Jackson as a devotee and admirer of Derrick Bell undoubtedly sees herself as a social reformer. Bell is the "Godfather" of Critical Race Theory. CRT says the law is based upon white supremacy. Society is unjust and racist at its core, so goes the theory, and therefore, the law is as well. It is not deserving of respect and deference, and ultimately, it must be overthrown.
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Trojan Horse
For crying out loud, it’s 2022 and, in the federal government women are still being promoted based on their looks rather than their qualifications for the job. And by POTUS no less! Well, Biden is just a derivative iteration of Harvey Weinstein.
Around twenty years ago, he twice participated in filibustering (Black, female) Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She finally was approved in 2005. Then, Biden advised President Bush that if he dared to nominate Brown to the Supreme Court, he would filibuster her again and prevail. At the same time, Democrats also filibustered a Hispanic male judge, two other female judges, and a male judge of Lebanese descent, among others. How very diverse, inclusive, and equitatious of them.
However, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson does have several attributes in common with the President. For one, she’s got a lousy memory. Indeed, it was Senator Cruz’s careful and repetitious questioning, that helped her to recall quite a few things about herself that she had previously forgotten. Such a lack of self-awareness from one who anticipates setting precedent is disturbing.
She did independently recall “staring at the image on the cover [of Derrick Bell’s book Faces At The Bottom Of The Well] when I was growing up.” She must have been a very late bloomer. That book was first published when she was a senior at Harvard.
Judge Brown is no scholar. She’s a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law, yet couldn’t recall the core arguments in the pivotal Dred Scott case. How does she expect to converse intelligently with thoroughly prepared lawyers regarding precedent and relevance in cases that will appear before her in the Supreme Court?
She was unable to respond intelligently regarding the near-total recidivism rates of pedophiles and sexual offenders. She’s overseen so many of these cases, yet is unfamiliar with the literature? Has she no curiosity regarding common subjects in her courtroom? Is she not driven to be the best possible judge she can be?
In common with the Vice President, she seems to have no familiarity, or, at least, no opinion on or understanding she was willing to state, with the visceral legal topics of our times. What is a woman? When does life begin? Her flip answers cause this author to wonder how shallow is her thinking?
Her understanding of constitutional principles is weak. And her language usage is sloppy and casual. Free speech is allowed? Allowed??? Free speech is. Period. It is Congress and, by extension the government, that is not allowed to interfere with the exercise of the unalienable right of citizens to freely speak and thus exercise the foundation of their liberty.
Judge Brown has been overturned enough times now to confirm that both her judgment and constitutional expertise are lacking. She is out of step with the common federal judiciary understanding of the law and its bases, precedents, and exceptions. Again, she’s not paying attention. And she’s certainly no RBG.
Image: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Twitter screen grab.
So, what is she doing being nominated to the highest court in the land? She wasn’t President Obama’s selectee when he had the chance to make history. But perhaps he didn’t want to seem race-obsessed. Oh, sorry, who am I kidding?
Judge Brown is a Trojan horse, set to spill out all the weaponry of the progressives into our court of final appeal should she be approved. She will be dogmatic and anti-rational. She will view everything through the lenses of power structure and victimhood. Her work on behalf of the very worst terrorists in the entire human population and her expressed sympathies with the most horrible destroyers of human dignity (pedophiles) already predict this.
She will not regard the law as founded in an objective, defined reality but will push for a fluidity of definition, subject to prevailing arguments. With her, the Constitution, law, customs, tradition, and precedent will lose all meaning. See her past deliberate setting aside of sentencing guidelines to know how she will continue.
Judge Brown will not be a seeker of the truth. Her obfuscations, voids, and outright falsehoods given before Congress attest to this. And what’s with the head-scratching? It’s a tell alright. I wouldn’t mind playing poker opposite her.
Besides the perennially contentious gun and abortion wars, we’ve got others rumbling toward SCOTUS. To name but a few:
- Gender inequity claims based on another’s deviance from chromosomal reality a la the Williams swimmer.
