XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.lawyers, sac.politics
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/what-judge-jackson- exposed-about-the-legal- left?utm_campaign=article_rail&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=article_rail
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a fine person with an impressive resume,
should nonetheless not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Her record and testimony show she is outside what should be the mainstream of American jurisprudence.
This week’s hearings on Jackson’s nomination were quite valuable because
they exposed, in numerous ways, a far-left legal orthodoxy that knows its beliefs, values, and legal reasoning are not shared by the vast majority
of voters. That’s why Jackson and her Democratic Senate enablers so often obfuscated and misled whenever directly challenged.
For example, despite having a history of paying homage to critical race
theory, Jackson repeatedly spoke during the hearings as if she were barely familiar with its precepts.
Likewise, to protect legal options for the aggressive agenda of
transgender activists, she infamously claimed to not know how to define a “woman.” And even when Nebraska GOP Sen. Ben Sasse repeatedly teed up a softball for her, almost begging her to agree that college students should
have no heckler’s veto against free speech, she kept dodging commitment on
that issue as well.
Meanwhile, even if there may be good explanations for some of Jackson’s sentencing decisions, it is simply a fact that Jackson has spent a quarter-century, in multiple forums and jobs, suggesting, and ruling, that child pornographers be treated more leniently. The problem, though, is
broader than that. Even no-nonsense legal analysts who said Republican questioners failed to acknowledge the context in her favor regarding child pornographers noted that her “theory” of sentencing would undermine the
federal sentencing guidelines in favor of leniency all across the board,
not just with sex offenders.
The larger problem in all this, though, isn’t that Jackson’s
jurisprudential approach is uniquely objectionable — although, despite
some nods to reason, it is objectionable — but that she appears to be part
of a whole leftist legal movement that is hostile to American norms. Just
as Sasse noted that even avowedly liberal professors are outraged by their
more extreme-left colleagues, so too are old-fashioned liberal lawyers and judges — in other words, within the “mainstream” — now outshouted by the hard-left activist groups that pressured President Joe Biden to nominate Jackson. The hard Left’s agenda for the courts involves a preoccupation
with subjects related to race and sex. It holds that the law, rather than
being colorblind, should treat some races “more equally than others” in
order to produce desired social outcomes. It holds that gender norms
should be undermined and children hypersexualized at early ages by state instructors.
Critical legal studies and its offspring, critical race theory, are openly Marxist projects. They and the submovements closely associated with them
are markedly hostile to the bedrock values of American society: self-
reliance, the structure of the nuclear family, the work ethic, written tradition, private property, and even majority rule. All of those examples came, amazingly, from web pages of, and were endorsed by, the Smithsonian Institution.
And along with its racial and gender obsessions, the Left makes almost a
fetish of its misplaced sympathy for and leniency toward many criminal offenders. And, notably, it is highly antagonistic to First Amendment
speech protections, making disciples of law students across the country
who shout down and physically threaten speakers with whom they disagree.
By her evasions and casuistry on topics of race, gender, sentencing
leniency, and speech disruptions, Jackson shows at the very least a marked unwillingness to disavow specific applications of the hard Left’s legal
agenda. When speaking in generalities, she gives encomiums to the
dominance of conservative, originalist jurisprudence. But when associated, sometimes by her own words, with the leftist legal agenda, she feigns obliviousness to it all. And when she doesn’t, as in providing a
superficially and cleverly plausible open-borders ruling, her actual
reasoning was so ludicrous that even her fellow liberal judges later
overruled her.
Jackson is in many ways an admirable and likable lady and lawyer with very
real career accomplishments. If the content of her record and testimony
were dubious in just one area or two, her resume and temperament might
still recommend that she be confirmed. Alas, too many red flags abound,
both on substance and from her evasiveness. The radical movement that
elevated her, and whose legal tenets she will not denounce, is too far
from the mainstream to be given a foothold on the nation’s highest court.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.
Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud:
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)