Supreme Court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson .

originally posted by: xuenchen
In the "Hearings", she made several statements about "laws".

Judges do not have the authority to change laws.

If she wants new laws, she needs to run for Congress 🥶

True, but there are already black female Congressmen. This woman's name wouldn't have even been in a droplet of ink if the left wasn't searching for a token black chick.

My question to her would've been, "How does it make you feel to not be a mention of a candidate until the president pushed all other races and men aside in order to pick out a black female? And how do you feel, knowing you cost someone else an opportunity due to racism?"

originally posted by: xuenchen
Notable & Quotable ::::::::::::::🙈

Biden: We must appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Nominee: I don’t know what a woman is— I’m not a biologist.

Win!!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Notable & Quotable ::::::::::::::🙈

Biden: We must appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Nominee: I don’t know what a woman is— I’m not a biologist.

Does Ms. Ketanji know what makes a person Black?

Would she say Justin Trudeau and Ralph Northam are sometimes Black?

Mysteries of the over-educated mind.

Jackson looks to me like the leader of the example of what the next generation of lawyers will be when face it with free speech in the nation, they will trample the rights to free speech from the bench, once appointed to judges they force who have free speech and who does not and if you do not like it you are a racist.

Yep is happening already within the student body in Yale, the new generation of lawyers that will crap on free speech with their liberalism.

a reply to: LSU2018

They were looking for gotcha moments. Hawley confirmed Trump conservative judges that gave the same kinds of sentences. Cruz has kids at a private school and a quick look at the suggested reading list shows books like,
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong and The Privilege of Being Poor and other books that he would screech about if it wasn't his kids school such as he did about this lady and her school.

Even Sasse said there was "jackassery" for the cameras. She has to take her time because she keeps having to explain that she can't just give a criminal the max time because she wants to. There are procedures, guidelines and information from other departments she must follow. If they do not understand the first time, I guess you have to start explaining it like the person may have some impairment not allowing them to understand.

Look at it this way, she's replacing a Lefty, the Court still stays RED.

I'll be more concerned if she was replacing a Conservative.

Our Nation is legit fractured and split. I can't and won't accept Democrat leaders, EVER

More policies and maneuvers to increase crime in big (D) cities.....


Ketanji Brown Jackson Accused of Judicial ‘Activism’ for Halting Deportations of Illegal Aliens

Legislating from zi Bench ... laws be Damned !!!!🚨

President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, was accused of judicial “activism” for a ruling where she halted quick deportations for newly arrived illegal aliens despite federal law.

a reply to: xuenchen

She didn't halt quick deportations. As the correct process was not followed to change the rule from 14 days to up to two years. Because of procedural reasons.

Historically, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has only applied Expedited Removal procedures (which fast track hearings of recent illegal border crossers) to those who have entered the United States within the prior 14 days and have been encountered by an immigration officer within 100 air miles of the border.Judge Jackson ruled against the Trump administration, holding that DHS likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) by skipping steps to justify the policy change and that it failed to properly consider the policy’s impact, including failing to seek public input.
Judge Jackson’s expansive reading of the APA suggests a willingness to rule against agencies acting pursuant to explicit statutory authority. Similarly expansive readings of the APA have been applied by the Supreme Court to strike down DHS’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program, despite DHS’s determination that the program directly violated numerous federal immigration and administrative procedure statutes.

Would you like the other two rulings? She dismissed a challenge on the Trump border wall and she upheld two of the Trump administrations review agencies called PACR and HARP which had to do with asylum screenings.

So she was in favor 2 out of 3 and only ruled against due to not following proper process.

Doesn't seem that radical does it?

Cant/wont answer the what is a woman question. (yes I am aware it was a gotcha but her refusal to answer was an answer)

Suggests strongly that she is concerned about a particular groups political leanings.

So much for being unbiased.

I was hoping a republican would ask if she was a woman, and then go from there.

So, let's see, she cannot by law just give a max penalty to child abusers, she and conservative judges are following the pre-sentence report and other procedures and guidelines which is why nationwide, criminals are receiving lessor sentences in 2 out of 3 cases. She did not rule this way in all of her cases as was claimed here.

She ruled in favor of the Trump administration 2 out of 3 times on immigration issues and once not in favor due to procedural issues.

Ted Cruz who attacked a woman married to a white man with bi- racial children about supporting CRT because of books in a school library she is on the board of, yet his children attend a private school similar to the one he was screeching about and his school has questionable material as well.

She remained calm, she could remember all of the constutional rights, she didn't cry at the questions and she didn't rise to the bait. She very patiently explained over and over again how the law works, and how she uses the laws and processes in her work. She spoke of how far her family has come, she spoke of understanding law enforcement, she spoke about how people should be accountable for crimes they commit.

With her exhaustive background, her praise from numerous judges, including conservative judges, can you tell me what you've determined her radical agenda is?

