MovieChat Forums > Ketanji Brown Jackson Discussion > Three strikes! She's OUT! Next!

Three strikes! She's OUT! Next!

posted 3 years ago by joej2923 (3026)
43 replies | jump to latest

I don't have a say in the matter BUT she'd be out if I did. She has three strikes and that's all it takes for me to GET THE HOOK! I have concerns about her lenient pedophile sentences, her referral of her uncle's life sentence commutation and her pro bono work for Gitmo detainees. Are there are any other red flags?

She has some crazy philosophy that the child pornography laws were written before the internet so the sentencing is too harsh. She asserted that sending out fifty pictures of child porn was so much harder through the mail but it can be done in seconds with computers and the internet. If a person posts fifty pictures on the internet, several thousand people could download those pictures. Lindsey Graham was right when he wanted child porn sickos locked up instead of given supervision.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10649571/Pedophile-center-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-hearing-continued-looking-images-children.html

Jackson is also UNFIT to be on the Supreme Court since she made a referral to a law firm for her UNCLE to have his life sentence COMMUTED by Obama. Cory Booker spent all that time talking about her wonderful family BUT he didn't mention her uncle whose life sentence was commuted by Obama.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/h_88e7518fd9ecd23b363c4e47d2cb5cc0

I'm also concerned that she was a federal public defender who worked on Gitmo terrorist cases and continued to represent Gitmo terrorists after she went into private practice. She continued representing terrorists who fought US soldiers voluntarily and free of charge. I could understand her representing Gitmo terrorists while working as a federal public defender BUT she continued with these un-American activities after she left her federal position.

https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-middle-east-af2eabfa705514b866cde97c49533209

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

I like her interpretation of the Constitution.

“I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,” she said on Tuesday. “I believe that it’s appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning, of the words when one is trying to assess because, again, that’s a limitation on my authority to import my own policy.”

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

She was using conservative language like liberty, personal freedom and limited government. There have been a few wildcard appointees like Souter who did not vote as expected. Souter was supposed to be a rigid conservative appointed by H.W. Bush but he would vote independently. She might be a wildcard if she is using conservative language.

I'm more in favor of using modern case law instead of rigidly interpreting a text from 200+ years ago. The Constitution is vague in some spots and has archaic language. The emoluments clause is in the Constitution but lawyers were arguing over what the framers meant by an emolument.

https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court

[–] SpikeMike (470) 3 years ago

If you think those words are exclusive to conservative thinking you really are twisted.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

Limited government is certainly not a lefty buzzword. That's usually a conservative talking point. She sounded like a textualist/originalist instead of a oerson who believes in a Constitution that evolves with the times. I believe in adapting old laws to present times with some flexibility.

I'm concerned about her legal reasoning over the mail vs the internet with regard to child porn images. She believes the original penalties were written before the internet and they are too harsh due to the ease of uploading images to the internet. The internet allows each image to be shared all over the world with millions of people so one image uploaded to the internet does significantly more damage than an image sent through the mail. Mentally, she's still a public defender who advocates for criminals instead of sentencing criminals in order to provide justice to victims and their families.

From the article:

She repeatedly spoke of “adherence to the text” of the Constitution and laws as a proper “restraint on my own authority as a judge.” Rather than saying legal texts have meanings that “evolve” with the times, she said that a text should be interpreted according to “what it meant to those who drafted it.”

(Actually, conservatives believe slightly differently, namely that the original, publicly understood meaning of the text, not the drafters’ ‘intent,’ should guide judges. But Jackson’s answer is very much in the right ballpark.)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/judge-jackson-actually-sounds-conservative-thats-important

[–] strntz (12255) 3 years ago

“I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,” she said on Tuesday. “I believe that it’s appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning, of the words when one is trying to assess because, again, that’s a limitation on my authority to import my own policy.”

I would accept that if she passed a polygraph. We've seen the left say anything with no compunction about doing it to achieve their ends. The Bork and Kavanaugh assassinations stick out.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Do you have to continue to regurgitate rightwing propaganda all over this site?

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

I'm not regurgitating any propaganda. These are my opinions, thoughts and positions.

[–] SweetTooth43 (2047) 3 years ago

Better than left-wing

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Yes you are met, not its not Sweetooth. Propaganda from both sides is brutal.

[–] Galilguy (2476) 3 years ago

If I were a Senator, I would have only one simple question for the Biden pick ... How do you personally feel about being known, for the rest of your life, as the Justice put on the Supreme Court simply because of your gender and the color of your skin?

Being that skin color and gender is all that matters, I see no reason to ask any additional questions. Regardless of her answer, it would not change my NO vote. And I don't care if she is the smartest black woman out there. My NO vote would be all about using gender and skin color to narrow down the choices, just like the requirements for the nomination.

What, about 20% of Americans are black, so about 10% are black and female? Biden has, at the start, thrown away 90% of the good candidates for the job. How would any business in America be judged for doing that, especially based on gender and race? Would anyone with any sense want that job, in that company?

