THE shadow people who control the tattered sock puppet that is the US President decided long ago that Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, would ‘retire’ from the Supreme Court and make way for a black woman (BW). During his ‘successful’ Presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised to appoint ‘a person of extraordinary qualifications, experience, character, and integrity . . . who will be black and a woman’.
The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court, with eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice: all lifetime appointees, in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution. In 211 years, there have been just 17 Chief Justices and 112 Justices, making appointees arguably more important than elected representatives.
Unlike Congress, the Supreme Court is not intended to be a representative institution, however, in today’s increasingly divided and divisive US some people consider that a ‘lack of diversity on the bench can lead to the appearance of bias, and even actual bias’, according to a George Soros-funded activist group called ‘Justice at Stake’.
Minyon Moore, 63, a black Washington Democrat insider, undertook the task of finding BW candidates. Minyon was assistant to President Clinton and director of White House political affairs; she sits on the board of the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation and is a political consultant to Jesse Jackson, Kamala Harris, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. She is a close associate of Kimberle Crenshaw, one of the creators of Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory (CRT).
A short list was submitted and on February 25, President Biden announced his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51. She clerked for Breyer, sits on Washington DC’s federal appellate court, has worked as a federal public defender and a federal district court judge, and was a vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission.
In the early days of the Covid ‘pandemic’, Judge Jackson argued for the release of all those incarcerated in District of Columbia jails and granted dozens of ‘Covid-related’ releases. Some attribute a spike in violent crime to her actions.
Jackson has been before the Senate Judiciary Committee since March facing predictable challenge from Republicans. Among them, Senator Josh Hawley focused on her sentencing record over child pornography. He cited the case of an 18-year-old, convicted of possessing hundreds of pornographic images of eight-and-nine-year-olds. The judge gave him a three-month sentence and an apology, saying: ‘I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction.’ Hawley went on to ask just who the victim was.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham supported Jackson only last year for her current post but will not endorse her for the Supreme Court due to ‘her record of judicial activism, flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases and a belief Judge Jackson will not be deterred by the plain meaning of the law when it comes to liberal causes’, he told CNN.
A CNN analysis disturbingly reveals that Jackson’s lenient sentencing in child pornography cases mostly follows ‘common judicial sentencing practices’. Shockingly, it is now the norm for judges, from all political backgrounds, to issue sentences below ‘the guidelines in such cases that don’t involve producing the pornography itself’.
Graham was visibly angered by Jackson’s defence of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he said illustrated her ‘activist zeal’. He accused her of contributing to the ‘31 per cent recidivism rate of GITMO detainees’, who are now ‘back in the fight’ in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Senator Ted Cruz concentrated on CRT. Judge Jackson said she understood the theory to be taught only in law courses at universities. Fox News, however, reported that Jackson, as a member of the Board of Trustees of Georgetown Day School (GDS) – chaired by her ex-college roommate Professor Lisa Fairfax – knew that the school was embarked on an ‘anti-racism journey’ which included mandatory CRT training for staff and a curriculum designed from a ‘social justice perspective’.
The school endorses the use of ‘anti-racist resources’, including Richard Delgado’s Critical Race Theory and Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist –a book which claims that babies can be racist.
Jackson’s disclosures in the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire show that not only did she know, but that she approved of the school’s use of these ‘progressive’ materials. The question is, did the judge lie to the committee?
Cruz also pursued Jackson on the long-running Harvard racial discrimination lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court. The lawsuit accuses Harvard of systematically downgrading applications from Asian and white applicants in favour of ‘African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans’. Judge Jackson sits on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, one of its two governing boards, but extraordinarily she denied any knowledge of the policy.
The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn legal precedents that authorise these ‘race-conscious admissions’ protocols (Affirmative Action). Jackson said she would recuse herself from the case, if appointed.
Cruz characterises Jackson as a judge with a ‘radical agenda’, telling Mark Levin on Fox News’s Life, Liberty and Levin that ‘over and over again, the big landmark cases are 5-4. We’re one vote away on issue after issue after issue from losing our fundamental rights’.
He cited ‘the landmark case upholding the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – District of Columbia v Heller – decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote’ and claimed: ‘It is a guarantee that she would vote against gun rights’ and there was a ‘100 per cent chance that she would vote to overturn the death penalty’.
One of the most revealing instances resulted from questioning by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, who read an excerpt from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion in US v Virginia, holding that the Virginia Military Institute could not lawfully exclude female cadets:
‘Physical differences between men and women are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.’
Jackson denied being familiar with the judgment – odd in itself – and when asked: ‘Can you provide a definition for the word “woman”?’ she responded: ‘Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t. Not in this context – I am not a biologist.’ The response made some observers see Jackson as a woefully dishonest coward – not a good look for any judge, in any court.
Blackburn, a ‘strong pro-life woman’ questioned Jackson on abortion. Calling Roe v Wade (1973) ‘one of the most brazen acts of judicial activism in Supreme Court history’, she reminded the judge that the decision was responsible for 63million abortions. Jackson’s response was the usual death-cult chant about ‘a woman’s right to choose’.
Judge Jackson is without doubt highly accomplished. A Harvard Law school graduate, a successful lawyer, married for 25 years to Patrick Jackson, a general surgeon and professor at Georgetown,e mother of two daughters. She claims Slave Heritage and strong ties to the Washington political establishment. She is related by marriage to former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who supports her elevation.
Mrs Jackson’s nomination will, in due course, be confirmed by the Senate. She will become the first black woman and the only public defender to be appointed as a Supreme Court Justice. Sadly, despite her personal merit, history is likely to note her as the first open Affirmative Action appointee to that august body.