Posted on Mar 24, 2022
GOP senators attack and interrupt in final day of questioning U.S. Supreme Court nominee - Kansas...
1.63K
55
36
16
16
0
In the third day of hearings Wednesday on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, several Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated her about sentences she handed down for child pornography offenses, disagreeing vehemently with her judicial decisions.
Republicans grilled her with questions she had already answered about seven cases — out of hundreds she handled as a federal district court judge — that dealt with child pornography, in an attempt to paint her as soft on offenders convicted of heinous charges.
Jackson in response to Sens. Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley defended her record — despite numerous interruptions from the senators — and attempted to explain the complexity of federal sentencing, as she had on Tuesday.
She objected to Hawley and other Republicans’ focus on sentencing in such a small number of cases, repeating throughout the day that “no one case can stand in for a judge’s entire record.”
Democrats on the 22-member committee stressed her qualifications and her high ratings from law enforcement groups like the Fraternal Order of Police. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, invited Jackson to talk about her brother, who is a law enforcement officer, as well as her two uncles who served in law enforcement.
Republicans grilled her with questions she had already answered about seven cases — out of hundreds she handled as a federal district court judge — that dealt with child pornography, in an attempt to paint her as soft on offenders convicted of heinous charges.
Jackson in response to Sens. Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley defended her record — despite numerous interruptions from the senators — and attempted to explain the complexity of federal sentencing, as she had on Tuesday.
She objected to Hawley and other Republicans’ focus on sentencing in such a small number of cases, repeating throughout the day that “no one case can stand in for a judge’s entire record.”
Democrats on the 22-member committee stressed her qualifications and her high ratings from law enforcement groups like the Fraternal Order of Police. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, invited Jackson to talk about her brother, who is a law enforcement officer, as well as her two uncles who served in law enforcement.
GOP senators attack and interrupt in final day of questioning U.S. Supreme Court nominee - Kansas...
Posted from kansasreflector.com
United States Senate
Supreme Court
Republicans
Democrats
Law Enforcement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
8
8
0
Sounds like a healthy back and forth. The big question is if she had an alibi for her participation in a gang rape when she was in college. If not, then I cannot see how she can be seated.
Of course I jest. I just like to point out the hypocrisy and double standards of the Progressive Democrats.
Of course I jest. I just like to point out the hypocrisy and double standards of the Progressive Democrats.
(8)
(0)
Maj William W. 'Bill' Price
SFC (Join to see) Well said. If Progressives didn't have double standards, they would have none at all.
(4)
(0)
SrA John Monette
The same could be said for those on the right. Their mantra seems to be "do as I say, not as I do".
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SrA John Monette - We are speaking about Ms. Jackson here and how I specifically (jokingly) applied a parallel situation to her with a specific individual (Kavanaugh). If you want to join in give us some meat on the bones in fact and good humor, not just platitudes.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Judges cannot make up their own sentences. They have to go by sentencing guidelines. If the senators don't like the guidelines, which are set by a government agency (US Sentencing Commission) then they need to take it up with the Commission.
(6)
(0)
SGT Mark Halmrast
SrA John Monette yes, exactly. And when judges do that, and aspire to sit on the SCOTUS, they can be questioned about it and give an account for it.
It's a fair question by the Senate committee charged with vetting SCOTUS nominees.
It's a fair question by the Senate committee charged with vetting SCOTUS nominees.
(1)
(0)
SrA John Monette
SGT Mark Halmrast - And the committee needs to stop asking stupid questions. Ask pertinent ones. Ask how she might have ruled on a past issue. Ask if she would recuse herself for any reason, which she answered she would.
(1)
(0)
SGT Mark Halmrast
SrA John Monette that is what they are doing, asking how she ruled on a past issue. Sentencing is part of a trial judge's ruling.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Mark Halmrast It became apparent in the questioning that the law is out of date. Basically pre internet. Congress has failed to address this and until its done all Judges will have to work within current law. So if you or anyone else is really concerned they should write their congressional reps supporting changing the law.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Politics at the federal level demonstrate our devolving Second Civil War.
Rich
Rich
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google