Supreme Court

Ketanji Brown Jackson Defended People Suspected of Terrorism. Good.

There's a particular richness to Republican senators weaponizing the right to defense counsel as an affront to the Constitution as opposed to something that's pivotal to it.


There are likely some areas in which one could take issue with Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson's judicial methodology. Unfortunately, the people watching her confirmation hearing learned little about what those might be.

That's partially because Senate Republicans opted to zero in on topics that carry political currency and play well with the cameras but do little to undermine or inform how Jackson would preserve constitutional rights from the country's highest court.

One such example came yesterday during an exchange between Jackson and Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), who railed into Jackson's role as a federal public defender. During that period, she helped represent clients at Guantanamo Bay, the military prison where the overwhelming majority of inmates are held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, much less convicted.

Cotton: Do you think most detainees at Guantanamo Bay were mostly terrorists or mostly, I don't know, innocent goat farmers?… Do you think America would be safer or less safe if we released all the detainees from Guantanamo Bay?

Jackson: Senator… I'm trying to figure out how to answer that question. 9/11 was a terrible attack on our country, and the executive branch, pursuant to authority that the Supreme Court said it had, designated people as enemy combatants and sent them to Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court also said that anyone that was so detained could seek review of their detention, and as a federal public defender, my role and responsibility was to make arguments in defense of the Constitution and in service to the court that was trying to assess—based on the authority given to it by the Supreme Court—whether or not people were adequately classified, what the legal circumstances were, how these habeas petitions were going to be processed. This was a series of legal challenges in a novel environment that federal public defenders and lawyers across the country were engaged in helping the court to evaluate so that we can understand what the Constitution required in this time of emergency.

Cotton: OK, so no opinion on if America would be safer or less safe if we released all the detainees from Guantanamo Bay?

Jackson: Senator, America would be [safer] if we don't have terrorists out running around attacking this country, absolutely. America would also be more safe in a situation in which all of our constitutional rights are protected. This is the way our scheme works. This is how the Constitution that we all love operates. It's about making sure that the government is doing what it's supposed to do in a time of crisis. As Justice Gorsuch said, "The Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis." The government still has to follow the rules. And so criminal defense lawyers make sure that, in times of crisis, the government is following the rules.

There's a particular richness to a Republican senator weaponizing the right to defense counsel as an affront to the Constitution as opposed to something that's pivotal to our nation's charter. That's especially so when considering Cotton's stated litmus test for a justice, which he outlined at the start of Jackson's hearings: "I'm looking for a justice who will uphold the Constitution," he said Monday. "I'm looking for a justice who understands the Constitution means what it says and does not mean what it doesn't say."

Core to the Constitution, as Cotton knows, is the notion that those suspected of crimes are entitled to an attorney. That should also be at the center of any ideology that claims to care about "limited government" and protecting individual rights. Those rights should not apply only to the people he likes.

Cotton was not alone. In a similar vein, also in contention was Jackson's role in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the libertarian Cato Institute, the conservative-Christian Rutherford Institute, and the bipartisan Constitution Project in support of Guantanamo detainees who had been in the U.S. legally and who were arrested and indefinitely detained on suspicion alone.

"It's so unserious that it can only be received as disingenuous grandstanding," says Clark Neily, senior vice president of legal studies Cato, in reference to Jackson's exchanges with various Senate Republicans who implied that her work as a public defender made her unfit for the Supreme Court. "People who go after her for doing that work ought to think long and hard about whether they really want to send a message to some of the best and the brightest in next generation of lawyers that if you pick the wrong cause—it could be gun rights, school choice, religious freedom—that this is what you have in store for you."

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, attorneys who litigated on both sides of the Guantanamo issue sought to disabuse lawmakers of the idea that Jackson's work should be disqualifying. "The Guantanamo litigation has long attracted the best of the Bar. For the detainees, this includes many of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country; for the Government, it includes some of the most experienced attorneys in the Department of Justice," wrote the cohort, which includes Peter Keisler, who served as an Attorney General under former President George W. Bush. "Reasonable minds can differ about how these questions should have been answered. But securing these answers by orderly litigation in the federal courts, brought and defended by able and zealous advocates on both sides, including in multiple cases heard by the Supreme Court, is the process the Constitution envisions."

For a potential future Supreme Court justice, participating in that constitutional process is not a stain but a virtue—something that Republican senators might concede in most circumstances, had the cameras not been rolling.

NEXT: Kyrie Irving Can Finally Play, but New York City's Vaccine Mandate Double Standard Remains

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why does reason have a hard on of an extremist far left psychopath?

    1. Ten articles in a week crying that the Republican senators are mean for asking the token SCOTUS hire some job related questions.

      Meanwhile they cheered on the fascist bullshit that Kavanagh and ACB were put through.

      The magazine is now little more than a hack shop peddling brown-envelope journalism.

      1. Your memory seems more than a little colored. I remember quite a few articles here criticizing the partisan attacks on Kavanaugh and Barrett. In fact, I don't recall any articles here cheering the attacks.

        1. Look at the first KBJ article from sullum. Reason defended the attacks as credible and shikha even called for the FBI investigation.

          1. I linked to a half dozen there. So feel free to refresh your memory.

        2. Jesse linked to about half a dozen articles doing just that in one of the many pro-KBJ articles. There’s so many of them that I don’t feel like looking through them all to find though.

