Today's Daily Spotlight: What we've learned during Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings so far
She was asked questions about controversial topics ranging from abortion to adding seats to the Supreme Court.
What We Learned During Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings What We Learned During Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings By March 23, 2022 8:08 PM EDT T Ketanji Brown Jackson were marked by tense exchanges between Senators, the airing of grievances over confirmations past, and inflammatory descriptions of gruesome child porn cases that Jackson once ruled on.March 22, 2022 9:01 PM EDT K second day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings lasted more than 12 hours.Biden Seeks New Sanctions, Help for Ukrainians in Europe President Joe Biden chose Jackson in February, fulfilling a campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court for the first time in American history.Republicans also made sure to center themselves, by calling back to current justice Brett Kavanaugh’s contentious 2018 hearings and “assuring” Brown Jackson that she wouldn’t get the same treatment.
But they also illuminated new insights into Judge Jackson’s record, decision-making process, and approach to her work.Jackson, currently a judge on the D.C.C.Barring unexpected developments, Democrats who control the Senate by the slimmest of margins hope to wrap up Jackson’s confirmation before Easter, though Breyer is not leaving until the current session ends this summer.Circuit, has a unique professional history—she’s the first former federal public defender to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.The severity of the GOP criticisms varied widely, ranging from questions about amicus briefs Jackson worked on in Guantanamo Bay Supreme Court cases to incendiary remarks about sentences she issued to people found guilty of gruesome child porn offenses.If confirmed, she would be the only justice besides Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the high court with actual trial experience.Using a Black woman’s confirmation hearing as an opportunity to martyrise a white man accused of sexual assault is objectively horrible.
She served four years as the vice chair of the bipartisan Sentencing Commission, when it waded into controversial issues like the difficult topic of child porn sentencing.Democrats control the 50-50 Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie.Democrats have been full of praise for Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, noting that she would not only be the first Black woman but also the first public defender on the court, and the first with experience representing indigent criminal defendants since Marshall.Each of these professional experiences were aggressively probed during Jackson’s over 22 hours of questioning, as Republicans sought to suggest she is weak on crime.Jackson strongly refuted the characterization, often referencing the members of her family in the audience who had served in law enforcement.Since Republicans have little recourse to stop Jackson’s confirmation, NYU law professor Melissa Murray says that she views the “soft on crime” attacks through a political lens.She also debated with lawmakers over whether she has a “judicial philosophy,” and was asked questions about controversial topics ranging from abortion to adding seats to the Supreme Court.facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.Here’s what we learned from Jackson’s confirmation hearings.“Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearings have merely provided a forum for this form of political theater.Still, the hearings are just one small part of this.
She’ll recuse herself from the upcoming affirmative action case Jackson told Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz that were she confirmed to the Supreme Court, she would recuse herself from the case it is set to hear next term that could determine the future of affirmative action in higher education.The case alleges Harvard University’s admissions process discriminates against Asian American applicants, and Jackson sits on the Board of Overseers of the school.” But he also adds that “it aligns with Republicans’ message for the midterms, which is [that] Democrats have created a crime crisis, causing Americans to feel less safe.Picking up on a thread started by Sen.“That is my plan, senator,” Jackson said when Cruz asked if she intended to recuse herself.She views Roe v.” Jackson responded that the issue is not something judges should weigh in on, as it’s a matter of policy.Wade as settled law Jackson was repeatedly asked about abortion by Senators on both sides of the aisle.In most of those cases, prosecutors or others representing the Justice Department generally argued for sentences that were lighter than those recommended by federal guidelines.
Jackson said she believes a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy protected by 1973’s landmark decision Roe v.Numerous Democratic Senators cited her endorsements from the National Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.Wade is “the settled law of the Supreme Court.” The Supreme Court may decide the fate of Roe in the coming months—before Jackson would take the bench—after hearing a major challenge to the decision this term in.” “I know what it’s like to have loved ones who go off to protect and to serve and the fear of not knowing whether or not they’re going to come home again because of crime in the community.“A judge is looking at all of these different factors.Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, asked Jackson if she views Roe v.Wade as being a “super precedent,” meaning a decision that American society had significantly relied upon for a long period of time.C.