- Detransitioning lawsuits against medical establishments and practitioners for affirming, rather than impartially addressing, mental health and other medical claims made by adolescents.
- The role the state may play in the lives of children, via school, social work, and childcare, vs parental rights.
- Governmental action that results in loss of livelihood, business opportunity, and prosperity coming from COVID lockdowns, economic mandates like shutting down pipeline construction, and the failure to stop the burning of cities by looters and rioters.
- Defining “peaceably to assemble” to prosecute proper criminals and determine the government’s liability for having hunted down and incarcerated unjustifiably truly peaceful protestors.
- Covert actions by the alphabet agencies domestically against citizens.
- Collectivism via emergency declarations versus individual rights and states’ rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Some of these may not arise under Biden but you can bet your sweet bippy they will under the next president. Judge Brown, if approved, will be poised to poison the arguments and written decisions of one of the most powerful small groups on earth.
Senators, do not be deluded, cowed, humiliated, or threatened into approving her nomination now, just because she was previously approved for a federal judgeship. She’s had a chance to prove herself in such a position. Given that chance, though, she failed and, perhaps under another administration, would be subject to censure or impeachment. Good sense, courage, and strength demand a Nay vote on her appointment.
Brown Jackson is intellectually lazy and careless. She’s a thoroughly committed leftist Progressive. She’s the last type of judge we need on the Supreme Court.
Anony Mee is the nom de blog of a retired public servant. She gives a hat tip to her dear friend Anne for the reference.
Ketanji Brown Jackson should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court
As an American of African descent and a great-grandson of slaves, I am certainly not opposed to the appointment of a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. However, I am categorically against confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson to that post. One day, a woman of her background will sit on the highest court, but Jackson should not be the person to break that glass ceiling. Here is why.
She is an adherent of the far left. Some Republican senators are willing to overlook this. They are treating her confirmation as a fait accompli. They would rather not go on record against the "first black woman" nominated to the Court. This is the kind of political expediency that has brought our country to the precipice.
Supreme Court decisions not only change the legal landscape. They can alter the culture in destructive ways. Roe v. Wade was a cultural earthquake that led to the elimination of over 60 million nascent human beings. Almost fifty years later, a majority of Americans believe that it was not only bad law, but evil. Social upheaval ensues when Supreme Court Justices think they have the authority to make sweeping cultural changes by diktat.
Jackson as a devotee and admirer of Derrick Bell undoubtedly sees herself as a social reformer. Bell is the "Godfather" of Critical Race Theory. CRT says the law is based upon white supremacy. Society is unjust and racist at its core, so goes the theory, and therefore, the law is as well. It is not deserving of respect and deference, and ultimately, it must be overthrown.
Putting someone of this perspective on the Court is injecting poison into the heart of the American legal system. She could be on the Supreme Court for thirty years, doing immense damage to our country.
There is also the issue raised by Senator Josh Hawley. He has found in Jackson's record a bizarre judicial sympathy for the users of child pornography, reducing their sentences below the recommended guidelines. In one transcript shared by Senator Hawley, Jackson opines:
I'm wondering whether you could say that there is a, that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level[.]
She also says she "mistakenly assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles."
Yet according to distinguished professor Matt Delisi, in a University of Iowa study in 2020:
So many times, a child porn possession case will have no official criminal history[.] ... What we find, though, is that the majority of them have prior contact victims. [N]ot only do they have actual prior crimes, but they have actual prior contact sexual offenses.
So much for Jackson's "less serious child pornography offender."
None other than renowned former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has come to Jackson's defense in an article in National Review. He argues that Judge Jackson is simply doing what many judges do — distinguishing between the evil producer and often naïve end-user. I find this argument unpersuasive and disturbing.
McCarthy writes:
"Sex offenders" include people who have never put a hand on a child for sexual purposes but are consumers of pornographic images, which they possess, transmit, or trade — sometimes for money but often not.