          1. I hear it’s the first one.

            1. Pretty sure it was =)

        3. Soave literally bought into the Kavanaugh narrative.

        4. Yes,the made up rape accusation was "credible" and should be taken as fact made more credible by more fantastical fact free assertions. Meanwhile probing the nominee's judicial record is racist and beyond the pale. I'd expect this gaslighting from ChenJeff but you're generally better than the propagandist shills.

          1. Brandy pulled the same bullshit. Why I put the links in the other sullum story.

        5. "I remember quite a few articles here criticizing the partisan attacks on Kavanaugh and Barrett."

          No you don't. Post one.

          "In fact, I don't recall any articles here cheering the attacks."

          Here we go:

            1. Robby Soave - "This is not like the Rolling Stone Rape Hoax!"


              "But the Kavanaugh accusations, while not totally solid in every way, are significantly more plausible than the story an anonymous victim, "Jackie," told to Rolling Stone in 2014."

              1. And that wasn't even him talking about the incredibly vague accusations about a random night sometime in 1987 at an unknown house that nobody else could verify. That was him speaking about accusations about an organized system of gang rapes at parties organized by high schoolers, coming from a woman with a history of making outlandish fake accusations and represented by a notoriously scummy attorney.

                1. An attorney that’s gonna spend most of the rest of their life in prison for that scumminess.

      2. There's a particular richness to a Reason writer claiming moral authority on the subject of SCOTUS nomination hearings.

      3. Or, now hear me out, Kavanaugh was credibly accused of rape and maybe, just maybe, that is worth investigating?

        This is such a lame ass argument. Same as the IRS investigations. If conservatives are doing illegal shit should we have to also investigate democrats just to maintain a sense of impartiality?

        How about some actual law and order? How about doing due diligence? As it stands, they have jack shit on Ms. Jackson here and it shows.

        Maybe Trump (or rather, the Federalist Society) shouldn't have nominated a rapist who also had some real questionable financial issues (like those baseball tix, etc.)

        Heaven forbid they just nominate someone clean. I don't seem to remember a big circus around Gorsuch except for stealing a seat that Obama should've had his nomination looked at. Probably because he didn't have all the issues surrounding him like Kavanaugh.

        So in short, go fuck yourself dumbass. Fuck your feelings.

        1. Love how you completely ignore that the Kavanaugh accusations were baseless while giving blanket declarations that KJB is a "clean" nomination.

          Minus the whole wild partisanship, support of CRT and being exceptionally lenient on child molestors and porn...

          But for the left, I suppose definitions vary.

    2. Would she defend the Bill of Rights..Billy Boy or is that "racist"

      Important to Reason: Open borders, abortion, mainstreaming pedos

      Man what happened to the magazine I started to read in the 90's?

      1. It got bought out by a billionaire so he could play a "libertarian" William Randolph Hearst.

    3. What we need are Constitutional Justices, not left or right activists. Our forefathers would be apoplectic about how judges are Partisan and don’t protect our rights. The sham impeachments, BS January 6th with no justice, the lockdowns and mask wearing, CRT, divisive rhetoric about immutable characteristics, and nonsensical lgbtq. Today’s so-called ‘leaders,’ ask us to suspend reality. They want us to also accept absurdities. If so, what is wrong or right if even our law makers can’t tell? They don’t even know what a man or woman is! And we are supposed to be ‘judged’ by them?!?

      1. Probably the most epic statement on here or that I have read ever. Why don't people like you run for office?

    4. Damn good point. I think it is because all media is controlled by them. We all know Sleepy nominated this fellow crook because she is black and he wanted to be the first president to do it. It is strange that after years of helping to make laws that ensure black people many years behind bars, they vote the imbecile into office because he is a Demoncrat.

      This world is screwed up. Where wrong is right and the Earth is flat.

      If the Rs get the house or the Senate back or both they better begin to process of healing the country and start it fast and knee cap that bastard in the WH.

  2. >>she helped represent clients at Guantanamo Bay

    cool. individuals governed by our Constitution?

    >>The Guantanamo litigation has long attracted the best of the Bar

    well well if I can't see the puffed out chests and suspenders from here

    1. re: "individuals [protected] by our Constitution"

      Yes, actually - as of the moment we took the affirmative step to take them into custody.

      1. questionable based on individual status.

        1. Not questionable at all.

          Amendment VI
          In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

          Who is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution? According to the Amendment itself, "the accused shall enjoy the right".

          1. Those held at Guantanamo are not criminal defendants.

            They are prisoners of war.

            There are specified ways of handling them but they are not given the due process rights of American citizens in criminal proceedings.

            1. If they're enemy combatants who are simply being held as prisoners of war, you're right.

              If they're being accused of a crime, the Constitution should then apply. I don't see an 'unless they're a prisoner of war' clause in the Sixth Amendment. In fact, the Constitution explicitly says, 'In all criminal prosecutions', which seems even more immune to interpretation.

              1. Or rather, reinterpretation.

              2. Further, it strikes me as curiously convenient for the government that a person can be declared a prisoner of war without an official declaration of war actually happening.

              3. You seem to have missed for whom the Constitution was written;
                "We The People of the United States".
                Not everyone we encounter in the world.
                It is one thing to extend it to those non-citizens, legally residing within our borders, but to relate it to anyone else is anti-American globalist bullshit.

                1. How about the full quote, dipshit?

                  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

                  It's a single sentence, after all, and all it says is who is establishing the Constitution of the United States.