ETA: As for the woman thing, it would just be twisted such as today Tucker is claiming a woman is defined by having a uterus. Ok, so if you have a hysterectomy then you are no longer a woman? It was a question that Marsha was not bright enough to ask another way if she was trying to pigeon hole her on an opinion about whatever it was she was trying to get to.


Link

Well at least the questions and "data" on KBJ is all based on facts and real cases unlike the fake Christine Blasey Ford hoax testimony 🤣🤣🤣 (hair on dirty glasses and all)

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: xuenchen

She didn't halt quick deportations. As the correct process was not followed to change the rule from 14 days to up to two years. Because of procedural reasons.

Historically, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has only applied Expedited Removal procedures (which fast track hearings of recent illegal border crossers) to those who have entered the United States within the prior 14 days and have been encountered by an immigration officer within 100 air miles of the border.Judge Jackson ruled against the Trump administration, holding that DHS likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) by skipping steps to justify the policy change and that it failed to properly consider the policy’s impact, including failing to seek public input.
Judge Jackson’s expansive reading of the APA suggests a willingness to rule against agencies acting pursuant to explicit statutory authority. Similarly expansive readings of the APA have been applied by the Supreme Court to strike down DHS’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program, despite DHS’s determination that the program directly violated numerous federal immigration and administrative procedure statutes.

Would you like the other two rulings? She dismissed a challenge on the Trump border wall and she upheld two of the Trump administrations review agencies called PACR and HARP which had to do with asylum screenings.

So she was in favor 2 out of 3 and only ruled against due to not following proper process.

Doesn't seem that radical does it?

Great ! Another story and quote with no source or facts !! 😵

a reply to: frogs453

So, let's see, she cannot by law just give a max penalty to child abusers, she and conservative judges are following the pre-sentence report and other procedures and guidelines which is why nationwide

That is a complete false hood mate and also a complete regurgitation of the Left media .

and even the Left media never said she couldn't do it " By Law " .

She can give any sentence she pleases , she is the Judge she could let them walk if she wanted or she could give them Life . Just because another Judge in the past has given a certain Sentence in no way means she is required to follow suit , I'll say it again she can do what she wants .

Think about it mate what is even the point of a Judge if they have to follow predetermined sentencing guide lines ?

a reply to: frogs453

With her exhaustive background, her praise from numerous judges, including conservative judges, can you tell me what you've determined her radical agenda is?

I dont blame her. Not in the least insofar as luck and opportunity.

The blame lies with brandon. He said he was picking based on race and sex which is textbook discrimination.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

This correct.

Scarily enough, even if the defendant has agreed to a plea deal.

a reply to: xuenchen

Please, in all the years I've been here, you seriously don't think I have a link and I made it up? The link has been added to the post.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You really think judges can give all the defendents the max sentence? Really? You do realize that there is a point system that is done from information gathered by other departments that is given to her before sentencing that she has to by law use to weigh the sentence? Why do you think in big cases they don't immediately sentence people? Because there is a process to follow. You really believe that sentences would not be overturned if a judge was giving max sentences to all the defendents and not following proper judicial procedure? Then you would have them freely on the streets without the lifetime consequences in place from the original verdict? Judges are not God. They have to follow rules as well. She is not an outlier on this. She can't just give them a max sentence because she wants to.

a reply to: frogs453

You are very wrong here.

 
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are non-binding rulesthat set out a uniform sentencing policy for defendants convicted in the United States federal court system that became effective in 1987. The Guidelines provide for “very precise calibration of sentences, depending upon a number of factors. These factors relate both to the subjective guilt of the defendant and to the harm caused by his facts.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 820 (1991).
The Guidelines are not mandatory, because they may result in a sentence based on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 20 (2005). However, judges must consider them when determining a criminal defendant's sentence. When a judge determines within his or her discretion to depart from the Guidelines, the judge must explain what factors warranted the increased or decreased sentence.When a Court of Appeals reviews a sentence imposed through a proper application the Guidelines, it may presume the sentence is reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007).
See Sentencing.

source

I can also provide anecdotal and case evidence as well.

Well anyway, it seems as if most want to just yell "radical" and "pedo lover" and "I get a bad vibe" regardless of the facts of law. I've provided all the info and links I can. I'll leave you to the echo chamber you seem to prefer. Don't forget to throw in a few "CRT", and "Leftist Agenda" in there too.

a reply to: JinMI

Again, if she is departing from the guidelines and maxing all cases, you honestly think when they all go to appeal that they will not be overturned? You have not mentioned the cases she did give the harsh sentence to. She did not give lessor sentences in all her cases. Your link states they do have to follow the guidelines and only if there is extenuating circumstances can they vary and again the appeals court determines whether it was just.

Maybe our system sucks, could be. But you really do know you can't have one judge max everyone out while the consensus on 2 out 3 are all sentenced the same. The judge would likely end up removed.