News

Ketanji Brown Jackson answers questions about child porn convictions

Ketanji Brown Jackson answers questions on day 2 of her confirmation hearing

Ketanji Brown Jackson (via screen)

Facing a wave of criticism from Republican critics intent on labeling her a “judicial activist”, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson outlines a methodical three-step approach to reviewing cases during the second day of the confirmation hearing. Now sitting on the DC Circuit, Judge Jackson has described her judicial philosophy, how she will determine the existence of “fundamental rights,” and the sentences she delivers in related cases. to describe child sexual abuse.

Jackson, who will be the first black woman to serve as justice on the nation’s highest court, has received some unfriendly testimony from some Republicans, who keep pushing QAnon’s adjacent hypothesis is widely discredited that she is somehow lenient with defendants found guilty of possessing child pornography.

Senate Judiciary Committee, currently chaired by Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) time.

“Compliance with the document is a limitation of my authority”

Republican senators on the judiciary committee repeatedly raised what they said were concerns about Jackson’s “judicial philosophy.”

“I would like to know more about your judicial philosophy,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) said in his opening remarks Monday, adding that he was concerned that “people on the left” believe Jackson is the “best bet” to make it to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) Said Monday that “the American people deserve the justice of the Supreme Court with its documented commitment to the rule of law,” and expressed concern that Jackson might is a “judiciary activist” with a “hidden agenda”.

When Committee Chairman Durbin invited Jackson to speak Tuesday morning as the hearing was underway, the first thing Jackson did was describe her three-step methodology for approaching cases.

Jackson said, describing the first step in his methodology: “When I get a lawsuit, I make sure I’m proceeding from a neutral point of view. “I’m dispelling any preconceptions about how this could have happened, putting my personal views aside.”

“Once I cleared the deck, so to speak, in this way, I was able to get all the relevant input to the case,” Jackson said, such as the arguments of the parties and the summary. amici. She added that this is also the time when she begins to evaluate events from many different perspectives.

“My experiences have helped me see the perspectives of the parties and their arguments,” says Jackson.

Her third step is to explain and apply the law to the circumstances of the case.

“This is where I really look at the constraints on my judicial jurisdiction,” she said, citing threshold issues such as whether she has jurisdiction over the case. She also reviews the text of the statute or the constitution, depending on what the case requires.

“Compliance with the text is a limitation of my authority,” Jackson said. “I’m looking at what those words mean as the intentions of the people who wrote them.”

Jackson said she also follows precedents set by previous Supreme Court cases and the “binding principle” of determined starethe practice of determining the point of dispute according to precedent.

“That’s the Nature of Rights.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was the first to raise the issue of “basic rights“—The rights that the Supreme Court has determined deserve a high degree of protection from the Constitution — and how to determine which rights are fundamental if they are not enshrined in the Constitution.

“How will you decide what is a fundamental right under the Constitution?” Grassley asked Jackson.

Jackson said she wouldn’t feel comfortable answering that question “in the abstract,” but noted that Supreme Court legislation has set precedent for determining whether something is basic or not.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn also raised the issue, citing the landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed marriage as a fundamental right applies to persons in same-sex couples as well as to heterosexual couples, and concludes that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

“Have you seen that when the Supreme Court vehemently declares the nullity of state marriage laws, there is bound to be conflict between those who follow the Supreme Court’s decree and those who believe in it? firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman?” asked Cornyn, apparently arguing that the existence of a fundamental right to marry violated a state’s right to prohibit marriage between couples. gay.

Jackson downplayed, saying that because such cases are currently being sued, she is limited in what she can say. However, she did address Cornyn’s stated concern that when a Supreme Court panel “decided that something not in the Constitution was a fundamental right,” it created “a conflict with what people believe and what the federal government says is the law of the land. ”

“That’s the nature of a right,” Jackson replied. “When there are rights, that means there will be regulatory restrictions, even if people are regulating according to their sincere religious beliefs.”

Cornyn focuses on the problem”substantive proceedings,” is the idea that the 14th Amendment’s due process provision extends to rights not specifically defined in the Constitution. He suggests that due process is essentially a way for judges to essentially put their agenda in court decisions.

“Justice Jackson, why is procedural analysis so much more than just another form of judicial policymaking?” Cornyn asked. “Why is the due process not essentially just another way for judges to hide policymaking under the guise of the Constitution?”

Jackson explained to Cornyn that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to include rights that may not be specifically defined in the text and has laid out a framework for determining what qualifies as a fundamental right. .

“The Supreme Court has said that these kinds of qualifications are implicit in the concept of orderly liberty or deeply rooted in our nation’s history or traditions,” said Jackson. “Those are standards that define a narrow set of activities.”

“Is it your opinion that society is too harsh on sex offenders?”

As expected, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) Jumped right to the point where he’s been making his calling card since Jackson’s nomination was announced: the sentencing decisions she’s made in cases involving cases people convicted of child pornography.

Jackson took some time on Tuesday morning to reply Hawley’s accusations.

“I appreciate… that you are questioning whether I took [child pornography cases] seriously, or if I have some reason to handle them differently than my colleagues or differently than in other cases, and I assure you I don’t,” Jackson told Hawley. , who previously hinted that Jackson was too lenient. about sex crimes.

On Tuesday, he stopped alluding and articulated what seemed to have been on his mind for a long time.

“Do you think society is too strict with sex offenders?” Hawley asked, referring to a legal note Jackson contributed to law review when she was a student at Harvard Law School.

Jackson explained that the legal analysis Hawley was referring to is limited to evaluating a new law, and not a comment on whether the law should be implemented.

“As a law school student, I evaluated a new set of laws, the state law on [sex offender] sign up,” Jackson said. “I analyzed them like law students. It’s not about sex crimes, it’s about the character of the law: Is it the law of punishment? Is that the law of favor? How will the court determine that? It is about the character of the law. “

Jackson noted that while Congress originally intended the law to impose mandatory sentences in child pornography cases, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the late Antonin Scaliaruled that judges should have discretion.

“We have judges who are doing their best to make sure that people are held accountable when they need to be in our society in a fair and just way,” Jackson told Hawley. Jackson told Hawley.

[Image via screengrab.]

Is there a trick we should know? [email protected]

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/heres-how-ketanji-brown-jackson-responded-to-questions-about-her-judicial-philosophy-and-sentencing-of-child-pornography-offenders/ Ketanji Brown Jackson answers questions about child porn convictions

James Brien

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@24ssports.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button