GOP Senators Use Jackson Hearing to Agitate Their Base Before Election Campaigns

After enduring days filled with disrespectful and racist attacks from GOP senators, Judge Ketanji brown Jackson is moving closer to being confirmed as Supreme Court Justice. Conservative Democrat Joe Manchin has indicated that he will vote in confirmation for Jackson, proving that the Democratic senators, who are often divided, are united. uniting to support her confirmation.

Although Judge Jackson is an exceptional judge to sit on the Supreme Court she was treated with condescension and snide remarks racistDuring her confirmation hearing, Jackson was subject to attacks from Republican members of Senate Judiciary Committee. Jackson was remarkable in her resistance to the grueling questions, hostile, vicious attacks.

Jackson is expected to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. It is expected that all Democratic and Independent senators, as well as Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (R.Alaska), will vote to confirm Jackson’s nomination.

But many Republican committee members mounted unfounded attacks on Jackson’s record. The GOP senators apparently sought to peel off support for Jackson’s nomination from Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona). They are also pandering for their hard-right base in anticipation the midterms and even presidential elections.

Jackson was confronted by some members of the GOP committee about critical race theory (CRT), a controversial topic for the Republican Party. CRT is an academic framework that examines how systemic racism is permeating U.S. society. It identifies racism as more than the result of individual prejudice and bias, examining how racism is entrenched in laws, institutions and policies — from housing and education to employment, health care and policing, all of which reflect racial inequalities. The Republican members tried to show that Jackson’s fidelity to CRT would make her a biased Supreme Court justice.

The CRT accusations were combined with a concerted GOP effort to paint Jackson as “soft on crime,” particularly with misleading allegationsHer sentences for defendants convicted of consuming and distributing child pornography fell below the norm. Jackson was able to infer that she was motivated by CRT and would give less severe sentences to Black defendants.

Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee), falsely stated in her opening statement that Marsha was a “false” Republican. told Jackson, “You have made clear that you believe judges must consider critical race theory when deciding how to sentence criminal defendants. Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R.Texas), was the one who brought the anti-CRT charges against Jackson. He cited language from a children’s book in the library of the private Georgetown Day School (GDS), on whose board of trustees Jackson sits. Cruz was singled out Antiracist BabyDr. IbramX. Kendi complained that it conveys to children the message that babies are not born racist but are taught racism, and that they are encouraged and encouraged to discuss racism and admit to having been racist. Cruz, who absurdly claimed the elementary school was “overflowing with critical race theory” (a comment that reflects how the GOP is inaccurately slapping the name of this complex theoretical framework onto any basic discussion of race and racism), asked Jackson, “Do you agree … that babies are racist?”

After a considerable pause, Jackson said she wasn’t familiar with the book, adding that CRT is “an academic theory taught in law schools,” not in elementary schools such as GDS. “I have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas,” Jackson said. “They do not come up in my work as a judge, which I am, respectfully, here to address.”

She added, “I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or though they are not valued or though they are less than their victims, that they are oppressors. I don’t believe in any of that.”

Right-wing opposition to everything the GOP considers CRT has led to book banningAround the country. Ironically, Cruz was condemned. Antiracist Baby, it rose to the top of Amazon’s list of best-selling children’s books on racism and prejudice.

Talking Points on Conspiracy Theory: False Accusations

In preparation for Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) tweeted misleading accusationsJackson was accused of being lenient when sentencing child pornography suspects, as she gave sentences that were below the federal sentencing guidelines. This was suggested by the prosecution. This attack delighted followers of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory QAnon, many of whom believe that Washington and the media are controlled by a Satan-worshipping “cabal of pedophiles.”

Even the conservatives can still be conservative National Review, which opposes Jackson’s confirmation, pointed out that Hawley’s claim “that Judge Jackson is appallingly soft on child-pornography offenders” appears “meritless to the point of demagoguery.”