                  If the Constitution only applied to citizens, then there'd be no reason to imprison immigrants, legal or not. Just accuse them all of killing Lincoln or JFK and kill them where they stand. You don't even need evidence, because they don't get a trial. Easy peasy, right? Hell, just accuse them of jaywalking and kill them. Cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply to them, right? Even a regular citizen could do it, since you're not depriving them of any kind of right that the Constitution recognizes, since foreigners have no rights under our laws, correct?

                  Except of course that's not how the Constitution works, nor how it was intended to work. Moron.

    2. The only individuals governed by our Constitution are those who serve in the federal government.

      And the Bill of Rights is a list of prohibitions on what the government can't do, or what they must do if bringing charges against anyone, not just US citizens. As the 6th Amendment says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." Nothing about "any American citizen accused of a crime".

      1. >>accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury

        accused, speedy, public, and impartial are all ambiguous in this instance

      2. The entirety of the document is protection for those listed in its first seven words.
        Not everyone in the world.

  3. Of course, instead of explaining her viewpoint in the amicus brief, KBJ pretended they weren't her opinions at all and said, "I was simply representing my client." As if she had no input on that or the legal theories being expressed. It would have been much more impressive if she'd defended the positions in the letter instead of running away from them.

    1. Perhaps you should defend the Constitution and defendants' rights instead of running away from it. If you like totalitarianism so much, Putin and Xi would welcome you. I sure don't want you implementing it here.

      1. Thats an odd non sequitur.

        1. He's broken.

      2. I think you're very confused about the point I was trying to make.

    2. I will preface this with my standard 'I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is how it works'.

      Defense lawyers, for better or for worse, don't advocate their own beliefs. They are forcing the government to overcome the assumption of innocence. It isn't about what the defense lawyer believes, it's what will make it as challenging as possible for the government to reach the standard for conviction (whether it is beyond a reasonabke doubt or whatever other standard they need to achieve).

      Amicus briefs and appellate cases are the same comcept, but they are challenging the underlying assumptions of the prosecution's case or the systemic flaws that prevented a fair trial or create a system that inherently benefits the government or hinders the defense.

      Requiring the state to overcome a high bar is a good thing as well as a Constitutional thing. It, and the judiciary in general is one of the mast important bastions against tyranny in our system.

      1. Wait aren't you that tranny-loving pedo guy?

  4. She defended terrorists? Like the kind who attend school board meetings, or take selfies at the capital?

    1. Insurrectionists are worse than terrorists.

      1. THIS is why we need to all pray to Saint Babbitt!!!

        Don’t fear the revolt!

        All our times have come
        Here, but now they’re gone
        Seasons don’t fear the revolt
        Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
        (We can be like they are)
        Come on, baby
        (Don’t fear the revolt)
        Baby, take my hand
        (Don’t fear the revolt)
        We’ll be able to fly
        Baby, I’m your man
        La, la la, la la
        La, la la, la la
        Valentine is done
        Here but now they’re gone
        Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbs
        Are together in eternity
        (Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbitt)

        Hopefully Saint Babbitt, in the Great Beyond the Beyond, is looking benevolently down upon the neglectful Reason writers, and, in Her Mercy, She will forgive them!
        In the meantime, perhaps we faithful Reasonoid commenters can make up for the shortcomings of the Reason writers! Here, below, I give you a sample of GREAT, True Devotion to Saint Babbitt, as written by a Devout And Respectful fellow Reasonoid commenter!

        Poor Babbitt. An innocent tourist shot by a cop for no reason while peacefully milling about the Capital. It’s the worst police shooting that ever happened. Ever. Compared to choking people, suffocating them, beating them to death with fists, this is the absolute most egregious action by police to have ever happened in the known history of the universe.
        But She will remain in our thoughts. Before long we’ll erect a statue in Her honor. Saint Babbitt. May She look after peaceful tourists everywhere.

        1. Now tell us the tale of the phantom fire extinguisher!

        2. I pray to St George Floyd. He turned a counterfeit twenty into twenty nine million. Too bad he couldn't resurrect himself to spend it.

          1. He was the real Horst Wessel.

    2. She gave the Comet Ping Pong shooter 4 years despite him not actually shooting anybody.
      Said she was worried that people might follow his example if not punished harshly.
      Unsurprisingly, her assessment of child pornography abusers is the exact opposite.

      1. now that's an interesting juxtaposition!

    3. Beyond the pale. And also icky

  5. What bothers me is a legal system in which someone needs to be or can benefit by being defended by a lawyer, or by a lawyer's prosecuting someone. Nobody would devise a system like this in any organization where they had to find out the truth. How did we wind up with an adversarial system? Why can't we have a system in which somebody's in charge of finding out the truth, and benefits only by getting the correct answer, not by scoring the proportion of "yes" answers?

    1. They have that in China. The answer is determined before you set foot in the court room and the prosecution is successful 99.9% of the time.

      1. If they have a prosecution, that's not what I described.

      2. As opposed to what, 95% plea (aka, conviction) in the US?

    2. What bothers me is a legal system in which someone needs to be or can benefit by being defended by a lawyer, or by a lawyer's prosecuting someone.

      Even lawyers need lawyers because people can't be objective about their own circumstances. It's always beneficial to have someone else involved whose job is to look after your interests.

      Why can't we have a system in which somebody's in charge of finding out the truth,

      That's literally what the job of a jury is. They are charged with finding out the truth based on the facts they see represented, and can only convict based on knowing the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

      and benefits only by getting the correct answer,

      Because the question is always going to be "Who gets to decide what the 'correct' answer is?" If you assign someone whose job it is to know the correct answer in order to reward people who get correct answers, that person/organization/entity has too much power to decide what's right and wrong. Which is why you're entitled to a jury of your peers, random people who live in your community. You have an attorney representing your interest to voir dire the jury to make sure they do not come into trial with any preconceived bias against you or the class of crime you commit.

