Ketanji Brown Jackson

[GURPS]

It seems like it wasn’t that long ago that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was hailed as a consensus nominee. But in the weeks since her nomination, it seems like all we are learning is troubling details about her record.

For example, last month, we learned that in 1996, Jackson wrote a “Note” for the Harvard Law Review arguing that convicted sex offenders were treated “unfairly” in the courts.

Did this not come up in her background check?

This week, another concerning detail has come to light: her past work representing terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay prison.

During closed-door meetings with Jackson, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reportedly raised the issue and said it would likely come up during her hearing.

“We did talk … about her representation of Guantánamo Bay detainees. I expressed some concern about this,” Hawley said. According to The Hill, Hawley said that he thought her work representing Gitmo detainees while in private practice was “interesting” and “a little concerning.”

Another Disturbing Detail About Biden's SCOTUS Pick Emerges

pjmedia.com

 

[Kinnakeet]

It seems like it wasn’t that long ago that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was hailed as a consensus nominee. But in the weeks since her nomination, it seems like all we are learning is troubling details about her record.

For example, last month, we learned that in 1996, Jackson wrote a “Note” for the Harvard Law Review arguing that convicted sex offenders were treated “unfairly” in the courts.

Did this not come up in her background check?

This week, another concerning detail has come to light: her past work representing terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay prison.

During closed-door meetings with Jackson, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) reportedly raised the issue and said it would likely come up during her hearing.

“We did talk … about her representation of Guantánamo Bay detainees. I expressed some concern about this,” Hawley said. According to The Hill, Hawley said that he thought her work representing Gitmo detainees while in private practice was “interesting” and “a little concerning.”

Another Disturbing Detail About Biden's SCOTUS Pick Emerges

pjmedia.com

Lets get this out there she is only where she is because her skin color is BLACK that is all and biden could care less about her and he probably never knew who she was until someone told him to appoint her that is all.

 

[Hijinx]

Lets get this out there she is only where she is because her skin color is BLACK that is all and biden could care less about her and he probably never knew who she was until someone told him to appoint her that is all.

Damn Jeff what do you expect to gain by putting the truth out there.?
Don't you know that in order to be a Biden selectee for any position you have to be Homosexual, Black or a woman? Preferably all 3 .

 

[herb749]

Democrats will never admit Biden is wrong, was wrong, etc .

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

A free diversity scholarship, turns into a diversity hire from the beginning, and so forth and so on.

 

[vraiblonde]

Lets get this out there she is only where she is because her skin color is BLACK that is all and biden could care less about her and he probably never knew who she was until someone told him to appoint her that is all.

Well, really, who are the Democrats going to tap? ALL their judges are psychotic Marxist activists.

 

[GURPS]

Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Championed Advocates Of Critical Race Theory In Lectures, Speeches​

Republicans, including Graham, expressed reservations about Jackson’s judicial philosophy at the time, and those reservations have only grown. Graham blasted Jackson’s nomination in February as a pick of the “radical Left,” though he has not yet said which way he intends to vote.

A review of a handful of Jackson’s lectures and speeches from the past seven years shows that the nominee has a strong appreciation for leading proponents of CRT, a progressive idea that holds in part: “racism is endemic to, rather than a deviation from, American norms,” legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw, who coined the term, wrote in 1989. While Jackson has avoided openly championing CRT, she has complimented its advocates and suggested that the progressive theory informs her legal analysis.

In October 2021, Jackson moderated a Harvard Alumni Association webinar with university President Larry Bacow. Jackson, as questioner for the first part of the webinar, at one point focused the discussion on the topic of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging,” an outgrowth of CRT scholarship.

 

[GURPS]

Biden SCOTUS Nominee ‘Has A Pattern Of Letting Child Porn Offenders Off The Hook’​

 

[GURPS]

Demand Justice Board Member Accuses Josh Hawley Of Trying To Get Biden SCOTUS Nominee Killed​

Hawley aired his concerns about Jackson in a Wednesday evening Twitter thread highlighting “an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

The senator claimed that as far back as during Jackson’s time in law school, the judge has questioned whether convicts should be made to register as sex offenders and said that it leads to “stigmatization and ostracism.”

“She’s suggested public policy is driven by a ‘climate of fear, hatred & revenge’ against sex offenders,” Hawley tweeted.

“It gets worse,” he warned. “As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson advocated for drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.”

According to the senator, Jackson has said that some people in possession of child pornography “are in this for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community.”

 

[GURPS]

‘Hackiest of the HACKS’​

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

‘I’m Not A Biologist’: Supreme Court Nominee Says She Can’t Define The Word ‘Woman’​

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.

“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not — in this context, I’m not a biologist,” Jackson laughed.

“So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn continued to press.

“Senator, in my works a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson pushed back, suggesting that she could only provide a decision based on arguments and the law. “If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide, so — I’m not —”

“The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn continued.

 

[GURPS]

 

[Hessian]

Bill Clinton struggled with defining "IS"...so is it any wonder that a Leftist woman cannot define "Woman?"

 

[SamSpade]

Bill Clinton struggled with defining "IS"...so is it any wonder that a Leftist woman cannot define "Woman?"

To be fair - I don’t think there’s a legal term for woman and it’s inappropriate to ask for her to answer in this context. I realize where they’re going with this, but when you’re being interviewed or scrutinized for SCOTUS, asking her to make a biological definition is the wrong place.

Perhaps at some point in the future SCOTUS will define it - doubtful despite arguments likely to come before it - but this is asking her to make a legal decision as a springboard into FURTHER issues.

 

[SamSpade]

By and large she is bright, articulate and impressive. She brings a real background rather than a strictly academic one. And despite what the Dems can always be counted upon to do, you don’t vote on someone based on your assessment of their politics. FWIW during Barrett’s time before these same guys it was expressed OPENLY that Democrats would vote her down on her political opinions.

MY issue arose during Cruz’s questioning. He began to ask about CRT and her first response was the typical left wing line that it is taught in law and graduate schools but not in lower grades - whereupon Cruz unleashed his research showing that the private school where she serves as a board member teaches it EXTENSIVELY at lower levels.

This after she also expressed how she opposed teaching children to think less of themselves and so forth.

Why does that bother me? Dishonesty. And it’s stupid because it’s not as though people wouldn’t find out. She THEN pulled the typical Dem stunt of claiming she MEANT no PUBLIC schools are teaching it even though there’s ample evidence they do.

THIS bothered me because up to that point I could easily get why she could answer as she did AND still be a great candidate for SCOTUS.

 

[black dog]

To be fair - I don’t think there’s a legal term for woman and it’s inappropriate to ask for her to answer in this context. I realize where they’re going with this, but when you’re being interviewed or scrutinized for SCOTUS, asking her to make a biological definition is the wrong place.

Perhaps at some point in the future SCOTUS will define it - doubtful despite arguments likely to come before it - but this is asking her to make a legal decision as a springboard into FURTHER issues.

I believe its a pretty simple question to ask and I believe it was easily appropriate.

Women have two X chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause. Female anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva. The adult female pelvis is wider, the hips broader, and the breasts larger than that of adult males. Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men.

We all know where that question was heading, she needs to answer that question.

 

[GURPS]

legal term for woman

Adult Human Female

 

[Hijinx]

She will be confirmed.

Republicans will vote for her confirmation.

Maybe not all but certainly the usual Democrat butt kissers.

 

[stgislander]

It's a forgone conclusion that she will be the next Justice. The Dems have the votes. The bench will still be 5-3-1 with her onboard.