Biden selects Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court nomination, reports

[Geee]

Just the News

President Biden on Friday announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his Supreme Court nominee to fill the space being vacated by retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.

 

“She strives to be fair, to get it right, to do justice,” the president said in introducing Jackson in a White House ceremony.

Jackson, 51, sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and if confirmed by the Senate would become the first black female justice appointed to the nine-member high court.

"If I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court United States, I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution, and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans," Jackson said in accepting the nomination, according to the Associated Press.

[Valin]

1 hour ago, Geee said:

Just the News

“She strives to be fair, to get it right, to do justice,” the president said in introducing Jackson in a White House ceremony.

 

 

Why do I get the feeling everything about that statement is.....dubious.

[Valin]

The Nation

Biden Has Chosen Ketanji Brown Jackson for a Reason

Yes, Jackson’s nomination fulfills a historic promise. She’s also a legal superstar who’s long been considered a top contender for the court.

Elie Mystal

Feb. 25 2022

Joe Biden has chosen Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson will be the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, only the fourth person of color, and the sixth woman among the 115 justices who’ve served throughout US history.

(Snip)

Jackson will be attacked by the worst white people this country has to offer. J.D. Vance will feel threatened and worry that “hillbillies” with Yale Law degrees and venture-capital backing are being left behind. The Georgetown Constitutional Law Center will hold a symposium extolling the virtue of judicial eugenics. Tucker Carlson will warn that Black people mean to make slavery unconstitutional, then claim to have been joking when someone informs him that it’s unconstitutional already.

(Snip)

If you are a person of color or a white progressive who understands that a principal failure of justice in this country is the disparate penalties imposed on white and Black defendants, then you should know that there are few Supreme Court candidates with a better track record on this stuff than Jackson. She was doing this work long before it was politically advantageous to do so. Moreover, if you are a “libertarian” who professes to find comity with the left when it comes to nonviolent drug offenses, it will again be hard to find a judicial candidate better positioned on that issue than Judge Jackson.

Not that I expect Jackson to receive a ton of conservative support. White conservatives will make ugly and baseless attacks on her credentials and intelligence, and throw around whatever other muck passes for legal analysis on white-wing television these days. But make no mistake, the reason conservatives will be against Jackson (beyond their racism) is her rulings against the Trump administration and in favor of democratic self-government.

(Snip)

[Geee]

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, a politician in robes

The selection of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court was widely expected. From the start of his administration, Joe Biden has made it clear that his top priority is paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network that spent over one billion dollars to help elect him and Senate Democrats.

These Arabella-advised groups seek nothing less than the appointment of politicians in robes who will rubber stamp their left-wing political agendas from the bench.

[Geee]

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, a politician in robes

The selection of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court was widely expected. From the start of his administration, Joe Biden has made it clear that his top priority is paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network that spent over one billion dollars to help elect him and Senate Democrats.

These Arabella-advised groups seek nothing less than the appointment of politicians in robes who will rubber stamp their left-wing political agendas from the bench.

[Geee]

Race Shouldn’t Be Sole Basis for Nominating a Supreme Court Justice, Ben Carson Says

ORLANDO, Fla.—Former presidential candidate and celebrated neurosurgeon Ben Carson says he is disappointed with how President Joe Biden selected Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“When we start making the criteria for public positions something that people have no control over—they have no control over their race … it goes against all the work, the blood that has been shed by people who are trying to achieve equality, who are advocating, people like Dr. Martin Luther King,” Carson told The Daily Signal in an interview Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

Two years ago, during his presidential campaign, Biden promised that if given the opportunity, he would appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. 

Earlier Friday, the president nominated Jackson, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 

 

Carson, without commenting on Jackson’s qualifications, said it is troubling to see a president nominate someone based upon his or her race.

“People will assume that she got the position because of her color and not because of her qualifications,” Carson told The Daily Signal. “That may not be the case, but that will be a natural assumption.” :snip:

[Geee]

Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Faces Array of Ethics Questions

Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will face ethics questions about her ties to left-wing public relations professionals, and a conflict of interest that could trigger her recusal from a landmark affirmative action case.