“All Supreme Court cases are precedential, they’re binding and their principles and their rulings have to be followed,” Jackson said., are potential 2024 presidential candidates, and their rounds of questioning were some of the most combative, hitting on issues that are popular with the GOP base.“ Roe and Casey , as you say, have been reaffirmed by the court and have been relied upon.During his questioning, Hawley read graphic accounts of particular cases, including a 2013 case in which Jackson sentenced an 18-year-old defendant to three months in prison for sharing images of child sexual abuse.And reliance is one of the factors that the court considers when it seeks to revisit or when it’s asked to revisit a precedent.” Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, also asked about the possibility of Roe being overturned, asking: “Do you commit to respecting the court’s decision if it rules that Roe “Whatever the Supreme Court decides in Dobbs will be the president of the Supreme Court,” Jackson responded.Jackson said the facts of the case were “heinous” and “egregious,” and that she believes she appropriately used her discretion as a judge to consider other factors in her sentencing.The Texas senator also questioned her about her daughter's private school in Washington, where she sits on the board, bringing up a book called “Antiracist Baby" that he said was taught to younger children at the school.“It will be worthy of respect in the sense that it is the precedent, and I commit to treating it as I would any other precedent.
” Blackburn also pushed Jackson on her personal views on abortion, asking the judge about a 2001 amicus brief she co-wrote while working at the law firm Goodwin Procter on behalf of reproductive rights groups supporting a law in Massachusetts that created a “buffer zone” around people approaching abortion clinics where abortion opponents could not protest.“[You’re] questioning whether or not I take [these cases] seriously or I have some reason to handle them in either a different way than my peers or a different than other cases,” Jackson said.Blackburn asked Jackson about language in the brief that said: “Few American citizens who seek to exercise constitutionally protected rights must run a gauntlet through a hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters.She said no children should be made to feel they are racists, victims or oppressors.” “When you go to church and knowing there are pro-life women there, do you look at them, thinking of them in that way?” Blackburn asked.” Hawley told the judge in response that he was “questioning [her] discretion and judgment.“Senator, that was a statement in a brief made in argument for my client,” Jackson responded.“It’s not the way that I think of or characterize people.“The way that the guideline is now structured, it’s leading to extreme disparities in the system.“Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy.
” She says she has a judicial “methodology” Senator’s on both sides of the aisle pressed Jackson on her judicial philosophy, which she characterized as a “judicial methodology.” She laid out a three-step process she follows for interpreting the law to insure she is impartial and “adhering to the limits” of her “judicial authority.Jackson was also repeatedly asked about her work involving Guantanamo Bay detainees, both when she worked as a federal defender representing detainees’ request for habeas review and when she worked in private practice co-writing amicus briefs on behalf of clients in Supreme Court cases involving the military prison.” First, Jackson said, she makes sure she’s proceeding from a position of neutrality.Near the end of the day, Sen.Second, she makes sure she’s evaluating the facts and necessary material.Graham and Democratic Illinois Senator Dick Durbin then clashed in a particularly tense moment, when Durbin mentioned that each Guantanamo detainee “is being held at the expense of $12 or $13 million per year.Then, she interprets and applies the law to the facts in the case.
Multiple Republican Senators pushed Jackson on the answer, saying she did not properly explain how she would approach interpreting the Constitution.“As long as they’re dangerous, I hope they all die in jail if they’re going to go back to kill Americans.She told him that she didn’t know, and added, without elaborating, “I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases.When asked by Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska which Supreme Court justice she most closely resembles, Jackson said she doesn’t have a justice she’s “molded” herself after.“What I have is a record,” she said.Jackson rarely shared her personal opinion on any issue, typically couching her answer on any given topic in how it’s codified in law or established in judicial precedent.“I have 570-plus cases in which I have employed the methodology that I’ve described and that shows people how I analyze cases.” Sasse expressed exasperation at this answer.“In my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court,” Jackson told the committee.
“It still appears to me that there’s a very basic difference between a judicial philosophy and judicial methodology,” he said.Jackson disagreed, telling Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa: “The philosophy is my methodology,” she said.“It is a philosophy that I have developed from practice.” “Unlike some judges who come to appellate work from academia and who have some overarching theory of the law, I approach cases from experience, from practice and consistent with my constitutional obligations,” she continued.She thinks dissent can be a powerful tool If Jackson is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she’s expected to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat in the liberal minority of the 6-3 bench.
When pressed by Democratic Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar on what she views as the purpose of dissent, Jackson said there have been many justices in history that have used the “dissent mechanism” to describe their views in ways that “become persuasive to others in the future.” She referenced Justice John Marshall Harlan, whose lone dissent in Plessy v.Ferguson , which legalized segregation, became the “blueprint” for Justice Thurgood Marshall to make arguments to overturn Plessy Brown v.the Board of Education.She thinks there are disparities in child porn sentencing guidelines Multiple GOP Senators brought up the thorny topic of effective sentencing guidelines for child pornography offenders, in light of sentencing decisions Jackson had made earlier in her career.
Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, accused Jackson of issuing shorter sentences to child porn offenders than those outlined in federal guidelines.The White House called Hawley’s allegation a “weak, QAnon-signaling smear.” The American legal community has long debated whether the federal guidelines for child porn offenders are mismatched for the age of the internet, given the severity of sentences are based on the volume of material an offender possesses.The advent of the internet fundamentally changed how, how much, and how easily such material can be obtained.In 2005, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue, deciding that sentencing requirements for child porn cases were now advisory—meaning the sentence would be up to the discretion of the judge.
Jackson said that she always strove to appropriately use her discretion as a judge in child porn cases to weigh guidelines established by Congress along with other factors.“The point of the guidelines is to assist judges in determining what punishment to provide in cases,” Jackson argued.“And they are horrible cases, but the idea is that between the range of punishment that Congress has prescribed, judges are supposed to be providing proportional punishment based on what a person has done.” On the second day of questioning, Jackson spoke about the way the internet has changed child porn sentencing, telling Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, that “you can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison.” Graham interrupted and said: “Good, absolutely good.
” Jackson responded that “our sentencing system that Congress created… is a rational one.It is designed to help judges do justice in terrible circumstances by eliminating unwarranted disparities, by ensuring that the most serious defendants get the longest periods of time.” The focus from GOP lawmakers on her child porn sentencing record seemed to frustrate Jackson by the second day of hearings, and she told Graham that she regrets that in “a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we have spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences.” She declined to weigh in on the ‘shadow docket’ or court expansion Jackson declined to weigh in on questions about controversial proposed reforms to the high court.Klobuchar asked Jackson about the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket”—the court’s use of emergency orders and summary decisions to rule on cases without oral arguments.
Some progressive groups have called for a reform of the high court’s emergency docket, arguing it allows for an abuse of power.Klobuchar asked Jackson when she felt it would be appropriate to use the shadow docket.Jackson responded that deciding when to use emergency powers is “a balance the court has to consider.” “On the one hand, it has always had an emergency docket; the need for flexibility, the ability to get answers to the party at issue is something that is important in our system,” Jackson said.But she added that she is not “privy at the moment to the justices’ views on why and how they’re using the emergency docket,” and said that if she were confirmed she would look into the issue.
Jackson was also pressed on her thoughts on progressive proposals to expand the size of the Supreme Court, which GOP lawmakers argued would threaten the court’s legitimacy.“In my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee to the Supreme Court,” Jackson said.She said she wasn’t a ‘judicial activist’ against Donald Trump Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat from Georgia, asked Jackson about her 2019 ruling in which she ruled that former President Donald Trump could not prevent White House counsel Don McGahn from responding to a legislative subpoena on the grounds of absolute immunity.“Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote in the decision.“What does that mean?” Ossoff asked the judge Wednesday morning.
“Our constitutional scheme—the design of our government—is erected to prevent tyranny,” she responded.Hours later, Graham brought up another 2019 ruling in which Jackson temporarily blocked Trump’s attempt to fast-track deportations of people in the country illegally, which was later overturned by the D.C.Circuit Court.In a heated exchange in which Graham repeatedly interrupted the judge, Graham told her: “You reached a conclusion because you disagreed with the Trump Administration… That, to me, is Exhibit A of activism.
” Jackson disagreed, saying that Congress gave the Department of Justice the authority to determine what length of time a person needs to be in the country illegally before they were deported—not to “deport everyone.” He responded “that argument fell on deaf ears,” meaning that her decision was overturned by the D.C.Circuit Court.“Understood,” she said.
“That’s our appellate process.” More Must-Read Stories From TIME Moldovans Fear They’ll Be Putin’s Next Target..
Here’s the difference…Kavenaugh had assault charges levied against him during his hearing, while Graham used that as some justification to assault Jackson during hers. You railed against her. You going to vote for her? Skyebright8 Embarrassing. That had nothing to do with Ketanji Brown Jackson. Disgraceful behaviour from Graham. Hard to put into words how abhorrent the behavior of many of the GOP senators was.
