The Alabama Attorney General refused to recognize Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory as “legitimate” in a stunning moment on the final day of Ketanji’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brown Jackson on Thursday.
The fourth and final day of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting ended after a four-hour session in which lawmakers questioned outside witnesses about Jackson’s suitability to serve on the Supreme Court.
Alabama Attorney General Stephen Marshall, among those invited by the minority party, echoed Republican concerns that Jackson was too lenient in her conviction in the child pornography cases.
Marshall acknowledged that Jackson was praised for protecting vulnerable groups, but “we should be interested to find out how passionate her zeal is for another class of our most vulnerable – victims of violent crime.”
Amid attempts by Democrats to discredit him as a minor witness, Marshall has been questioned by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse over his role in the January 6 Capitol riot last year.
The Alabama Attorney General signed a lawsuit to overturn Biden’s election victory. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In the run-up to the uprising, the Republican Association of Attorneys General, which Marshall led, launched a robotic call through its political arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. He urged people to gather outside the US Capitol and “call on Congress to stop theft.”
Alabama Attorney General Stephen Marshall (right) was questioned by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (left) about his involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots on the fourth day of the Supreme Court hearing on the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Marshall led an organization that was responsible for an automated bell urging people to “stop stealing.”
In response to press Thursday, Marshall said he was not in Washington on Jan. 6 and the House committee investigating the riots had not contacted him.
“Is Joseph R. Biden of Delaware the duly elected and legitimately serving President of the United States of America?” Whitehouse asked.
Marshall pointedly replied, “He is the president of this country.”
The Democratic MP pressed again, but received the same response.
He asked, “Are you deliberately answering this by omitting the phrase ‘duly elected and legitimately employed’?”
“I answer the question – he is the president of the United States,” Marshall replied.
The senator tried one last time, asking, “Do you have any idea whether he was duly elected or whether he is serving legally?”
“I tell you he is the President of the United States,” the Alabama official replied firmly.
Jackson is a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Her conduct in front of the political public this week and her extensive resume earned the praise of a bipartisan lawyer.
Jackson, a federal lawyer on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District of Columbia, received widespread praise for her impartial conduct during the marathon hearing. Democrats are hoping her impressive resume will provide smooth confirmation, while Republicans have sought to portray Jackson as a liberal activist who is soft on child pornography crimes and cited her work as a public defender representing Guantanamo Bay inmates.
At one point, Republican Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), who was named as a potential candidate in the 2024 election, asked Marshall what message he thought the judge was sending when he handed down a significantly lighter sentence than prosecutors had recommended. .
During part of the hearing as a witness, Marshall repeatedly refused to say whether Biden was a “duly elected and legitimately acting” president, instead emphatically referring to him as “president.”
Marshall said he would be “gravely concerned not only about what this particular case is about, but about the message it sends to the community about how it will hold people personally accountable for the crimes they commit.”
In other words, if you have a judge who is constantly issuing sentences in, say, some area – say child pornography – below what the government requires, what regulations require, you are saying the message that is being sent in what you not very strict about it, you don’t want to hold these people accountable. Did I understand correctly? Howley asked.
Marshall said “absolutely”.
Hawley continued to press him about the extent of such crimes, asking, “If a criminal has thousands of images, is that probably worse than a criminal who has one or two? And that you might want to send this criminal with hundreds and thousands more than a man who has one or two?
The Alabama official agreed.
“And actually, you know, it was my practice as a person who judged and condemned those who traffic in child pornography,” Marshall replied.
He said the judge and their court should be the “highest voice” for children affected by such heinous crimes.
“I would like Judge Jackson to share your point of view, General,” Hawley said.
Hawley detailed Republicans’ allegations that Jackson was lenient on the sentencing of child pornography offenders and asked Marshall what “message” judges who handed down sentences in line with prosecutors were sending to their community.
One case was given particular attention by Republicans: In 2013, Jackson sentenced an 18-year-old named Rodney Hawkins to three months in prison and six years on parole for possessing numerous images and videos of boys, some of whom were under 13 years old. participation in sexual acts.
Hawkins was arrested after exchanging photos with an undercover detective. Investigators then stated that he fully cooperated and accepted responsibility for his actions.
The gay teenager, who grew up in a religious family, personally wrote Jackson a letter of apology for his actions and vowed to “never do that or commit any crime again in my life.” The letter was reported by the New York Times.
Prosecutors demanded two years in prison because ownership of the images was “extremely troubling and merited punishment.” Hawkins’ attorney asked for one day’s detention, citing his age and “suggesting mental illness.”
Throughout her previous hearings, Jackson has insisted that she handed down sentences based on a number of factors, including the specific evidence in each case that went beyond just federal rules.
She also noted that there are in fact no mandatory guidelines for sentencing sex offenders, which is the subject of much debate.
The judge admitted that some of the cases were “some of the worst I’ve ever seen” and she still has nightmares to this day.
Jackson also defended her record as she operated within the political limits set by Congress.
Democrats defended her record, noting that the sentencing decisions for Jackson as a district judge were in line with those of bipartisan lawyers across the country.
But criticism of her history as a public defender against the U.S. government in torture cases, her convictions, and her refusal to contribute to an expansion of the Supreme Court raised fears that she would face a steep wall of Republican opposition.
However, Jackson’s nomination is likely to be accepted if all Democrats in the Senate vote for it, and Vice President Kamala Harris votes in a decisive vote.
Due to Senate rule changes made in 2013, a simple majority is required to appoint judges.
If confirmed, Jackson would become the first black woman ever to serve on a high court, and only the third black judge in US history after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
She will also become the first former public defender to sit on the Supreme Court.