      If you think the system doesn't work, design a better one and show it to me.

      1. You decide the same way you do anything or anyone else: by testing. You run some knowns thru the system and see how they come out. It's just like calibrating a device to assay unknowns.

        You want a better system? Practically everybody devises one in their family or their business when they need it. Seriously, the less effort devoted to design in this case, the better.

        1. So you have no suggestions but you're sure anyone could improve on the US Criminal Justice system, you're just too lazy to do it yourself.

          Amazing, thanks for the input.

          1. AI is an interesting theoretical possibility.
            Details would obviously be important.

          2. We don't have a criminal justice system. We have a legal system which has absolutely nothing to do with justice.

          3. By the way, saying "You can't complain unless you have a perfect solution" is pretty dumb. It's like someone says "Hey, my car has a flat tire" and your response is "Do you know how to fix it? No? Well then your tire is just fine. Quit your bitching."

            1. I heard that by Reason writers about attempts to repeal Obamacare.

              Just sayon'.

          4. It's obvious! Who hasn't settled a dispute in their household? An authority figure (a trusted adult, usually a parent) investigates and finds out what happened. Boom. Done.

            In the larger society, how do we find out who's good at this? As I wrote upthread, you test them with knowns: situations in which you know what the truth is. You see who gets it right the highest percentage of the time. These become the experts who people turn to to figure these things out. Who pays them for their service? People to whom it's worth their while to find the truth.

            No politics. No democracy. No precedents. No mandated procedures. Just science, proven by experience.

            1. So you want a technocratic system and are comfortable with an error rate based on the 30,000 foot view? The uances and circumstances of the individual case aren't as important as the general "correct" answer that other, similar (but not identical) cases have established?

              And, of course, this is how expert testimony works already, you are just suggesting that we raise one expert above all others.

              There seems to be a large potential for injustice in your system.

              1. This seems to be the essence of qualified immunity. And we all know how poorly that system works to provide justice for victims.

      2. Even lawyers need lawyers because people can't be objective about their own circumstances. It's always beneficial to have someone else involved whose job is to look after your interests.

        Someone who must be paid to 'look after your interests' has THEIR interests at heart--not yours

        That's literally what the job of a jury is. They are charged with finding out the truth based on the facts they see represented, and can only convict based on knowing the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

        The jury is charged with hearing two arguments and deciding which is more truthful. They can do this piecemeal. But they can't do anything investigatory. In fact, they are prohibited from doing so and must needs rely only on their solitary thoughts about what the arguments are save during specified deliberations.

        Our legal system seems more designed to employ our legal system than to dispense justice.

        The better system has already been designed. See the trial of Stuart LaJoie in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlein for a description.

        1. There is an investigatory portion of the legal system. It is not just the law enforcement and defense investigators, but also discovery where the state has to include all of their investigatory findings. The fact that the jury doesn't do it all again doesn't make it a failed system.

          The jury is a judgement- and (if convicted) consequence-dispensing entity. Again, not a weakness of the system. They aren't banned from thinking or analyzing the evidence. They just can't inject their own anecdotal experiences and personal "knowledge" into the process. All evidence against the defendant is out in the open, analyzed and adjudicated for accuracy. That way everyone can see why the defendant was convicted. Which is why there is such a strong barrier against sealing trials and evidence.

          It's also why the FISA courts are so dangerous.

    3. Can you describe any system of finding the "truth" that isn't adversarial? Even the Scientific Method is dependent on adversarial publication and counter-publication to uncover mistakes, flawed assumptions and fraud. It's imperfect - but it's the least-bad system we've come up with so far.

      1. Refereeing papers isn't mostly about, "Is this true?" It's more about, "Is this good enough for people to care?" They don't subpoena or raid your lab and look thru your notes or garbage to find data. There's no cross-examination. It's nothing like the adversarial system of "justice". The scientific method is what goes on in the lab, before anything is published.

        1. No, they also look at your methodology to see if it is pertinent and look at your data and conclusions to see if the data makes sense, is consistent with other research and if your data supports your conclusion. I've been through the process multiple times as both a writer and a reviewer, it's adversarial except it's politely adversarial.

          1. But it's not adversarial in the sense of 2 parties arguing over the facts. They see if your method looks justified for what you conclude from it, but they don't say your data are wrong.

      2. 'Is dependent on adversarial publication and counter-publication to uncover mistakes, flawed assumptions and fraud.' This is not the case, the scientific method can make use of these yes, but they are not the only means of testing if a theory is 'true.' The best, most obvious and accepted method is to repeat the experiment to see if one gets the same results.

    4. This stupid question reveals a lot about you.

    5. I sort of see what you're saying. I think of incentives. The prosecutor has an incentive to win, not find the truth. The latter could result in losing the case. In fact the prosecutor has every incentive to suppress the truth if the truth could result in losing the case. So what if an innocent life is ruined? That prosecutor has a career to think about.

      1. Exactly. And the same for the defense. And the same for a suit, only at least in a suit the damages go from one party to the suit to another, so it makes some sense.

    6. What you describe is the French-style system. It's well-known for having even worse outcomes than the adversarial way.