That sounds alarmingly similar to articles I have read in Salon and other leftist publications that suggest we should destigmatize "non-contact" pedophiles as just another sexual orientation. After all, they argue, there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to children if you don't act on it. Most of us would beg to differ.
Finally, there is this. Judge Jackson refuses to offer an opinion on packing the Court or to even define what a woman is, claiming, "I am not a biologist." Failing to answer these questions proves that she bows to her far-left Arabella funders and Democrat masters and therefore lacks the essential quality of judicial independence.
At some point, the competence and character of a candidate for the bench must be the only considerations for confirmation. If that were the case here, Judge Jackson would not be confirmed. It is up to the American people to demand a colorblind society instead the racial tribalism of the left that threatens to destroy the integrity of every institution of cultural and legal influence, including the United States Supreme Court.
E.W. Jackson is a retired attorney and graduate of Harvard Law School. He is a former Virginia candidate for U.S. Senate and Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. He is founder and president of STAND — Staying True to America's National Destiny, pastor of the Called Church and host of The Awakening on American Family Radio.
Child Porn Offender Ketanji Brown Jackson Sentenced to Just 3 Months Continued Searching for Photos of Children
One of the numerous child porn offenders who received a lenient sentence from President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson continued to seek out “sexually arousing” images of young children after his three-month stint in prison.
Jackson’s sentencing in United States v. Hawkins was at the forefront of her confirmation hearings after Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) exposed Jackson’s pattern of sentencing child sex offenders to lower than what the federal sentencing guidelines recommend.
Hawley tweeted:
In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18. The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison. Three months.
After Hawley questioned Jackson about her remarks in the case and if she regretted handing down a lenient sentence, the Washington Post reported that the defendant in the case continued seeking out “sexually arousing” images of young children.
According to the Washington Post:
A person familiar with the Hawkins case read to The Post the probation office request that led to Jackson’s order. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to publicly discuss it.
The probation office petition did not allege that Hawkins committed any new sexual offense or violation of conditions. However, it stated that “despite being in treatment for more than five years,” Hawkins “continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.”
Wesley Hawkins was 18 in 2012 when he uploaded videos of young boys engaged in sex acts to YouTube and exchanged the videos with an undercover detective. Federal authorities then executed a search warrant and found more than 30 sexually explicit pictures and videos of young boys on his computer and phone.
Despite the fact that sentencing guidelines call for an eight to ten-year sentence in this case and the prosecutor recommended a two-year sentence, Jackson sentenced Hawkins to a mere three months in prison. Jackson also sentenced Hawkins to three months home detention and six years of supervision.
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson arrives for the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, March 22, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
This was a “just sentence,” according to Jackson. The Washington Post reported:
At Hawkins’s November 2013 sentencing she cast the challenge as finding a “just sentence” — “One that allows you, Mr. Hawkins, to spend enough time in prison to understand and appreciate the consequences of your actions … but not so long that you will be subjected to harm in prison or introduced to incorrigible influences such that you are lost to society forever.”
Jackson reportedly gave weight to the age of Hawkins and that of the young children found in his files when sentencing him to only three months in prison. Jackson told Hawkins, an 18-year-old interested in children as young as 11 years old, he was “fascinated by sexual images involving what were essentially your peers.”
Jackson also considered the amount of time Hawkins collected explicit images of young children in her decision. Jackson justified her light sentence because he was “only involved in this for a few months.”
As a result, Jackson rejected enhancements that would have extended Hawkins’s prison sentence. Hawley called Jackson’s sentence in United States v. Hawkins a “slap on the wrist” during her confirmation hearings.
During the confirmation hearings, Jackson claimed she did not remember whether Hawkins committed an additional sex offense after Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) cited a 2019 court order Jackson issued requiring Hawkins to complete the final six months of his supervision in a halfway house.
Cotton did not believe Jackson’s apparent lapse in memory. “You’ve been asked about it probably more than any other case you’ve had,” Cotton told Jackson. “You know what I think? I think he got caught with child pornography again, and he wouldn’t have if he had been in prison the eight to 10 years the guidelines called for.”
