Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

I felt that she deserved her own thread - here's a nice moment from her hearings:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/opinions/judge-jackson-most-powerful-moment-goss-graves/index.html

Cory's impassioned speech:


I just couldn’t watch, because the hearings also had Ted Cruz whitesplaining MLK’s teachings to Judge Jackson. 


Just another example of how a strong woman can trigger weak men.


jamie said:

I felt that she deserved her own thread - here's a nice moment from her hearings:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/opinions/judge-jackson-most-powerful-moment-goss-graves/index.html

Cory's impassioned speech

This was unbelievably eloquent for an extemporaneous speech. 

@Morganna, I get it now.


I watched most of the 3 day marathon. I would have liked to hear someone explain the sentencing in question in a way that the average viewer could comprehend.

I caught bits of arguments, moments from Sen. Mazie Hirono, explaining that Judge Jackson's sentencing was similar to that of conservative judges. That was not very comforting. I knew why the Republicans were hammering away on the issue,  because little is more sensitive than child pornography and they wanted to score points but I didn't hear explanations from either Judge Jackson or the Democrats that were satisfying,

What did I miss or do others think that wasn't handled as well as it could be. A few details that were shared were horrifying and I've heard this stuff sitting on grand jury duty. That part of the hearings had the desired effect, it left me very uncomfortable.


@Morganna - The Washington Post interviewed Wesley Hawkins, who was the 18 year old in the pornography case that was frequently cited:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/03/25/wesley-hawkins-ketanji-brown-jackson/

Here is a snippet that may explain how the original sentencing decision was reached:

The Hawkins case was one of the first to come before Jackson after she was confirmed by the Senate as a federal-district court judge in Washington in 2013.
Hawkins was found with 17 videos and 16 images, several depicting prepubescent boys engaged in sex acts. Hawkins cooperated with police, admitted possession and entered a pre-indictment guilty plea. He also wrote a letter taking responsibility and expressing remorse.
Federal guidelines called for a sentence of eight to 10 years. Prosecutors recommended two years, given Hawkins’s age and lack of a criminal record. A U.S. probation officer recommended a year and a half. Hawkins’s defense attorney asked for just one day in jail and five years of supervised release.
Jackson said in court that Hawkins had committed “a very serious and, in many ways, heinous crime” but noted that Hawkins had not produced any of the videos or taken any of the pictures. She also said she had to weigh Hawkins’s age in relation to the age of the children in many of the images. He was not much older than they, she said. “This seems to be a situation in which you were fascinated by sexual images involving what were essentially your peers,” Jackson said. “And, as the psychological report concluded, there’s no reason to believe that you are a pedophile or that you pose any risk to children.”


Morganna said:

I watched most of the 3 day marathon. I would have liked to hear someone explain the sentencing in question in a way that the average viewer could comprehend.

I caught bits of arguments, moments from Sen. Mazie Hirono, explaining that Judge Jackson's sentencing was similar to that of conservative judges. That was not very comforting. I knew why the Republicans were hammering away on the issue,  because little is more sensitive than child pornography and they wanted to score points but I didn't hear explanations from either Judge Jackson or the Democrats that were satisfying,

What did I miss or do others think that wasn't handled as well as it could be. A few details that were shared were horrifying and I've heard this stuff sitting on grand jury duty. That part of the hearings had the desired effect, it left me very uncomfortable.

the whole issue was a shameful red herring and had nothing to do with her qualifications. It was supposed to make you uncomfortable. (as you said)

But if you ask me you should be much more angry with the Repubs than you are uncomfortable.

Those questioners were execrable and utterly shameless.


sprout said:

Thanks, it wasn't the Hawkins case, although that was one that was brought up. I guessed it was his age that was considered. I'm sure the legal background of the Senators helped them to understand. It was a few details from one or two other cases that struck me.


drummerboy said:

the whole issue was a shameful red herring and had nothing to do with her qualifications. It was supposed to make you uncomfortable. (as you said)

But if you ask me you should be much more angry with the Repubs than you are uncomfortable.

Those questioners were execrable and utterly shameless.

Confirmation hearings appear to cover a broad range of topics. It did not seem unreasonable to look at someone's sentencing record to me but as a member of the general public my opinion doesn't count. After the Kavanaugh hearings I have no idea what proper decorum is. Just thought the Democrats could have done a better job as there is a mid term election coming up and the general public does vote. And if that didn't matter, I would not have received a plea for a  donation within hours of the hearings from a Senator, referring to the hearings. 

Were Hawley, Cruz and Graham aggressive and accusatory? Yes, no surprise there. If they were making up facts, off with their heads. I watch Senators accuse and insult one another when the Senate is in session with only a warning to refrain from personal attacks. So your voting record is probably fair game, which makes me assume a judge's sentencing record is fair game.


It was nice of Hawley to publicly pre-announce (tweet) the part of Judge Jackson's record he planned to go after. The rebuttals I saw seemed well prepared.