Jackson, whom President Joe Biden nominated Friday, has come under fire following a report that she retained PR gurus with deep ties in Democratic politics to assist with her prospective nomination. And Jackson's service on one of Harvard University's governing boards will prompt questions as to recusing herself from a lawsuit accusing the university of bias against Asians in admissions, which the High Court will hear this fall.

[Valin]

Biden SCOTUS nominee went beyond call of duty to defend terror suspects

Ketanji Brown Jackson's defense of Gitmo detainees and criticism of U.S. government likely to be spotlighted in confirmation process.

Aaron Kliegman

February 25, 2022

President Biden's nominee for the Supreme Court represented suspected terrorists when she was a federal public defender, going well beyond a bare-bones defense to lambaste the U.S. government for some if its counterterrorism policies and broader approach to the War on Terror.

(Snip)

However, in the Gul case, Jackson went beyond simply defending her client against terrorism charges and attacked the conduct of the U.S. government, accusing it of torturing prisoners while condemning the George W. Bush administration's War on Terror policies.

For example, Jackson claimed Gul was treated inhumanely at Guantanamo, arguing the military treated Guantanamo detainees the same as prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. government personnel abused and humiliated some of the inmates.

"Many of the most egregious interrogation techniques used in the Abu Ghraib detention center and other detention facilities in Iraq — such as the use of aggressive dogs to intimidate detainees, sexual humiliation, stress positions, and sensory deprivation — were pioneered at Guantanamo," Jackson wrote in a petition she filed in 2005 on Gul's behalf.

(Snip)

Jackson and two other lawyers filed an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal judges who backed the Guantanamo prisoners. In the brief, Jackson argued that some decisions to detain individuals were based on statements extracted under torture and that efforts by the U.S. government to review these decisions weren't sufficient to stop the problem.

If Jackson is confirmed, said Burlingame, "she'd be sitting on the highest court in the land after advocating in an amicus brief to overturn [centuries] of Anglo-American jurisprudence" by trying foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield under the "gold standard of justice: federal courts."

(Snip)

---------------------------------------------

I've got a Real Bad Feeling about her.

[Geee]

A public defender has never served on Supreme Court. Jackson would be first.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., made history today by becoming the first Black woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If confirmed she would replace Justice Stephen Breyer, whom she clerked for over 20 years ago. Justice Breyer has said he will retire when the court’s current term ends this summer.

Besides expanding the racial and gender diversity of the Supreme Court – she would become the fourth female member of the nine-person court, and its third person of color – she would also bring rare experiential diversity. She would be the first justice ever to have served as a public defender. The last justice with experience representing criminal defendants was Thurgood Marshall, the trailblazing former NAACP lawyer, who retired in 1991. Judge Jackson would also follow in Justice Breyer’s footsteps as a justice who previously served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

[Geee]

Wink-and-a-nod nomination: Who really is Ketanji Brown Jackson? - Jonathan Turley

For many liberal groups, Ketanji Brown Jackson is a supreme “deliverable” by President Biden. Activist groups have pushed her nomination to the Supreme Court while opposing the consideration of fellow short-lister District Judge J. Michelle Childs. These groups clearly did not like Childs and her more moderate take on legal issues. Yet the interesting question is, what did they see in Judge Jackson that made her the preferred choice? It seems to be widely understood but barely discussed.

Jackson received a rather unenviable start to her nomination. Without any real pressure on timing, the White House announced its selection of the D.C. circuit judge even as Ukrainians were fighting street by street for their freedom. The "now for something completely different" moment was quickly overshadowed by images of the agony abroad.