  6. "Why can't we have a system in which somebody's in charge of finding out the truth, and benefits only by getting the correct answer, not by scoring the proportion of "yes" answers?"

    1. It would be nearly impossible go guard against corruption by the singular truth finder.

    2 Getting the incentives right to support "benefits only by getting the correct answer" would be nearly impossible.

    3. There would be no way to audit such a system, so you can never be sure if the incentives are right.

    1. Doesn't that sound chillingly Orwellian, too? There's someone out there whose job it is to determine whether juries are getting the right verdicts? Jesus Christ, the tyrranical nature of that system.

      1. There's more scary about the existing system. Juries deliberating in fucking SECRET? But the whole idea of paying people to make it that person X or person Y is right is creepy.

        If it was ever worth your while to find out something factual, you'd never employ a system like that. Think of the ways you've gotten good answers. They probably involved either your own testing or turning to other people with experience, directly or indirectly.

        That's part of the problem with the legal system: There are too many people involved in things that are none of their business.

    2. Colleges seem to think they can do it in assault cases.

      1. Well, all right. Do you think they're wasting their money? Presumably they think they get the best bang for their buck by deciding things the way they do. If they're paying for it, why shouldn't they do it their way?

        And that's the first question: Who wants to know? Who needs to know? If you don't need to know who assaulted whom, it shouldn't be your business to find out. And if it's a close call, who says everyone has to come to the same conclusion? Could it not be, for purposes of so-and-so, A assaulted B, while for purposes of such-and-such, B assaulted A, and as far as some other interested part is concerned, nobody assaulted anybody. Who says they all have to agree? As long as they're pursuing their own business, their own answer is all that should count.

        1. The problem is you attract people who know the truth before a case even exists then they work the facts to get there. Look at college rape kangaroo courts, the man is guilty regardless and this is what you're proposing for life sentences whether you like it or not.

          1. Well, shit, if they know the truth already, they can save even more money by skipping the whole thing. But it's just like a game show, judge's decision is final, you signed onto that when you joined up.

            Outside of a college, you should only submit to a judge you've agreed to, using whatever methods they're known to use. If that's how it was, we'd have judges who started good and got even better over time.

            1. So we can agree, Ministry of Truth is bad, right?

              1. I find their music boring, yeah.

                1. And of lesser concern is the concentration of power in the hands of insulated, appointed officials without recourse against injustices perpetrated in the name of sociopolitical progress, amirite?

                  Because, to be perfectly clear, you're asking for a Ministry of Truth here.

            2. So forum shopping is a good thing? If you want to prevent gays from getting married you sue them in Roy Moore's court (before he got tossed for violating the Constitution)? You see how that could work against the interests of justice?

        2. You want a need-to-know standard on criminal and civil court cases? You don't see ANY problem with that?

    3. How do we do any of these things in situations that aren't "legal"? Somehow law came to be practiced according to rules we'd never stand for in other walks of life.

  7. Just once I would like to see a nominee answer one of these questions with, "Mister Senator, fuck you very much, you ignorant twat, for this insightful question. Let me read to you a prepared statement..." And then proceed to read the US Constitution in its entirety.

    1. If she touched the constitution she’d burst into flames.

      1. lolword

      2. Tom Cotton's a she? I would never have guessed.

        1. Not a Democrat folks.

          1. Totally not a democrat.

            1. What IS a Democrat?

              1. We'd have to ask an exorcist to find out.

        2. Did you just assume his gender, brandy?

        3. Are you a biologist?

      3. It's like a cross brandished in front of vampire. These judges might hiss and run away if you show them the constitution.

    2. That's not how it works. Remember Clarence Thomas's bizarre questioning from Senator Joe Biden? Anyone remember that? No one knew WTF he was talking about. It was just a collection of words and syllables that Thomas sat there and listened to.

      1. " you sit there, and you have no idea what they're talking about, all I know is he was asking me questions about 'natural law'...

        One of the things you do in hearings is you sit there and look attentively at people who have no idea what they're talking about."

        1. That's a given with career politicians, career administrators. One finds that they repeat the buzzwords, buzzphrases that they've just learned, or are in vogue within their in-group. Watch ocasio-cortez, who is painfully stupid, or any other member of the squad. Read the shills here. It's the same thing, rote repetition of words that they don't really comprehend, but use in order to sound intelligent.

      2. The one where Biden brandished a copy of…..drumroll….REASON MAGAZINE????

  8. It’s funny when Dee claims Reason writers aren’t given an agenda to push.

  9. Has anyone ask her about the January 6 "insurrectionists"? /Snort.

    1. You mean Mega-9/11.

  10. My new job is killing me, and I haven't been able to watch Reason like normal...But has anyone at Reason had anything to say about- you know- Jackson's viewpoints, rather than criticizing the questions?

    I come from the right, so I am already inclined to be suspicious of her. But all these articles criticizing republican questioners isn't going to allay those suspicions. We are stuck with these senators until someone votes them out. At question is not how partisan they are- the question is *HER* ideology. Does Reason intend to comment on it?

    1. >>We are stuck with these senators until someone votes them out

      what is with the fucking boomers holding onto those seats like grim death?

      1. They've met Zoomers and they are appropriately terrified of them getting power.

        1. genX would have fixed all this.

          1. Anyone who has that much faith in Gen X is an Idol worshipper!

            1. Xennials is where it's at.


      That's the closest anyone has come to analyzing her answers.

