I can’t wait to hear her poorly reading from a script like every other candidate who gets a job based on color instead of accomplishments. Check out our hardly illiterate ambassador to the UN when you have a chance.
Some of the radical past of Biden Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is coming to light, including her comments arguing that as a society we are too tough on sex criminals.
Joe Biden has unsurprisingly picked a radical leftist as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court in the person of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, but the media is not doing much to inform Americans of her past decisions and statements.
For instance, during an investigation into Jackson’s record, the American Accountability Foundation found that she was an author of a paper arguing that our judicial system is “unfair” to sexual predators.
“This Note critiques current judicial approaches to characterizing sex offender statutes and suggests a more principled framework for making the distinction between prevention and punishment,” Jackson wrote in her paper for the Harvard Law Review, according to the Post Millenial.
She continued, saying, “even in the face of understandable public outrage over repeat sexual predators, a principled prevention/punishment analysis evaluates the effect of the challenged legislation in a manner that reinforces constitutional safeguards against unfair and unnecessarily burdensome legislative action.”
State laws commonly employ these sorts of preventive measures — including offender registration, DNA registries and notifications to the community — in hopes of corralling the offender and preventing future crimes. But Jackson argued that these policies are not preventative, but are, instead, punitive.
She also claimed that these laws may even be unconstitutional.
“Although many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who already have been sanctioned for their crimes,” Jackson wrote in her paper.
“Under existing doctrine, the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially ‘preventive’ rather than ‘punitive,’ yet courts have been unable to devise a consistent, coherent, and principled means of making this determination,” Jackson exclaimed.
Jackson went on to call the decades-old laws an example of “hate.”
“In the current climate of fear, hatred, and revenge associated with the release of convicted sex criminals, courts must be especially attentive to legislative enactments that use public health and safety rhetoric to justify procedures that are, in essence, punishment and detention,” the judge exclaimed.
While these soft-on-crime comments are bad enough, Jackson also tried to hide behind anonymity by refusing to attach her name to this paper. The only reason anyone even knows she wrote the paper is that she had to disclose it during vetting for her position as a district judge for the District of Columbia in 2012.
Clearly, Jackson tried to hide her authorship of the piece for political reasons — at the very least, to protect her reputation while at the same time still pushing a left-wing agenda on the American justice system.
Jackson has other issues, as well. Many of her major judicial decisions have been overturned because they have been too radical and not in keeping with American jurisprudence.
“Judge Jackson’s record of reversals by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit is troubling for anyone concerned about the rule of law,” said Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino, according to Fox News Digital. “For example, in Make the Road New York v. Wolf, a D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic nominees concluded that Jackson had set aside a Trump administration rule where there was no legal basis to do so.”
“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice,” Severino added.
Whatever the case, AAF Founder Tom Jones insists that the Biden administration failed to disclose Jackson’s extremist leanings when Biden nominated her to the high court.
“Once again, Joe Biden’s White House has failed in the vetting process by nominating a radical Leftist like Judge Brown Jackson to the highest court in the land,” Jones said. “Americans want our judicial system to protect children and citizens from sexual predators. Judge Brown Jackson’s radical position raises questions on her suitability to serve on the court. Is she more interested in social justice engineering or administering justice?”