Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson

[aubiefifty 16,718]

Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson

 

Erwin Chemerinsky

Sun, March 20, 2022, 4:08 PM

 

 

 

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers remarks at the White House on her nomination by President Biden to serve as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 25. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

The fight over the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court is powerful evidence that our political system is broken like never before. There is no plausible basis for opposing Jackson, who has impeccable qualifications and about whom nothing controversial has been discovered.

Yet, her confirmation hearings, which begin on Monday are likely to be highly contentious, and she is unlikely to get the votes of more than a Republican senator or two. Lacking any credible basis for opposing her, Republicans are turning to unfair smears.

In the world of law, credentials don’t get better than hers. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, she clerked for judges in the federal district court and the federal court of appeals, as well as Justice Stephen G. Breyer in the United States Supreme Court. She had extensive practice experience in a variety of settings and has been a federal judge since 2013, in the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Lawyers who have appeared before her, liberal and conservative, are effusive in their praise of her as a judge.

 

Lacking any grounds for opposition, Republicans are resorting to slime. Some are criticizing her because she worked as a public defender, including representing a Guantanamo detainee. But in our constitutional system, every criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney, and lawyers who perform this role are fulfilling the most noble goals of the legal profession. That Jackson will be the first public defender to be a Supreme Court justice should be celebrated, not attacked.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is stooping even lower. He criticizes an article she wrote as a law student and has said that when she was a federal judge there were seven child pornography cases where she gave a sentence less than the Department of Justice recommended. But as the White House has pointed out, in five of those cases, Judge Jackson imposed the sentences that were the same as or greater than what the United States probation office recommended.

Hawley criticizes statements she made when she was a member of the United States Sentencing Commission but omits that the commission was bipartisan and voted unanimously to modify the recommended sentences for possession of child pornography, where there was no proof that the person was involved in producing or trafficking child pornography.

Kyle Martinsen, of the Republican National Committee, emailed reporters that Jackson has a “pattern of advocating for terrorists AND child predators. What other criminals is Ketanji Brown Jackson an advocate for?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Her supporters look at her résumé and deduce a special empathy for criminals.”

Have they no shame? Representing criminal defendants or Guantanamo detainees reflects a desire to uphold the Constitution, not “special empathy for criminals.” One cannot help but wonder whether Jackson being a Black woman is fueling this “soft on crime” attack.

It was not that long ago that impeccably qualified Supreme Court nominees were easily confirmed with bipartisan support. In 1993, liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 and seven years earlier, conservative Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed.

What has changed? Republicans may see this as “payback” for the Democratic opposition to President Trump’s nominees for the Supreme Court. Brett M. Kavanaugh faced serious allegations of sexual assault from Christine Blasey Ford. Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation was rammed through less than six weeks after Justice Ginsburg died — even though the same Republicans refused to allow a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, on the grounds that the Senate should not consider a nominee in a presidential election year.

But what is really going on is that Republicans believe that they can appeal to their political base by opposing any Democratic pick for the Supreme Court. And they are willing to resort to whatever it takes.

I don’t know the way out of this toxic mess. Perhaps what’s important to remember is that so long as all the Democrats vote in favor of Jackson, she will be confirmed. Republicans can make a lot of noise and throw around dirt, but they don’t have the votes to block her. Nominees are rarely defeated when the president and the Senate are of the same political party.

Still, the Republicans are sure to make this week’s hearings a spectacle, attacking a nominee who deserves full bipartisan support.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. He is the author most recently of “Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.”
 

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

[auburn41 492]

51 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

But what is really going on is that Republicans believe that they can appeal to their political base by opposing any Democratic pick for the Supreme Court. And they are willing to resort to whatever it takes.

Well damn, maybe the Republicans should have come up with a dude from her high school days (that she didn't remember) that claims she tried to rape him, in a house that he couldn't identify, and none of the people he said were present and could corroborate his story had any recollection of it ever happening.  Then they should have this dude tell his story in front of the Judiciary Committee and broadcast live on TV in order to try to ruin her family and reputation.  If the Republicans had come up with this idea.....then they really would be guilty of resorting to whatever it takes!  I guess Mr. Chemerinsky forgot that this is what the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh!!!! 

