WASHINGTON. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Tuesday deflected Republican attacks on her record, defending her work representing terrorist inmates and sentencing child abusers, as she made herself known as a strong supporter of judicial restraint, which could be approved for a seat on the Supreme Court. .
Under intense questioning of senators during her one-day nomination hearing, Judge Jackson repeatedly said she understands the narrow role that judges play in the US government and refuses to get drawn into political disputes, such as whether seats should be added to the Supreme Court.
“I am well aware that as a judge in our system, I have limited powers and I try to stay on my path in every case,” she said. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called “the trial a crucible.”
“I don’t think anyone can look at my track record and say that it points in one direction or another, that it supports this or that point of view,” she told the senators.
While Republicans were initially wary of attacking the first black woman to be nominated for the Supreme Court, some GOP members on the commission — especially those with presidential ambitions — lambasted Justice Jackson’s record in a series of tense exchanges in which they implied that she was soft on crime, especially when it came to child sexual abuse, and was an extremist on issues of race.
Seeing an opportunity to score political points, if not block confirmation, they moved on to midterm campaign themes that became a rallying cry for conservatives and their far-right base, often returning to the theme of pedophilia, the central Democratic false accusation at the heart of the Trump supporter QAnon conspiracy theory.
Pointing to her work on child sex offenders and their sentencing, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas and fellow student of Judge Jackson at Harvard Law School, said he saw “evidence of sexual predator activity and propaganda.” , which are rooted in the past for decades and concerns”.
Democrats, independent analysts, and some conservatives have found Republicans’ attacks on her record of child sex offenders misrepresented and misleading.
Mr. Durbin tried to get ahead of the issue on Tuesday by opening the hearing by asking Judge Jackson what went through her mind on Monday as she sat and listened with her family watching her while scores of Republicans accused her of pampered sex. . offenders in their rulings and sentencing recommendations. She took the moment to give a forceful response that reflected some of her anger at the attacks.
“As a mother and as a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I thought nothing could be further from the truth,” Judge Jackson replied. “These are some of the toughest cases a judge has to deal with because we’re talking about child sexual abuse.”
And she explained at length how she passed sentences in such cases.
“I impose a severe sentence and all additional restrictions provided by law,” Judge Jackson said. “I impose all these restrictions because I understand how significant, how destructive, how terrible this crime is.”
But the issue resurfaced later Tuesday when Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, questioned her about her decision to sentence an 18-year-old defendant to three months in prison for possessing child sexual abuse images. Mr. Hawley, who led the charge in attacking Judge Jackson’s record of sentencing such offenders, repeatedly asked her why she gave the man a shorter sentence than recommended by the rules.
Judge Jackson, who appeared irritated, argued that Congress required judges to consider various factors, including the age of the defendant, and to cooperate with the probation service in sentencing defendants. And she insisted that a lighter punishment was not evidence of tolerance for child sexual abuse.
“As a judge who is a mom and is tasked with actually considering the evidence, the evidence that you would not describe in polite company, the evidence that you point to, discuss, refer to in this context, is evidence of what I saw in my role judges,” she said. “It’s disgusting. It’s disgusting. It’s outrageous.”
It was a historic and contentious day for Justice Jackson, who was unanimously praised by Democrats for her background, education, judicial record, and even her ability to maintain a calm demeanor when she was under attack from Republicans.
“This is a difficult situation, and you are handling it very well,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and veteran of numerous legal battles.
Democrats sought to present her experience as a federal public defender as an asset to a judge, giving her insight into both sides of the system, while Republicans attempted to portray her as suspicious.
“Those of us who spend time in courtrooms know that both skilled prosecutors and defense attorneys are needed,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.
Her supporters also highlighted the strong support Judge Jackson has received from law enforcement and noted that her family members served in the police force, which Judge Jackson said is a source of pride.
“As someone with family members on patrol and in the line of fire, I care deeply about public safety,” she said. “I know what it’s like to have loved ones who go out to protect and serve, and the fear of not knowing if they’ll come home again because of the crime in society.”
At the same time, she said, she also recognizes that criminal defense lawyers have an important role to play in protecting constitutional rights.
“Our system is exemplary around the world precisely because we ensure that those accused of crimes are treated fairly,” she said. “It’s very important to me in this capacity as a lawyer and citizen.”
But her work on behalf of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has drawn criticism from Republicans who have suggested she has gone too far in her quest to free some of them. They cited legal opinions she signed that they said called President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals” because some detainees were tortured after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
“Why would you do something like that?” asked Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “It seems so out of character.
Judge Jackson said she did not remember the mention and had no intention of humiliating the secretary of defense or the president. Later in the hearing, Mr. Durbin explained that the legal brief in question followed what was essentially a template used by volunteer lawyers across the country at the time to argue and seek relief against the Bush administration, which stated, that their actions amounted to “war crimes.”
“To be clear, you never called President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld ‘war criminals’?”
“No, Senator,” Judge Jackson replied.
In a more strident exchange, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, also accused her of trying to win freedom for a man who could return to threaten US security.
“While they are dangerous, I hope they die in prison there,” he said. “I don’t care at all if they die in prison.”
All four detainees, who were represented for a time by Judge Jackson, were eventually repatriated – three to Afghanistan and one to Saudi Arabia. No one has ever been tried or convicted of any crime.
One of the most vehement exchanges that day was with Mr. Cruz, who insisted that Judge Jackson not only judge her for sex offenders, but also whether she embraced critical racial theory, a field of legal studies, examining how racism can be embedded in laws and institutions, which has been appropriated by the right as a way to disparage any discussion of structural racism.
Mr. Cruz asked her if she had reviewed books taught at Georgetown Day School, a private school in Washington, DC, on whose board she serves, where he says young children are taught theory.
For the first time after several hours of interrogation, Judge Jackson showed irritation; she paused, taking a deep breath before answering Mr. Cruise.
“I have not reviewed any of these books, none of these ideas,” Judge Jackson replied. “They are not found in my work as a judge, and I am here, respectfully, to address them.”
She said that she did not believe “that any child should feel that he is a racist or that he is not appreciated or that he is worse, that he is a victim, that he is an oppressor. I don’t believe in any of this.”
Earlier in the day, Mr. Graham also tried to connect Judge Jackson with progressive activists who support her nomination and also support expanding the size of the court, among other changes.
“Did you notice that the people on the left were cheering you on?” he asked.
“Many people encouraged me,” Judge Jackson replied.