That decision follows Biden's unnecessary, unprecedented pledge to consider only Black females for a vacancy on the court — the very type of threshold criteria that the court has declared unconstitutional or unlawful for schools or businesses. (Jackson herself previously rejected Biden's premise for imposing his threshold racial and gender exclusion, stating during her appellate confirmation hearing that “I don’t think that race plays a role in the kind of judge that I have been and would be.”)

 

With a sterling academic and professional resume, she deserved a much better framing and timing for her nomination.

Jackson always has been the front-runner in this process. Activist groups such as Demand Justice, which has led efforts to pack the court and to hound Justice Stephen Breyer into retiring, pushed her nomination while opposing Judge Childs, whom they considered too moderate and tough on crime. This concerted opposition campaign, which included the Our Revolution group aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), painted Childs as anti-union and pro-employer too.

[Valin]

Sen. Hawley warns of Biden SCOTUS pick's 'long record' of letting child porn offenders 'off the hook'

Mar. 16 2022

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley posted a lengthy Twitter thread Wednesday containing several examples that he says demonstrates an "alarming" pattern of lenient treatment of sex offenders who prey on children from Biden Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker," the Missouri Republican tweeted Wednesday. "She’s been advocating for it since law school. This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children."

Quote

Josh Hawley

@HawleyMO

 

I’ve been researching the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions, articles, interviews & speeches. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children

 

5:23 PM · Mar 16, 2022

 

(Snip)

Josh Hawley

@HawleyMO

 

As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders - saying it leads to “stigmatization and ostracism.” She’s suggested public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred & revenge” against sex offenders

 

5:23 PM · Mar 16, 2022

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Why Are Liberals So Psychologically Needy and Inauthentic?

Steven Hayward

Mar. 18 2022

There is a strange pattern among liberals: over and over again they seem compelled for some strange reason to embellish their personal stories with exaggerations and falsehoods, apparently in an effort to make themselves seem more authentic. Like Hillary Clinton claiming she had been named for British mountaineer Edmund Hillary after his conquest of Mt. Everest, even though that event occurred after Hillary was born. Or claiming that she landed “under fire” in Bosnia. Or Bill Clinton claiming first-hand recollections of fires at black churches when he was growing up in Arkansas, when a check of the historical record finds there were none during the time period he claimed. Or NBC’s Brian Williams. About Al Gore’s serial exaggerations an entire book could be written, and Joe Biden’s falsehoods would require several volumes, with a separate appendix for his plagiarisms.

The latest such example is President Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Turns out she’s a fan of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project, and I certainly hope she is asked in detail about these views in her confirmation hearings.

Never mind the issues of her views on CRT for the moment. Two years ago she gave a lecture embracing CRT at the University of Michigan Law School, which includes a curious detail in this passage:

Quote

Dr. Janet Bell’s late husband, Professor Derrick Bell, who was a civil rights lawyer and the first tenured African-American professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life that he entitled “Faces At the Bottom of the Well.”  My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person, who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech, because, before the civil rights gains of the 1960s, black women were the quintessential faces at the bottom of the well of American society, given their existence at the intersection of race and gender — both of which were highly disfavored characteristics.

The boldfaced passages are the odd part. Bell’s Faces at the Bottom of the Well was published in 1992, when Judge Jackson was 22, when she was working at Time magazine. It is impossible that her parents had the book on their coffee table “when I was growing up,” unless she was still “growing up” at age 22. It is also impossible that she “thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years” when the book is only 30 years old today. Judge Jackson is 51 years old; the math doesn’t add up here.  Judge Jackson even notes the book was written “in the early 1990s,” yet somehow this basic chronology doesn’t interfere with her subsequent claims in the same paragraph.

(Snip)

[Valin]

What Happened When Jackson Went Easy on This Sex Offender

[Valin]

McConnell on SCOTUS nominee: She won't answer this one basic question...

Karen Townsend

Mar 20, 2022

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) when her nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came before the Senate in 2021. It’s not looking good for a yes vote from him as she hopes to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Senate begins confirmation hearings this week.