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

That's a divisive question for any senator to ask and it's also beyond her control. A senator has to appeal to a broad number of voters so I don't think they would ask a divisive question. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz might ask that question. I'd try to ask her questions about her legal rulings and other legal philosophy issues. The nominees tend to dodge the big legal issues and they probably should. She only needs fifty votes BUT she does have some issues.

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

Historically white males were the only ones "qualified" to be on the court until 1967. It wasn't until 1981 that a woman was allowed a seat.

Jackson is a judge. She is perhaps more qualified to be on the court than some others such as Kavanaugh.

Biden saying he would limit his nomination to a black female was a boneheaded move, but it does not mean she is unqualified to be on the supreme court.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

What, do you think Kavanaugh was not a judge? He was a judge on the DC Circuit Appeals Court for 12 years. Jackson hasn't even logged one year on that court.

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

I did not say Kavanaugh was not a judge. If you can't read well enough to understand that I never even implied that Kavanaugh was not a judge, then you should post somewhere else.

Kavanaugh
US Circuit Court 2006-2018.

Jackson
US Sentencing Commission 2009-2010.
US District Court 2013-2021.
US Court of Appeals 2021-present.
Doesn't cry when asked tough questions.

Perhaps?

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Naah, you need to learn to communicate better. You said "Jackson is a judge" and then proceeded to contrast her with Kavanaugh. The implication was that Kavanaugh wasn't a judge, which is why I asked the question. Why else say, "Jackson is a judge" if you aren't suggesting someone else isn't? We all know she's a judge.

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

When I said she was a judge, the implication was that she is a judge. You need to work on reading comprehension.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Hey, everybody! Jackson is a judge! Just in case ya didn't know!

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

As Jules said, "Check out the big brain on Brett! You're a smart motherfucker. That's right."

Don't forget that clashwho.

[–] clashwho (758) 3 years ago

Hey, everybody, a tough guy on the internet just threatened to shoot me! Uh, oh!

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 3 years ago

"representing Gitmo terrorists while working as a federal public defender BUT she continued with these un-American activities after she left her federal position."

So she believes that everyone deserves a right a fair trial and upheld that belief by continuing to defend her clients even though she didn't have to, so how is that un-American?

Personally, I think holding people in some modern day bastille for years without charging them with a crime or fair trials is pretty damned un-american, but to each his own.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

She volunteered to work pro bono to defend terrorists who intended to kill infidels and citizens of the USA. That's un-American! I could understand if she was forced to do it due to her job BUT she volunteered to help terrorists FOR FREE! She can stay on as a crazy federal judge BUT I contend that she should not serve a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I suppose you want to release the terrorists so they can walk among us or plan future terrorist attacks. Four of the Gitmo Five detainees released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl are now leaders in the Taliban government.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9968219/Four-Taliban-leaders-freed-prisoner-swap-Bowe-Bergdahl-join-new-government.html

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 3 years ago

Being brown and from the middle east does not automatically make someone a terrorist. There's a reason hundreds of the people that were thrown in gitmo were eventually released without ever even being charged or the charges were dropped.

I am all for imprisoning or taking out actual verified terrorist. I am not, nor will I ever be comfortable with any organization having the unilateral authority to indefinitely imprison people without due process. No matter how brown and scary they may be to some.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

There is NOTHING more American than defending the accused.

That’s what distinguishes us from the bad guys … our willingness to be fair EVEN TO THE BAD GUYS

That’s what makes us the good guys.

It’s a tough nut to swallow, I’ll admit, particularly when the bad guys are so very bad.

But fighting evil with evil is itself evil.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respectfully disagree. I've decided that she cares more about criminals than the victims. She still has the mentality of a public defender and a person sitting on the Supreme Court is a judge who must consider the plight of the victims.

Brown-Jackson was a public defender from 2005 - 2007 and I don't have a problem with her representing terrorists as part of her job. My problem with her is that she volunteered to represent terrorists for free after she left her job as a public defender. I certainly believe it's noble to do pro bono work for certain causes BUT I consider it un-American to represent terrorists who wanted to destroy this country.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

Then you don’t share American values and are not truly American

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 3 years ago

It's funny that the people willing to die rather than sacrifice an inch of liberty in exchange for safety, are disturbingly comfortable with sacrificing a ton of someone else's liberty instead.

