Thursday, March 24, 2022

The SCOTUS nominee exposes Harvard as well...all members of the SCOTUS are from either Harvard or Yale where's the diversity?

Next question for the Judge should be to define POC!

We’ve now listened to three days of a scheduled full week of testimony by Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. And to be honest, we’ve heard enough. Anyone who truly cares about the Constitution and the rule of law should reject Jackson.

Jackson has a winning smile and pleasant demeanor. Those are nice personal traits, but not ones that necessarily elevate you to the Supreme Court. 

Still, she’s also a Harvard Law grad, clerked for Justice Steven Breyer, worked as a public defender, served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just last year.But do those credentials really matter? Maybe they should, but unfortunately they’re mostly political window dressing.

As both President Joe Biden and the Democrats have made clear, Jackson was selected because she was, 1) African-American, 2) a woman, and (most important of all) 3) a leftist. Unfortunately, none of those things are actual qualifications for the Supreme Court.

Despite her superficially sparkling resume, under tough questioning this week, she showed why she shouldn’t be privileged with a seat on our nation’s highest court. On issue after issue, she whiffed, at times pretending not to have an opinion, or acting as if she didn’t really know much about certain landmark legal cases and current controversies.

Indeed, it became very clear under questioning that Jackson has been disingenuous about her legal philosophy and extreme political beliefs that encompass race, gender, crime and culture, among other things.

Her answers were at times not believable. To wit:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn at one point asked a simple question: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”

Should be a slam dunk. Women and men are physically different. That’s not an opinion; that’s a biological fact, beyond serious dispute.Jackson’s answer: “Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t.” 

She also said in response to the same question, “I’m not a biologist.”

Jackson also came under close questioning for what can only be called her lax attitude as a judge toward sentencing those convicted in child porn cases.

Lax may be an understatement. In a “Note” in the Harvard Law Review, she even once argued that our judicial system was “unfair” to those who sexually prey on children.

“Further research into the Supreme Court nominee revealed that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson deviated from federal sentencing guidelines in every single child porn case, favoring the child porn offenders (emphasis ours) while on the federal bench,” noted the Post Millennial, in a lengthy piece looking at Jackson’s history.“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,” Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who questioned Jackson, noted last week. “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.”

That isn’t all. Not by a long shot.

Asked by Texas Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn about due process under the Constitution, Jackson claimed judicial activism, a hallmark of leftist jurisprudence, is something she opposes.

In reference to that, Cornyn asked about the infamous Dred Scott decision handed down in 1857.

“I don’t quite remember the basis for the Dred Scott opinion,” she said, “but I’ll trust you.”

Don’t remember? Dred Scott was, by common assent among legal scholars, the worst decision in Supreme Court history. It denied African-Americans citizenship, whether free or enslaved. The Dred Scott decision became one of the triggers for our Civil War.

“Don’t quite remember the basis”? C’mon, man.

Finally, under intense questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, Jackson denied knowing even what Critical Race Theory, an off-shoot of Critical Legal Studies, is: “I’ve never studied Critical Race Theory, and I’ve never used it. It doesn’t come up in my work as a judge.”

But as Breitbart explained: “Georgetown Day School, the private Pre-K-12 school where Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sits on the board of trustees, teaches radical critical theory pedagogy, and boasts on its website ‘everyone will engage in the work of social justice within all aspects of school life’ — which Judge Jackson would be required to ‘support’ and ‘promote’ as a member of the board.”

Cruz illustrated the point, showing several kids’ books in use at the grade school level at Georgetown Day School, including one called “Antiracist Baby.” Some other names from the school’s own website include: “Picture Books for Young Activists,” “The Very Best Code Switch Episodes For Kids,” “The Little Book of Little Activists,” “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” and “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life.”

In short, it appears she lied to the Senate, point blank. This is, straight up, CRT. It also has nothing to do with legitimate learning about the Three Rs, or, for that matter, exploring our nation’s wonderful, but admittedly imperfect, history. 

It hurts her cause, as well, to know that, according to Yahoo news, Jackson “favorably cited journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, civil rights activist Derrick Bell, and Bell’s wife, scholar Janet Dewart Bell. All three figures have been associated with Critical Race Theory.”

Watch videos herehere, and here for a fuller understanding of how Jackson is obfuscating and hiding her true agenda, which is perfectly aligned with that of the extreme left in this country.

She speaks at times in reverential tones about the Constitution, even claiming to be something of an “originalist,” but her actions as a judge and individual show otherwise. As others on the left, she sees the Constitution as a highly flawed document created by racist men, infinitely malleable to political ends.

It’s highly likely, if not certain, that Jackson will gain a seat on the Supreme Court. 

And, as we’re reminded by others, Jackson does have her moments, such as when she spoke about her family and said:

“The fact that we had come that far was, to me, a testament to the hope and the promise of this country, the greatness of America, that in one generation – one generation – we could go from racially segregated schools in Florida, to have me sitting here as the first Floridian ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

We only wish we could believe that thinking would prevail, and not the leftist thinking that has marked so much of Jackson’s legal career and her current thinkiing.

No doubt, the left will try to strong arm the weaker Republicans in the Senate to vote for Jackson. But after the Democrats’ viciously partisan circuses that accompanied the nominations of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, most recently, Brett Kavanaugh, Republicans are under no obligation to soft-pedal their issues with this nominee. They must stand up.

We wish Jackson well as a human being. But no Republican, knowing full well that a majority of Ketanji Brown Jacksons on the court would spell the end of our republic, should vote for her.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

No comments: