit silently and listen to long statements read by senators — didn’t take away from the excitement among her supporters in the room.
The witness section of the audience was filled with mostly Black faces, including White House officials, elected officials, family members of Judge Jackson and a handful of attorneys, many of whom watched with glassy eyes when Judge Jackson gave her opening remarks at the end of a long day.
Janette McCarthy Wallace, the general counsel for the N.A.A.C.P., who attended the hearing, said she was “overjoyed” to be in a room where history was unfolding. She said she came prepared for the criticisms from Republicans, who said they planned to drill down on Judge Jackson’s background as a public defender.
“I think that they are distractions from the basic fact that this is a person who is qualified to sit on this bench and who should be the next Supreme Court justice,” she said.
When Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in next, Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be the first Black woman to sit in the hot seat of a Supreme Court nominee. Comments from some GOP senators suggest that her confirmation hearings will be less contentious than other recent ones, in part because many Republicans do not want to be seen attacking a historic nominee and in part because adding her to the court would not shift its ideological balance.
Post a Comment