Morganna said:


Were Hawley, Cruz and Graham aggressive and accusatory? Yes, no surprise there. If they were making up facts, off with their heads. I watch Senators accuse and insult one another when the Senate is in session with only a warning to refrain from personal attacks. So your voting record is probably fair game, which makes me assume a judge's sentencing record is fair game.

Apples and Oranges.

She was a trial Judge for something like ten years. She handled probably hundreds of cases. If she was being appointed to a position where she would have to impose sentences her record on sentencing would be relevant. The work of the Supreme Court has almost nothing to do with sentencing.

The Republicans were engaged in theater and in pushing campaign issues. Please remember that the Q anon lunatics believe that the Democratic Party is run by pedophiles. That is who these Senators were speaking to. And the Georgetown Day school and CRT crap was aimed at racists.


STANV said:

Apples and Oranges.

She was a trial Judge for something like ten years. She handled probably hundreds of cases. If she was being appointed to a position where she would have to impose sentences her record on sentencing would be relevant. The work of the Supreme Court has almost nothing to do with sentencing.

The Republicans were engaged in theater and in pushing campaign issues. Please remember that the Q anon lunatics believe that the Democratic Party is run by pedophiles. That is who these Senators were speaking to. And the Georgetown Day school and CRT crap was aimed at racists.

I agree that the Republicans were pushing campaign issues and that they were engaged in theater. When Trump won, one fact that was discussed was that many swing voters were women, I believe specifically mothers, so, with the upcoming midterms which may change the balance of Congress, I questioned whether the Democrats handled the raised issues well. As I mentioned I doubt I was the only registered Democrat that was sent a summary of the hearing and a request for a campaign donation.

I'm watching a review of the highlights and Sen. Grassley quotes Judge Jackson as saying one of the ways they should consider her qualifications is to look at her trial record.  I'm neither a judge, nor do I have a vote in Congress but I'm a female voter watching the hearings.

Whether a judge is sentencing or making decisions as a Supreme Court Judge, they are using their judgement or applying their understanding of the law. So, apples and oranges in my view, are both fruit.

Pretty sure Judge Jackson will be confirmed.  And I have not been in favor of the last three picks so maybe I'm just harshly judgmental.


Morganna said:

Whether a judge is sentencing or making decisions as a Supreme Court Judge, they are using their judgement or applying their understanding of the law. So, apples and oranges in my view, are both fruit.

Pretty sure Judge Jackson will be confirmed.  And I have not been in favor of the last three picks so maybe I'm just harshly judgmental.

@Morganna,

I think you said it was not the Wesley Hawkins case you had concerns with. Which sentencing decision(s) do you have concerns about?


Morganna said:

STANV said:

Apples and Oranges.

She was a trial Judge for something like ten years. She handled probably hundreds of cases. If she was being appointed to a position where she would have to impose sentences her record on sentencing would be relevant. The work of the Supreme Court has almost nothing to do with sentencing.

The Republicans were engaged in theater and in pushing campaign issues. Please remember that the Q anon lunatics believe that the Democratic Party is run by pedophiles. That is who these Senators were speaking to. And the Georgetown Day school and CRT crap was aimed at racists.

I agree that the Republicans were pushing campaign issues and that they were engaged in theater. When Trump won, one fact that was discussed was that many swing voters were women, I believe specifically mothers, so, with the upcoming midterms which may change the balance of Congress, I questioned whether the Democrats handled the raised issues well. As I mentioned I doubt I was the only registered Democrat that was sent a summary of the hearing and a request for a campaign donation.

I'm watching a review of the highlights and Sen. Grassley quotes Judge Jackson as saying one of the ways they should consider her qualifications is to look at her trial record.  I'm neither a judge, nor do I have a vote in Congress but I'm a female voter watching the hearings.

Whether a judge is sentencing or making decisions as a Supreme Court Judge, they are using their judgement or applying their understanding of the law. So, apples and oranges in my view, are both fruit.

Pretty sure Judge Jackson will be confirmed.  And I have not been in favor of the last three picks so maybe I'm just harshly judgmental.

Do you think Hawley made legitimate points regarding her sentencing decisions?


drummerboy said:

Do you think Hawley made legitimate points regarding her sentencing decisions?

I think despite his loathsome style, he and Cruz dug up some stats that looked bad. I'm focused on how the Dems can hold onto seats in the midterms and worried about swing voters. I'm not switching parties over this but I'm obsessed with Dem messaging. I joined the chorus against the last 3 GOP SCOTUS picks and no surprise the treatment of at least Kavanaugh and Barrett was referred to during the confirmation hearings fair or not.

MSNBC commentators argued that the Republicans painting Judge Jackson as soft on crime was typical racism. Assuming that few women had the time to watch anything but news clips, they may not have heard much of the dialogue but I wonder if it took on a life of its own on twitter.

I watched a few exchanges on CNN and MSNBC and they were edited and spliced so nothing awful was shown other than loud rude men shouting at a patient woman. So maybe I should get over it as the rest of the world is not watching C SPAN unfiltered.



sprout said:

@Morganna,

I think you said it was not the Wesley Hawkins case you had concerns with. Which sentencing decision(s) do you have concerns about?