      I haven't watched any of the proceedings today but I've been following it. She refuses to explain any philosophy or principles that guide her, and when asked to opine, she just goes through the list and defines all of them. She claims she doesn't have a philosophy, she just has a methodology. If I took a few hours I could go through and find the relevant materials, but let me just give you a quick summary:

      She's a chameleon. She'll use whatever justification is convenient depending on the case. She's likely to start with the outcome or result she wants and works backwards in order to reach it. Which is almost exactly what Breyer does even if he pretends not to, and she clerked under Breyer so it's not surprising. She'll flop around inconsistently on the logic because she's not philosophically driven, she's ideologically driven.

      1. She refuses to explain any philosophy or principles that guide her,

        We know the philosophies and principles that guide her. She is 100% team proggie, team 'tear down america'. She is a stalinist.

      2. She'll use whatever justification is convenient depending on the case. She's likely to start with the outcome or result she wants and works backwards in order to reach it.

        Isn't that what all lawyers and judges do? I fail to see how that makes her unique.

        1. A bit of wisdom from Antonin Scalia:

          “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.

          The point is to go into something using neutral logic and adhere to a principled philosophy. You can be forced to issue rulings that go against your desired outcomes because the principles lead you there. You're a bad judge and a horrible justice if you start with a desired outcome and work backward to justify it.

    3. Child porn is easier to get so sentences should be less.

      18 year old and 8 are peers.

      Judges should feel free to lessen sentences if legislation is taking too long for changes.

      Abortion is a settled super precedent.

      14th amendment can find new rights like obergfell but she is a strict constitutionalist and pinkie swears not to fund more.

      Only biologists know what a woman is.

      She had brain damage and forgot what CRT is despite her recollections of David bell books influencing her as a child and her 2015 statements about using it in sentencing.

      She said Bush committed war crimes not that he was a war criminal. And her amicus brief wasn't her own words but that of the clients who didn't hire her.

      1. Judges should feel free to lessen sentences if legislation is taking too long for changes.

        This much is obviously true, and a good position for a judge to have.

        1. Judges apply the law, they don't change it. You are asking them to do the latter.

          Juries have more leeway, judges do not.

        2. So no rule of law, just the rule of the opinion of the judge in front of me without restraint. Fuck off you ignorant Leftist cunt.

        3. " A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."H.L. Mencken

    4. Let me sum up Reason over the last couple weeks for you:

      The midterms are coming and Republicans are bad.

      1. Summarizing conservaturds: "Orange Man Bad" is ALL that ye need to know!!!! R Mac summarized here!

        Nothing is as stale as “orange man bad”!
        (With the implied idea being that “anyone who says bad things about Orange Man, no matter HOW long and well-documented the list of Trump evils may be, such bad-things-sayer must be a stupid moron”).

        Albert Einstein delivers a long lecture with 553 equations and tons of evidence. Conservative moron will say that Einstein said “stuff and stuff is relative”, and walk smugly away, thinking that they have “summarized” Einstein!

        Conservative moron will tour Holocaust museums and “summarize” by saying “Mustache Man Bad”!

        Fucking stupid, smart-ass moronic conservatives STOP smugly posting “Orange Man Bad”, or derivatives of the same, if you want to impress ANYONE (other than the echo chamber) with your so-called "smarts"!

        1. Thanks for confirming that those tactics work.

          1. Those tactics "work" on the morons who populate the echo chambers of the morons. Now THERE is a "summary" that is actually short and accurate!

            “Mustache Man Bad”!

            1. Your dumb pro fascist tactics work on people of your intellect.

              1. So, not particularly many.

        2. I think R Mac has a spare chromosome.

          1. I know sarc claims he was a cook that never heard of Cuban sandwiches and was homeless.

            1. I live in flyover country; I'm not always on the cutting edge on the cultural or culinary trends. I'm about 1000 miles from any seacoast.

              So, for instance, the nearest place to me that I can get an authentic Cuban sandwich is about five blocks. Sarc lives in Maine I think, so he might have great access to lobster rolls that I don't have. The closest legit lobster roll restaurant near me is almost 4 miles away.

              1. I live in Arizona. We have plenty of seafood. I can find Cuban. Puerto rican, Ethiopian. And yes lobster rolls.

                But even locations doesn't explain the lack of knowledge on an iconic sandwich featured on cooking shows and just general knowledge of cuisine.

                Also if anyone has bothered to travel even 50 miles to a vacation area will find a place with a Cuban sandwich, especially sea side towns. I can't recall anywhere I've been that I didn't see a Cuban on a menu. Even the Dallas Airport has them at seemingly half their bar restaurants.

      2. kill your babies and if you don't it's totes okay if someone sees them in a naked pic couple years down the road.

      3. You forgot "pedophiles are the true victimized marginal group".

    5. I agree. I know she seems to lean for more lenient sentencing for sex offenders. This doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother some. Fair enough. But what are her opinions on the commerce clause, what are her opinions on the first amendment, what are her opinions on the 2nd amendment... you know, things that don't just affect people accused of crimes, but people navigating daily public life.

      I have zero love for the GOP questioners with one minor exception being the Senator that asked her if she could define a "woman" which she couldn't. I still argue this has important implications for things like abortion rulings and women's rights-- how do you protect a right for a defined demographic when you're literally unable to define said demographic?

      1. It was an impressively telling and dishonest answer.

        Of course she knows what a woman is. The president himself declared that the 2 criteria he had for the nomination were a) black and b) woman. She had to be able to afirm her status as a woman to get the job.

