The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has resulted in an onslaught of smear .The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has resulted in an onslaught of smear and innuendo from conservatives on the Judiciary committee, within Congress, and right-wing media.
A recent Letter to the Editor titled "Supreme Court nominee has a lot to prove" is, in my opinion, another example of smearing Jackson's reputation through innuendo. For example: " The Senate and the American people must be exposed to Judge Jackson’s true beliefs on: the rule of law, the proper role of the judiciary and the Constitution of the United States." What is implied by the expression "exposed to Judge Jackson’s true beliefs ..." is that something nefarious is intentionally being hidden from the public.
The author claims to have done his research on Judge Jackson and implies again that that there are concerns by saying "she will have to work very hard to convince me that she’s not: a partisan tool of the radical left, someone who has little respect for the Constitution, and one who would turn her back on the rule of law." Of course there are no specifics provided to warrant concern (other than she was nominated by President Biden); just innuendo.
So, what did we learn from the confirmation hearings?
On ROE v. WADE Jackson said she would be reluctant to tinker with it since Supreme Court rulings affirming it are "settled law" and "all precedents of the Supreme Court must be respected." Judge Jackson does NOT support abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade doesn't grant that right.
Of the seven CHILD PORNOGRAPHY cases Jackson presided over that were listed by Senator Hawley, five were consistent with, or above, probation office sentencing guidelines.
The one case that Senator Hawley focused on was Wesley Hawkins, an 18 year old who uploaded five pornographic videos to YouTube. He received a 3-month sentence; far below the guidelines. Part of what a judge does, as required by Congress, is to is think about the case and unwarranted sentencing disparities that are in the statute.
Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. prosecutor, wrote an article in the conservative National Review that best described Senator Hawley's attack on Judge Jackson for being soft on sex offenders because she argued against a severe mandatory-minimum prison sentence for the receipt and distribution of pornographic images, as a "smear".
Don't be persuaded by smear and innuendo. Imo, Judge Jackson is the best nominee we have seen in the last decade.
So, what did we learn from the confirmation hearings?
On ROE v. WADE Jackson said she would be reluctant to tinker with it since Supreme Court rulings affirming it are "settled law" and "all precedents of the Supreme Court must be respected." Judge Jackson does NOT support abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade doesn't grant that right.
Of the seven CHILD PORNOGRAPHY cases Jackson presided over that were listed by Senator Hawley, five were consistent with, or above, probation office sentencing guidelines.
The one case that Senator Hawley focused on was Wesley Hawkins, an 18 year old who uploaded five pornographic videos to YouTube. He received a 3-month sentence; far below the guidelines. Part of what a judge does, as required by Congress, is to is think about the case and unwarranted sentencing disparities that are in the statute.
Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. prosecutor, wrote an article in the conservative National Review that best described Senator Hawley's attack on Judge Jackson for being soft on sex offenders because she argued against a severe mandatory-minimum prison sentence for the receipt and distribution of pornographic images, as a "smear".
Don't be persuaded by smear and innuendo. Imo, Judge Jackson is the best nominee we have seen in the last decade.