McConnell appeared on Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS. Host Margaret Brennan doggedly tried to get him to say if he will vote for KBJ. (Note that like other females up for a seat on the Supreme Court, her three names are shortened to initials. The same happened with Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) and Amy Coney Barrett (ACB). Anyway, McConnell didn’t back down and didn’t deny that he has some serious doubts about her. He reminded viewers that he didn’t vote to confirm KBJ for her current job and said he will wait until she answers questions in her Senate confirmation hearings. That is how it should be, of course, yet Brennan persisted. McConnell tipped his hand a little as he said that during the traditional introductory meeting with her in his office, she refused to say if she supports packing the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices. He asked, he said, because both RBG and Justice Breyer, who provides the open seat with his retirement, gave their opinions on the subject. Both answered that they do not support expanding the Supreme Court.

(Snip)

[Geee]

SCOTUS nominee Jackson argued Critical Race Theory should be considered during sentencing

[Valin]

You're Gonna Love This.

Politico

Blackburn to Jackson: Can you define ‘the word woman’?

Myah Ward

Mar. 22 2022

As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.”

“I can’t — ” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn said.

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

“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked.

(Snip)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mar. 23 2022

During her questioning yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked Jackson to define the word "woman," which Jackson said she couldn't because, "I’m not a biologist."

[Geee]

14 minutes ago, Valin said:

You're Gonna Love This.

Politico

Blackburn to Jackson: Can you define ‘the word woman’?

Myah Ward

Mar. 22 2022

As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.”

“I can’t — ” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn said.

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

“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked.

(Snip)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mar. 23 2022

During her questioning yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked Jackson to define the word "woman," which Jackson said she couldn't because, "I’m not a biologist."

[Valin]

@Geee

What we need to understand is ever since the Bork confirmation hearing the goal of these hearings is NOT to elicit information to help a senator vote, but to say as little as possible about what they think or their views on Anything. This is true for All confirmation hearing no matter the party. The goal of the questioner (from the other party) is to play Gotcha. to make the person up for confirmation look as bad as possible

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

"Let me see if I have this straight: We’re all for “women’s rights” around the world, but ordinary people can’t tell what a woman is? We need specialized experts to identify “women”? Oh-kay."

Steven Hayward

[Geee]

1 hour ago, Valin said:

"Let me see if I have this straight: We’re all for “women’s rights” around the world, but ordinary people can’t tell what a woman is? We need specialized experts to identify “women”? Oh-kay."

Well, with all the BS going on in womens sports its no wonder.

[Valin]

7 minutes ago, Geee said:

Well, with all the BS going on in womens sports its no wonder.

What BS?

[Valin]

SENATOR KENNEDY STUMPS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WITH ONE QUESTION:

“When does life begin, in your opinion,” Senator Kennedy asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for starters.

“Senator… um… I don’t… know,” Judge Jackson replied, followed by an uneasy, awkward laugh.

“Do you have a belief?” Kennedy pressed.

“I have, um, personal religious and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law in terms of when life begins,” Jackson responded.

“Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Kennedy probed.

“I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” Jackson evaded again.

Senator Kennedy pushed further on the point, asking Judge Jackson an important follow-up, “When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?”

“Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” Judge Jackson responded, again with an ill-timed grin on her face as her initially confident answer turned to another know-nothing response.

[Valin]

 

[Geee]

Ketanji Brown Jackson getting the respect that Amy Coney Barrett was denied -Jonathan Turley

 

The famous "gonzo journalist" Hunter S. Thompson once said, "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." The confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is about to vividly show what Thompson meant. Less than two years after the abusive treatment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Senate is holding a hearing that is dramatically different in the treatment of the Supreme Court nominee and the issues considered relevant to her confirmation.

For those with memories going back to 2020, there have been striking differences in how the news media haved covered Jackson's nomination in recent weeks. When Barrett was nominated, the media ran unrelenting attacks on her and her background. Nothing was viewed as out of bounds, from her religion to her personal life to fabricated theories of prior assurances on pending cases.