        Being unable to commit to a definition is a promise of sorts. A promise that when convenient a woman will be an adult female human, and when other factors dictate a different conclusion, then a woman will be anyone who says they are a woman.

        This should be a valid line of inquiry, and such a profound reluctance to give a forthright answer should be heavily weighed in evaluating the nuominee.

        "What is a minor?" Should also be an easy answer.... And maybe she would care to opine about cases where a 13 year old girl takes a selfie of her boobs and is charged with corrupting the morals of a minor (herself) .... As an adult.

        Or how about the dichotomy of being a minor for purposes of buying alcohol or pot, or guns and ammunition.... But not for purposes of being compelled to fight and die in the military. Seems a legitimate line of inquiry that is very similar.

        Or a discussion on the meeting of "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law"... That would be my personal favorite. Black letter law doesn't mean what it says, because that isn't reasonable?

      2. Makes one wonder how she would find dealing with the Project Veritas case vs the DOJ?
        Our First Amendment rights are in grave peril if some sniveling little communist like Garland can terrorize and attempt to toss you in jail for thought crime.
        What happened to O'Keefe and his people is more than disgusting, it is downright dangerous and further implies the legacy media is just as guilty for saying nothing about it.
        Ever wonder why?

    6. No, all the articles are reactionary, focused on mean old GOP members asking bad questions.

    7. ...has anyone at Reason had anything to say about- you know- Jackson's viewpoints, rather than criticizing the questions?
      When you don't like the message, go after the messenger.

  11. Somebody should ask her opinion on this:

    NEW: Biden Admin Drafting Order to Invoke Defense Production Act for Green Energy Storage Technology - The Intercept

    1. Thid is like that EU report I shared yesterday - leftists are preparing to scrap environmental regs to expedite production. The great irony on this one is Brandon is preparing for strip mining in the name of the environment.

  12. Brown herself, of course, defended NO ONE. Like all of her low-IQ affirmative action FAKE lawyers, the woman can't even sign her own name without a white person (whom she hates with a burning passion) holding the pen for her. This person is a hateful, stupid, racist ingrate of an idiot who has never and will never do anything but instruct her clerks to justify her 100% based on racism and envy and hate pre-determined "holdings."

    Enough of this CRT trash. It belongs in the dump---NOT on the U.S. Supreme Court!

  13. 1. Guantanamo still houses innocent men.
    2. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a liberal puppet, but Reason has no problem defending her because she's not a right-winger who hates Big Tech.

    1. She may hate big tech, but for entirely different reasons: like they don't censor enough.

  14. James Duane has pointed out we've never had a defense attorney on the Supreme Court and it's long overdue. So there might be a silver lining to having her on the court.

    But she is also basically a communist. (sigh)

  15. Remember that day the U.S. Constitution applied to the WHOLE WORLD - instead of just the USA and it's citizens.

    Heck; We better not kill anyone in a war; they might just throw our military in jail.... /s

  16. If I was a senator I'd flat out ask her

    "Mr. Brandon has stated long before he nominated you that he would only nominate a black woman, regardless of all other considerations. How do you think this will affect your legacy if you are nominated?"

    I'd give so much to hear that question asked of her, it would be amazing.

  17. "There are likely some areas in which one could take issue with Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson's judicial methodology. Unfortunately, the people watching her confirmation hearing learned little about what those might be."

    OK, maybe Reason could take up the slack and discuss those "areas in which one could take issue"?

    1. They're too busy beating off to 10 year olds to do any journalism is the only excuse I can see from their coverage.

  18. Terrorists good, people who wandered around the Capital Building (including those that asked guards for permission) are dangerous and should spend decades in jail.

    It would be nice to see some sort of consistency from Reason. Yes, terrorists should have defense lawyers. But it's not really something to be proud about. My father was a lawyer and had to defend a child molester on one occasion. Did he crow about it? No. It's a necessary evil

    1. What would you prefer? That Reason says she's a terrible person for being a federal public defender? Or that she should be defending the J6 idiots peaceful tourists? What's your point?

      1. 26 years for staying behind the ropes with a guards permission and not wrecking anything, versus time served for kiddie diddling. But you don't see anything wrong with that.

        1. You're posing that question to Sarcasmic?

          1. I've had that turd on mute since the function existed.

            1. But you've advertised your own ignorance for a decade prior to you advertising it through the mute button.

      2. Lol. Yes. Child porn is less of a crime than selfies in a public building. You got him there. So pathetic.

  19. She defended the January 6th attackers? Well, color me surprised!

  20. Fixed the headline, some punctuation was missing:

    Ketanji Brown Jackson Defended People. Suspected of Terrorism. Good.

  21. Great article worth reading it.

  22. And John Adams defended the (British) shooters of the Boston Massacre.

    Everyone deserves a fair trial.

    1. Bingo!

    2. no, every us citizen deserves a fair trial

      1. That is somewhat debatable. If the Bill of Rights is primarily a limitation on what government may do, then all people have those rights. If the BoR were granting rights, then I you might have a case.

  23. Ok, now do the people who defended Trump over the last 18 months. Any outrage over a multimillion dollar non profit set up to attempt to destroy the career and lives of any person or company who helped represent Trump?

    They are going after law firms, private investigators, accounting firms, individual employees... Anyone and anything they can identify who helped represent Trump's interests in court.

    You good with that?

    Or is it just asking a question or two that is uber-evil in your book?

    1. They should all lose their law licenses per Elias and the left.

      1. Saw one young lawyer in an interview the other day... She is in her early 20s and has had 80 bar complaints in the last year... Zero from clients.

