- Joined
- Mar 15, 2021
- Messages
- 4,112
- Reaction score
- 2,941
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"of being too enthusiastic in their defense."falsely saying she was soft on sex offenders to begin with....and for providing protection for people in detention at Guantanamo.....
Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson are set to begin Monday, and Republicans are already signaling their plan to attack her for providing legal representation to people imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. In doing so, lawmakers are revealing a belief that certain people don’t deserve a quality legal defense — undermining a key pillar of the U.S. judicial system.
The GOP concedes that in her role as a Washington, D.C., public defender, Jackson did not choose her clients, but nonetheless accuses her of being too enthusiastic in their defense. “Jackson’s advocacy for these terrorists was ’zealous,’ going beyond just giving them a competent defense,” the Republican National Committee says on its website in a takedown of Jackson.
n a thinly sourced Twitter thread on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made a series of inflammatory attacks against Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court and currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The tweets dealt with some of Jackson’s past statements on sex offender registries and civil commitment, as well as her views on mandatory minimums. He claimed, without evidence, that Jackson “has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.”
It was a preview of a tactic Republicans will likely deploy next week when Jackson testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Hawley is a member. But despite his claim that she is soft on sex offenses, nothing is particularly unusual about her judgments in such cases.
“I’m concerned that this is a record that endangers our children,” Hawley tweeted Thursday, in a thread that contained out-of-context screenshots of Jackson’s past statements and no links to the underlying material he was criticizing.
ARepublicans Falsely Accuse Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Of Going Easy On Sex Offenders
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record on cases involving sex offenses is backed by research well within the mainstream.www.huffpost.com
you never did reply to my question about who your supporting in the Putins war on Ukraine....This thread should be posted under the "liberals can dish it out but they sure cant take it" forum
Yea, they should not question her about what she has ruled on in the past or her experience. Instead, they should find out what she did in high school.falsely saying she was soft on sex offenders to begin with....and for providing protection for people in detention at Guantanamo.....
Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson are set to begin Monday, and Republicans are already signaling their plan to attack her for providing legal representation to people imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. In doing so, lawmakers are revealing a belief that certain people don’t deserve a quality legal defense — undermining a key pillar of the U.S. judicial system.
The GOP concedes that in her role as a Washington, D.C., public defender, Jackson did not choose her clients, but nonetheless accuses her of being too enthusiastic in their defense. “Jackson’s advocacy for these terrorists was ’zealous,’ going beyond just giving them a competent defense,” the Republican National Committee says on its website in a takedown of Jackson.
n a thinly sourced Twitter thread on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made a series of inflammatory attacks against Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court and currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The tweets dealt with some of Jackson’s past statements on sex offender registries and civil commitment, as well as her views on mandatory minimums. He claimed, without evidence, that Jackson “has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.”
It was a preview of a tactic Republicans will likely deploy next week when Jackson testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Hawley is a member. But despite his claim that she is soft on sex offenses, nothing is particularly unusual about her judgments in such cases.
“I’m concerned that this is a record that endangers our children,” Hawley tweeted Thursday, in a thread that contained out-of-context screenshots of Jackson’s past statements and no links to the underlying material he was criticizing.
ARepublicans Falsely Accuse Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Of Going Easy On Sex Offenders
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record on cases involving sex offenses is backed by research well within the mainstream.www.huffpost.com
"of being too enthusiastic in their defense."
Is there not a motto that demands the legal profession provide an enthusiastic manner?
Only the Democrats have a budget for that kind of thing.Maybe they can find someone who can’t remember the place, can’t remember the date, doesn’t know who else was there, and had to put 3 doors in their bedroom to claim something inappropriate happened to them.
Only the Democrats have a budget for that kind of thing.
Lie their asses off, almost bordering on slander.Oh my, the GOP is going after the democrats SCOTUS pick. LOL! What the heck did the democrats do with Trump picks, 3 times?
It's gonna look pretty sad for republicans when none of them vote for the first black woman supreme court justice.falsely saying she was soft on sex offenders to begin with....and for providing protection for people in detention at Guantanamo.....
Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson are set to begin Monday, and Republicans are already signaling their plan to attack her for providing legal representation to people imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. In doing so, lawmakers are revealing a belief that certain people don’t deserve a quality legal defense — undermining a key pillar of the U.S. judicial system.
The GOP concedes that in her role as a Washington, D.C., public defender, Jackson did not choose her clients, but nonetheless accuses her of being too enthusiastic in their defense. “Jackson’s advocacy for these terrorists was ’zealous,’ going beyond just giving them a competent defense,” the Republican National Committee says on its website in a takedown of Jackson.
n a thinly sourced Twitter thread on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made a series of inflammatory attacks against Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court and currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The tweets dealt with some of Jackson’s past statements on sex offender registries and civil commitment, as well as her views on mandatory minimums. He claimed, without evidence, that Jackson “has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.”
It was a preview of a tactic Republicans will likely deploy next week when Jackson testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Hawley is a member. But despite his claim that she is soft on sex offenses, nothing is particularly unusual about her judgments in such cases.
“I’m concerned that this is a record that endangers our children,” Hawley tweeted Thursday, in a thread that contained out-of-context screenshots of Jackson’s past statements and no links to the underlying material he was criticizing.
ARepublicans Falsely Accuse Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Of Going Easy On Sex Offenders
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record on cases involving sex offenses is backed by research well within the mainstream.www.huffpost.com
It's gonna look pretty sad for republicans when none of them vote for the first black woman supreme court justice.
I dont remember being asked but I dont necessarily answer every moronic question posed by dishonest leftistsyou never did reply to my question about who your supporting in the Putins war on Ukraine....
So because she is black, she should not be put under scrutiny. How racist of you.It's gonna look pretty sad for republicans when none of them vote for the first black woman supreme court justice.
I see, hiding your answer for some reason eh?I dont remember being asked but I dont necessarily answer every moronic question posed by dishonest leftists
everyone but the Cult it seems knows there are quite a few white nationalists in the GOP.So because she is black, she should not be put under scrutiny. How racist of you.
predictable.It's gonna look pretty sad for republicans when none of them vote for the first black woman supreme court justice.
That is an accurate statement.It's gonna look pretty sad for republicans when none of them vote for the first black woman supreme court justice.
One political party going after the nominee of the another political party.... How bazar.
After the Garland fiasco, no one cares what Republicans think or want regarding Supreme Court Justices. They showed that the only game they are interested in playing is "I win and you lose" and they will not let anyone stop them. Screw them.A few really stupid Republicans are making a BIG mistake.
They know that the lady will be confirmed.
Nobody and no one can stop it.
So those Republican Senators who don't like her should either vote "NO" or abstain from voting or absent themselves that day.
They should wake up & smell the coffee. This is 2022.
This appointment is being hailed as one of the greatest developments in the history of this nation, just as the new law outlawing discrimination against certain hair styles is.
Now you can point out where I said that or apologize for talking outta yer ass.So because she is black, she should not be put under scrutiny. How racist of you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?