[aubiefifty 16,718]

3 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Well damn, maybe the Republicans should have come up with a dude from her high school days (that she didn't remember) that claims she tried to rape him, in a house that he couldn't identify, and none of the people he said were present and could corroborate his story had any recollection of it ever happening.  Then they should have this dude tell his story in front of the Judiciary Committee and broadcast live on TV in order to try to ruin her family and reputation.  If the Republicans had come up with this idea.....then they really would be guilty of resorting to whatever it takes!  I guess Mr. Chemerinsky forgot that this is what the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh!!!! 

brett could not carry her lunch. but i bet he takes advantage of her if she gets pie eyed around him. because he klied when he said he did not drink.................

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

It was not that long ago that impeccably qualified Supreme Court nominees were easily confirmed with bipartisan support. In 1993, liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 and seven years earlier, conservative Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed.

In 1991 Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote, so this quote is a little bit of a cherry pick.  I doubt the Republican's will present a witness accusing her of unspeakable things.  I could be wrong, but playing the race card so early doesn’t bode well for the Democrats.

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

 

Democrats showing their higher moral standards.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

ROTMFFLMAO

Dems crying about the Repubs trying to smear a SC nominee.

Par for the hypocritical course!!

[autigeremt 6,569]

All I want her to do is be a good, Constitutional judge. The rest needs to be history. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Democrats showing their higher moral standards.

 

Who is Ellen Hopkins and why does she represent Democrats? 

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

25 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Who is Ellen Hopkins and why does she represent Democrats? 

She is representative of the reactions to Judge Thomas’ hospital stay by the left/Democrats.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

She is representative of the reactions to Judge Thomas’ hospital stay by the left/Democrats.

Ok, I'll reframe the question...

"Who is Ellen Hopkins and why does she represent the Democratic reaction to Judge Thomas's hospital stay?"

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

16 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Ok, I'll reframe the question...

"Who is Ellen Hopkins and why does she represent the Democratic reaction to Judge Thomas's hospital stay?"

Think of it like the MEMEs you post about Republicans, its not true but you believe it.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

She is representative of the reactions to Judge Thomas’ hospital stay by the left/Democrats.

Why is she? On what basis is this rando on Twitter representative of Democrats reaction?

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Why is she? On what basis is this rando on Twitter representative of Democrats reaction?

 

 

 

shall I go on?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

 

shall I go on?

Got any actual elected Senators or congressmen? There are literally more than 200. Unless more than a handful are wishing him poor health, you’ve overstated a bit, haven’t you?

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Got any actual elected Senators or congressmen? There are literally more than 200. Unless more than a handful are wishing him poor health, you’ve overstated a bit, haven’t you?

I stated left/Democrat I didn’t specify elected officials.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I stated left/Democrat I didn’t specify elected officials.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Well I could tag Republicans with any number of random morons saying some pretty crazy stuff— and some are in Congress. 😉

[I_M4_AU 7,773]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Well I could tag Republicans with any number of random morons saying some pretty crazy stuff— and some are in Congress. 😉

You and Coffee are very similar.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You and Coffee are very similar.

Don't forget fidy. 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You and Coffee are very similar.

Logical? 😉

 

[aubiefifty 16,718]

10 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Don't forget fidy. 

i am always in your hearts and minds...........

[aubiefifty 16,718]

so let me get this right. ol kav telling folks he is a drunk and assaults  and in this very thread a whole lot of ladies spoke out and yet none of them have been to court or sit in jail for lying?and they ALL lied?  so lets summarize.............it is bad for dems to bash someone but ok for repukes to do it right? and you guys just laugh and laugh like it is alright. i would ask you guys to take the high road but you guys never do that. i have quit hoping. and by the way it is a stupid look using lying ted cruz for ANYTHING.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

While we're memeing it up in hur 

[aubiefifty 16,718]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

While we're memeing it up in hur 

ok righties and lefties tell me i am right or wrong? trump pushed kav because he wanted a stooge in the SC to further his agenda's and i am not talking abortion.............