  24. DUI drug recognition expert report from TV.

    Money quote after false arrest for DUI drugs on person who does not drink or do drugs and toxicology report is negative: “we stand behind our officer. The toxicology report is less accurate”

    Literally impossible to falsify a roadside evaluation by their standard

    Not addressed:. The best trained officers get it right 85% of the time. This 15% is only people who have never done drugs and therefore are tox screen negative. If you are a regular pot smoker and these guys pull you over, you are getting a DUI conviction, impaired or not.

  25. Millions of maga tears fall down as they can't do shit about her nomination. Heaven forbid we nominate someone of substance for this god forsaken court.

    1. Like all good Democrats, raspberry approves of autocratic moves to install their favored token in appropriate station.

      Like all good favored tokens, this one has the moral substance of a fart in the wind, and will successfully fail to provide a solid answer while promoting the social justice flavor of the week.

      1. Roughly speaking, a majority of Americans hasn't wanted a Republican president or a Republican senate since the early 90s.

    2. someone of substance.

      You mean a communist.

  26. Was this article in support of her? It's not working. Reeeeaaallly not working.

    In fact, coming at the end of a frenetic string of disingenuous drivel by Sullum, it really feels like Reason is carrying water for the midterms as fast as the Democratic Party can line up bucket lines of useful idiots.

    She's a token black woman, from the guy who filibustered Republicans' token black women, who can't define what a woman is or recall how her bookshelf and career became saturated in CRT. She can't explain her rational for why every single child molestor or pornography aficionado gets off substantially lighter with her, compared to any other judge.

    But, she doesn't have to, because this is not about selecting a qualified candidate for the judiciary, but a complicit ally in politics.

  27. ""It's so unserious that it can only be received as disingenuous grandstanding," says Clark Neily, senior vice president of legal studies Cato, in reference to Jackson's exchanges with various Senate Republicans who implied that her work as a public defender made her unfit for the Supreme Court. "

    Perfectly said!

    1. Never mind that it was her actions while in that position that were objectionable...

      I'm sure they'd object to more if Biden hadn't sealed years of her records.

  28. i think that only us citizens should have constitutional rights.

    1. Only citizens and those legally residing here.

      1. Where is that distinction made in the Constitution? Not in the Preamble; that sentence only specifies who is writing the Constitution, not whose rights it recognizes.

  29. As long as Merrick Garland remains Attorney General, we all have to fear for the loss of the First Amendment, not to mention any others who might get in the way of Komrad Garland's attempts to gut the Bill of Rights.
    At least in the case of James O'keefe and Project Veritas, the judge rules in favor of O'keefe and against Garland's KGB.
    Will this woman remain unemotional when it comes to such matters when people or journalists exercise their First Amendment rights even when their speech is deemed hateful or something a journalist may have discovered nay cause embarrassment to politicians?
    In the age when people can lose their jobs over something they posted ten years ago on social media, or some juvenile prank, along with the fear that some sort of social credit scoring may very well be in our future, how soon before Americans will lose their rights simply by speaking out, being critical of the government?

  30. There's a particular richness to Republican senators weaponizing the right to defense counsel as an affront to the Constitution as opposed to something that's pivotal to it.

    People incarcerated at Guantanamo are enemy combatants outside US soil and not subject to criminal proceedings. As such, they do not have a "right to defense counsel" or other Constitutional protections.

    You are free to argue that they should enjoy such protections (and I might even agree), but that's not a matter of the US Constitution.

    1. 6th Amendment starts : "In all criminal prosecutions"... So just don't call it a criminal prosecution and you're home free!

    2. Whom are we at war with?

  31. The existence of Guantanamo has motivated more anti-American sentiment than almost anything else. Republicans are so fucking stupid. That is their major malfunction. They are soooo fucking stupid. Just hit the bad thing with a stick!

    1. Sure, it's not the islamic "holy" book that motivates jihadists.
      It's the presence of a facility, that treats its residents better than their past, shit-hole existence.
      If Tony didn't have those leftist talking points, I doubt he could come up with a thought on his own.

  32. Jackson has no problem with kiddie porn or child molesters.
    But you're mean if you ask her questions about her past rulings regarding child porn and pedophiles.
    That's mean!
    And Rayciss!
    You're supposed to go along with the liberal nazis and blanket approval for their agenda, without question.

  33. U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the first day of questioning from senators, forcefully defended herself from accusations from at least two Republicans that she handed out lenient sentences to defendants convicted of possessing child pornography.

    With Jackson taking notes, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley on Monday said in his opening statement that his research showed that she had a pattern of issuing lower sentences in child pornography cases, repeating comments he wrote in a Twitter thread last week. Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn during her time also raised that accusation.

  34. I hear Jackson has the support of pedos and kiddie porn operators.

    1. You think she'll be seeing a lot of kiddie porn cases on the Supreme Court? You think she'll be handing out lenient sentences on a Court that doesn't hand out sentences at all?

  35. The Sixth Amendment may say that defendants have the right to counsel, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a lawyer has to represent any and every sleazeball that shows up on their doorstep. Lawyers choose who to represent, and that reflects the lawyer's values. You can't just sprinkle magic lawyer water on KJB and make it go away.

    1. Lawyers choose who to represent, and that reflects the lawyer's values.

      And you have to choose whether her values are "kiddie porn is awesome" or "I signed on to this job as a public defender because I believe even the sleaziest defendants have a right to counsel like the Constitution says".

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.