The Hawkins case was a very low sentence. 3 months.  The guidelines of 8 to 10 years sounded harsh, and there was much discussion of enhancements, a phrase that the average viewer might not have a thorough familiarity with. Prosecution the article above said asked for 2 years, Probation asked for 1 1/2 years so 3 months does sound like a slap on the wrist, a phrase used by Hawley.  I disagreed with Judge Jackson's conclusion that the 18 year old viewed the 8 year olds as his peers. Also the light sentence because of her reasoning that he will probably not become a pedophile is in contrast to her statements to the committee that she explains that in the making of these videos the children are the victims and these victim often do not recover fully. So there are victims. There was also a back and forth as to whether Hawkins had distributed the 17 videos. She did not recall he insisted it was in the records so it was possession and distribution.

There were about 10 cases referred  by Cruz mostly pointing to how much lower by percentages her sentencing was on child porn cases.

Rather than upsetting anyone on this board, I'll just say I don't believe names were mentioned but both Hawley and Cruz cited the cases. Highlights, if you can call them that would be available on C SPAN or somewhere online.


Morganna said:

sprout said:

@Morganna,

I think you said it was not the Wesley Hawkins case you had concerns with. Which sentencing decision(s) do you have concerns about?

The Hawkins case was a very low sentence. 3 months.  

The 3 months is only the jail sentence. His full sentence was: 3 months in jail, followed by 3 months of home detention, 6 years of supervision, and be registered on the sex offender registry for 10 years.

He has been watched closely for many years to assess his risk, and was sent to a halfway house when he seemed potentially 'at risk of reoffending'. 

It's been nearly 10 years, and his outcome, thus far, seems better than the outcomes of most who have lengthy incarcerations: About 70% of incarcerated people are rearrested within 5 years of release. 

It's not possible to know for certain in the longer term, but so far Judge Jackson's sentence worked as she intended - functioning as rehabilitation for Hawkins, and as security for society.


I was totally afraid they would drag it out so long that Ben Cardin would die before she was confirmed.


I'm glad she's in, deservedly so. Her judicial temperament and history and her deportment at these hearings show her to be superbly capable.

But I wish the media and others would stop with the identity politics push.

That constant reminder and headlines of her being the first black woman, being history setting, so forth. Yeah, we all know this. What about just stating that her very capable accomplishments and the highest rating given by the bar association?

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 


RTrent said:

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 

I would be willing to put up with it if, in exchange, they would pay the same amount off attention to the whiteness of the Republican nominees, all of the unearned help they got along the way and the advantages they got from their privilege.

Of course, that is not the deal that is on the table.


Imagine…it isn’t hard to do


RTrent said:

I'm glad she's in, deservedly so. Her judicial temperament and history and her deportment at these hearings show her to be superbly capable.

But I wish the media and others would stop with the identity politics push.

That constant reminder and headlines of her being the first black woman, being history setting, so forth. Yeah, we all know this. What about just stating that her very capable accomplishments and the highest rating given by the bar association?

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 

How do you know that the new judge is a woman?  Are you a biologist? 


terp said:

RTrent said:

I'm glad she's in, deservedly so. Her judicial temperament and history and her deportment at these hearings show her to be superbly capable.

But I wish the media and others would stop with the identity politics push.

That constant reminder and headlines of her being the first black woman, being history setting, so forth. Yeah, we all know this. What about just stating that her very capable accomplishments and the highest rating given by the bar association?

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 

How do you know that the new judge is a woman?  Are you a biologist? 

I can't define one, but I know one when I see one.


can you believe how petty these a-holes are?



terp said:

How do you know that the new judge is a woman?  Are you a biologist? 

  question


terp said:

RTrent said:

I'm glad she's in, deservedly so. Her judicial temperament and history and her deportment at these hearings show her to be superbly capable.

But I wish the media and others would stop with the identity politics push.

That constant reminder and headlines of her being the first black woman, being history setting, so forth. Yeah, we all know this. What about just stating that her very capable accomplishments and the highest rating given by the bar association?

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 

How do you know that the new judge is a woman?  Are you a biologist? 

We take her word for it. 


terp said:

RTrent said:

I'm glad she's in, deservedly so. Her judicial temperament and history and her deportment at these hearings show her to be superbly capable.

But I wish the media and others would stop with the identity politics push.

That constant reminder and headlines of her being the first black woman, being history setting, so forth. Yeah, we all know this. What about just stating that her very capable accomplishments and the highest rating given by the bar association?

To me, this pushing of her blackness and being a woman seems a trivialization of her real accomplishments. 

How do you know that the new judge is a woman?  Are you a biologist? 

From another thread: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/anti-war-protest-in-russian?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3574652

terp said:

I hear they were all women, but I can't be sure as I'm not a biologist.

@terp 

Not smart enough to come up with something actually funny? Or do you keep repeating this theme because of issues you would like to work through? 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.