When Hawley asked Jackson whether she regretted giving a certain defendant a low sentence, she replied, “What I regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, grabbed Hawley’s baton and launched a vicious attack upon Jackson. “Every judge who does what you are doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited,” Graham barked. He used a shotgun approach to harass her, interrupting her every time she tried to answer. During one of Graham’s interrogations, I counted at most 14 interruptions.

Jackson patiently explained that sentencing guidelines were created before the advent the internet, and therefore are outdated. He invited Congress to update them.

She also pointed out that the Supreme Court was in United States v. BookerThe guidelines were no more mandatory, but advisory. Jackson stated that she takes into account the guidelines, as well the positions of defense and prosecution, as well the unique circumstances in each case and each defendant she sentences.

After Jackson answered a question about one of the child pornography sentences she ordered, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) essentially called her a liar, stating, “I don’t find it credible.”

Three members of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which provides independent nonpartisan evaluations of the professional qualifications of judicial nominees, interviewed 250 lawyers and judges who had direct knowledge of Jackson’s work. They concluded that Jackson demonstrated “the exceptional professional competence expected of a Supreme Court justice and thus merits a well-qualified rating.”

When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) asked committee member Jean Veta about the allegations that Jackson’s sentences were too lenient, she replied, “Notably, no judge, defense counsel or prosecutor expressed any concern in this regard and they uniformly rejected any accusations of bias.” In response to Durbin’s question about charges by GOP senators that Jackson gave lenient sentences to child pornography defendants, Ann Claire Williams said, “It never came up in any of the interviews we conducted.”

Jackson is attacked for her work as a public defender

Jackson, if confirmed, will be the first former public defender to serve on the court. While Jackson will have a unique perspective on criminal cases and an understanding of the process, GOP senators see it as a liability.

Graham accused Jackson of aiding terrorism for representing Guantánamo Bay detainees when she was a public defender. Apparently unmindful of John Adams’s famous declaration that his representation of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre was his proudest moment, Graham stormed out of the hearing room shrieking that he hoped dangerous Guantánamo detainees died in custody without receiving due process.

2004 was the year that the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that people indefinitely detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention as enemy combatants.

In 2005, after she began working as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C., Jackson and some of her colleagues were assigned to represent four Guantánamo detainees who had been designated as “enemy combatants.” They filedPetitions for habeas corpus writs on behalf of their clients. One count alleges the commission of torture. This is a war criminal.

Graham and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) falsely accused Jackson of calling former President George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals” in the petitions.

Jackson explained that habeas Corpus petitions are filed by lawyers and must name the responsible government officials as defendants. Jackson and her colleagues did. The petitions claimed that officials ordered or condoned torture, which is a war crime. Jackson said she was “standing up for the constitutional value of representation.”

None of the four Guantánamo detainees Jackson represented were ever tried or convicted of a crime. All were eventually acquitted. repatriated — three to Afghanistan and one to Saudi Arabia.

Jackson and Sotomayor are Kindred Spirits

Jackson’s record exemplifies her progressive bona fides. Although Jackson’s confirmation to the high court will not change its 6-3 right-wing ideological imbalance, she will surely have a considerable impact on the direction of the court. Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor will likely be close friends, as they are the most progressive members of the court. They are the only two women of color on the court, and they are also among the few justices who have experience as trial judges. This is an invaluable asset for an appellate judge.

The Republicans of the committee stood out with their racist and sexist dog whistles.

“I do think it’s a legitimate question to ask — would they be asking these questions if this were not a Black woman?” Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia), who is also Black, queried.

“This is just a master class in how Black women have to be patient, have to be fully composed in responding to things that are meant for destruction,” Nadia Brown, professor of women’s and gender studies at Georgetown University, told the Los Angeles Times.

Irin Cartmon, senior correspondent New York Magazine, tweeted, “Despite the tendentious and misleading questions from Cruz, Jackson couldn’t possibly rage and cry the way now-Justice Kavanaugh did in his confirmation hearing without destroying her career. Even an eyebrow raise could be held against her.”

Former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (D-Vermont), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) stated that he has never witnessed the level of disrespect shown to Jackson in his 48 years of service in the Senate.