Would you call this a question to ask on a job interview? He is not qualified to speak! Lindseybis such a theatrical Queen playing to his base and Fuhrer . We all get it Lindsey. I’ll send you some shoe polish for your Fuhers’ boots. The petulance is off the charts here. When he's finally forced to shut his trap for more than 30 seconds he either glowers and twitches, shuffles papers and stares at nothing on the desk (just SO busy) or goes the full dramatic sigh and headshake. He's so immature it hurts.
Did Lady Graham get her feelings hurt 😢 Lindsay has crashed & burned from any Good on which he ever stood. He couldn’t control himself for THREE minutes while the Supreme Court nominee attempted to answer his ONE question, he interrupting her not once but twice & both times with this outrageous bellowing.
Republicans Accuse Ketanji Brown Jackson of Being Weak on CrimeOn day two of hearings, Republicans accuse Ketanji Brown Jackson of being weak on crime … They will find something anything to try and discredit her Cancels subscription
Why would South Carolina send this clown back to the Senate? Why? 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭🙄😒🏴🇨🇦🇺🇦 I Think Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Is Real Killers Of The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills The same anti-Palestinian racist and supporter of Apartheid Israel illegal occupation making fool of himself.
It's sad when one holds on to anger....and let it go on an innocent human that had no ties to the event one is still mad about.... Wow are the men or boys... No thank you Lindsey, did someone come forward in Judge Jackson's hearing and accuse her of sexual harassment? I must have missed that part of the proceedings.
I can still hear Kavanaugh's shrill voice; his out of control behavior. Perfect for the Court! When your party nominates Donald Trump for the presidency, you have absolutely no grounds for complaining about the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh by the Senate Judiciary committee - absolutely done, whatsoever. Lindsey's complaint is preposterous.
Defending Her Record, Jackson Back for 3rd Day of HearingsSupreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is returning to the Senate for a third day of hearings
Democrats have proven since Bork, THEY HAVE NO SHAME!!! LindseyGrahamSC SPOT ON!!! Democrats have a Double Standard. I wrote something to raise funds to fight an adversity. I wish this adversity were contained till me, but it's not, it's affecting my parents, my friends, my dreams. I got knocked into a different life, wishing my way back ever since. Check pinned tweet. Please RT. Anything helps
Stop giving this clown airtime always the drama queen… LadyG 🥺 ❤️❤️❤️❤️ Crazy QANON Josh Hawley strikes. Turns out many QANON are pedophiles & claim to go after pedophiles as a cover. Investigate Hawley as Jan 6th Insurrectionist, Soon to be Felon? Dble Std Hawley approved judges that fit profile he verbally lynched & raped Honorable Judge Jackson.
Graham, Cotton, Cruz, and Harley all tried to make Jackson cry. Only Cory Booker succeeded.
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing is a disgrace to her qualifications | Tayo BeroThe bad faith questions, the baseless accusations, the time wasting – Brown Jackson’s interrogators do not see her as an equal UK/ Brit** BOTING JHONSON eating too much🤔🧇🍟🍔🥓🍗🍢🍬🍷🍾🍹🍵🍲🥩 beware Boris getting too FAT🙃😱 not good for your health 🙃🤔 Achats de gaz russe en roubles : Vladimir Poutine impose sa monnaie pour... via YouTube In light of the Kavanaugh and Barrett hearings, your hypocrisy is glaring!
I think we've learned that Cruz, Cotton, Blackburn, Hawley, and Cornyn are PERFECTLY happy to play racists on TV. She doesn't know what a woman is. I remember back in 2016 when Hillary use the term deplorables .. (R)s had their panties in a twist. What has been proven true since 2016 especially in the last few days during the KBJ confirmation hearings, is that Hillary was being too damn nice ..
We’ve learned that republican men are terrified of women especially black women. He have zero intellect and so have made fools of themselves. What we've learned is that because of her intelligence and skin color, republicans don't want her on the bench.
Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson grilled in hearingThe moment came during a tense exchange with Senator Marsha Blackburn who pressed Jackson on sex and gender issues amid the fallout over Lia Thomas She knows what a woman is she didn't want to go down that road and have people protesting. That was trap. Bet she still gets it
Ketanji Brown Jackson returns for second round of Senate questioningHearings on Biden’s supreme court nominee resume with chair chiding Republicans for ‘showcasing election talking points’ GENIUS, BRILLIANT, TALENTED PERSONALITY Senate questioning = Republican attacks. I think it's 3rd round
‘I’m not Congress:’ Ketanji Brown Jackson hits back at GOP’s soft on crime attack‘I’m not Congress’ Ketanji Brown Jackson hits back at GOP’s soft on crime attack