Despite Judge Jackson being a personable, likable and accomplished attorney and jurist. She was unable to satisfy concerns that she harbors deeply radical political views, and that she has a record of being too soft on sex offenders. Below is the list of Senators that asked questions of her and what they gleamed on her testimony.
Taken from the Breitbart Politics article. There is a list of 6 subjects that provide red flags that she is the radical left leaning judge already. Despite the fact she is in D.C. swamp already.
Topics: “1619 Project”, “Critical Race Theory” and Sex offenders record is soft
1 -a. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) caught Judge Jackson in a lie on the “1619 Project,” Critical Race Theory, and her sentencing record. Cruz homed in on Judge Jackson’s 2020 speech praising the “1619 Project” and Critical Race Theory. These are important because they declare that America was both founded on racism and remains systemically racist. She professed not to know that the central thesis of the 1619 Project — the false claim that the American Revolution was fought to defend slavery — had been debunked.
b. She also lied that she did not refer to Critical Race Theory in her work as a judge. However, Cruz produced a 2015 speech in which she said it was relevant to her work on sentencing guidelines, which certainly guided her later judicial work. Cruz also caught her in an embarrassing contradiction: she claimed Critical Race Theory was not taught in schools but was then confronted with evidence that it was taught in the Georgetown private school on whose board she sits. She then backtracked, saying she had only meant “public schools.”
c. Senator Cruz also produced charts showing her record on sentencing sex offenders was indeed weak, and he debunked the White House claim that her remarks on child pornography had been taken out of context. Democrats tried to introduce evidence that her sentences looked better when probation was taken into account but created new problems for themselves because it looked like the White House had fed them information that was being withheld from Republicans.
Topics: Constitution – originalism or living constitution
2. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) exposed the lie of Jackson’s professed commitment to “originalism.” She tried to claim that she was opposed to judicial activism and honored the conservative doctrine of “originalism” — even claiming she did not know what the liberal “living constitution” meant — she struggled to answer when Cornyn asked about the limits of unenumerated rights in the Constitution. That is precisely the point: liberal judges are constantly inventing new rights.
Topics: Guantánamo Bay inmates/terrorists
3. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fought Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) over terror detainees. Graham questioned Judge Jackson about her previous legal representation of terror detainees after 9/11. While conceding that even terrorists had the right to a legal defense, he pointed out that many Guantánamo detainees had returned to battle. Durbin tried to rebut that point, but Graham rounded on him, and made clear that Jackson’s past remained a major problem.
Topic: Definition of a woman
4. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) showed that Judge Jackson is unwilling to state what a “woman” is. Most of Sen. Blackburn’s line of questioning was aimed at showing that Jackson is not a conservative jurist. That was no surprise, but what was jarring was the fact that Jackson refused to give even a biological definition of a “woman.” At every other point in the hearing, she and her supporters talked about the fact that she is the first black woman to be nominated to the Court, so clearly “woman” has some meaning for her. It was a reminder of how radical left-wing jurisprudence on gender has become.
Topic: Sex offenders and child porn leniency
5. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned Jackson closely about her record on sex offenders. Hawley’s presentation was impressive simply because it was so thorough, and undermined claims that he simply intended to smear her. Democrats were reduced to demonstrating — even to the point of justifying — lenient sentences for child pornography, a very bad place to be.
Overview of Things that are not acceptable:
Supports the “1619 Project”
Supports “Critical Race Theory”
Her Judicial record on sex offenders record is weak
Supports a “living constitution” whereas it can create “new rights”/”new laws”
Supports “terrorist rights”
Can’t define a biological woman, hence does not support basic science on gender
Some other key points that are obvious to others and have been pointed out:
1. She’s a liar.
2. She’s a liberal extremist.
3. She’s a child abuse enabler.
4. She’s a political activist.
5. She’s letting her feelings control her judicial opinions.
Ketanji Brown Jackson