[–] chilone (17875) 3 years ago

You might want to read up on enemy combatants and the laws concerning them.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 3 years ago

Justice fraud Clarence Thomas is CACKLING from his hospital bed

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I don't think her sentences were out of line with what other judges generally handed out for similar crimes.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

Ketanji Brown Jackson also did not know that CRT is being taught in schools. That's shocking to me since there has been a nationwide battle to remove CRT from the curriculum. A Supreme Court justice should be aware of the issues and she clearly does not have a full understanding of the CRT legal battle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/privilege-bingo-in-fairfax-co-class-meets-controversy-after-it-includes-being-a-military-kid/ar-AASZby0

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jason-rantz-condemned-antiracist-baby-before-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson-was-asked-about-it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10641081/Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-says-critical-race-theory-academic-doesnt-think-K-12-schools-teach-it.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10227543/New-Republican-Virginia-Lt-Governor-says-CRT-weaved-schools-curriculum.html

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 3 years ago

CRT is not taught in any public K6/12 school

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

The Daily Mail and MSN articles above show that CRT is taught in k-12 PUBLIC schools in VA. The Daily Mail article shows that the VA Lt. Governor had to correct Dana Bash TWICE during an interview on CNN.

I started a thread five months ago complaining about CNN/MSNBC constantly saying that CRT is not taught in schools BUT that's a LIE. I found examples of the VA public schools incorporating CRT in their teaching plans.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6182a3b96c6d3418fd49a118/Im-tired-of-CNN-analysts-constantly-saying-that-CRT-is-not-in-the-Virginia-schools * Prior threads on CNN saying that CRT not taught in schools *

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6182a3b96c6d3418fd49a118/Im-tired-of-CNN-analysts-constantly-saying-that-CRT-is-not-in-the-Virginia-schools?reply=61830929d2f9ed2df6baa1e2

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

All defendants in US courts are required to be provided with a lawyer if they want one. It is not an unamerican activity to be that lawyer.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

I disagree. I certainly don't take issue with her representing terrorists while working as a public defender. Once she left that position, she should have STOPPED representing terrorists who wanted to destroy the USA and attack infidels. She volunteered to defend terrorists without getting paid after she left her position as a public defender.

Pro bono means for the public good BUT I fail to see how the public benefits from lawyers helping to free terrorists.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/pro_bono/

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

Who is supposed to represent accused terrorists? Would you insist upon going alone if you were accuse of terrorism? If you were accused of a terrible crime would you disrespect your lawyer for defending you? I don't think so.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

They would be represented by public defenders. Brown-Jackson was a public defender from 2005 - 2007 and I don't have a problem with her representing terrorists as part of her job. My problem with her is that she volunteered to represent terrorists for free after she left her job as a public defender. I certainly believe it's noble to do pro bono work for certain causes BUT I consider it un-American to represent terrorists who wanted to destroy this country. After watching the movie Dark Waters, I had a lot of admiration for the attorney who provided pro bono legal services for the WV residents who were suffering from various medical issues due to DuPont factory pollution.

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 3 years ago

Here's the problem. You keep referring to them as terrorist as if they were already convicted or at least caught in the act. A shit ton of them were simply picked up for knowing a sketchy person or had the finger pointed at them by someone else, but no actual charges were ever brought up.

It's easy to say terrorist don't deserve due process and simply ignore human rights violations, but if you can't or wont present any evidence against that person, how in the hell do you know they are terrorist?

[–] joej2923 (3026) 3 years ago

It would be great if you could post a couple of examples of Gitmo detainees who were wrongfully detained.
Mohamedou Ould Slahi is the guy featured in the Mauritanian movie who eventually released BUT he was clearly an Al Quaeda recruiter. The government isn't pressing charges against these guys and I don't understand the complexities of the law. Slahi recruited some of the men who eventually participated in 9/11 so he should be charged as part of the whole plot. There is currently a problem with prosecutors NOT pressing charges and it is widespread. There are people who are arrested over twenty times and they are not detained until they finally KILL somebody. I don't want to live in a society that does not enforce laws.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5654550 * Slahi was a recruiter for Al Quaeda *

According to the commission, Slahi advised the men that it was difficult to slip across the border into Chechnya. He encouraged them instead to go to Afghanistan. He assisted with their travel plans and arranged for them to meet operatives for al Qaeda in Pakistan, who in turn arranged a private meeting between Binalshibh and bin Laden in December 1999.

The trip to meet bin Laden prompted the Hamburg contingent to swear allegiance to al Qaeda. It also resulted in an immediate assignment: to lead and plan the Sept. 11 hijackings in the United States.

Slahi was well known to U.S. and German intelligence agencies as an al Qaeda follower, but neither government was aware that he was living in Germany at the time, according to the commission. He was later identified by U.S. investigators as a helper in the creation of a cell in Canada that was to carry out the foiled plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the 2000 millennium celebrations.

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 3 years ago

In the 20 years gitmo has been open, they've had almost 800 people there. Only 10 were charged and 2 convicted. The rest were either released after months or years because they weren't threats, transferred back to whatever country through diplomatic agreements, or just died while detained.

I'd say that even without a Jodie foster movie to back up each account, it's safe to say that at least some of the remaining 750 who weren't charged probably had little to no reason for even being there.

[–] Ranb (9630) 3 years ago

They were alleged terrorists at the time. Or were you a witness to their alleged crimes?

It is never wrong to be a lawyer defending someone in court unless unless that lawyer is their co-conspirator. You seem to have a very low opinion of our justice system in general.