There have been a couple of red flags with one particular
Ever since Clueless Joe reiterated that he was going to stick with his
pandering campaign promise that he’d appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was eyed as one of the front-runners.
Besides having the prerequisite sex and race, Judge Jackson has some liberal bona fides — she was a public defender early in her career, clerked for Justice Breyer during the Supreme Court’s 1999-2000 term, and was recently appointed by Biden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
There may be a small snag for Judge Jackson, however, since the Supreme Court had agreed to hear a pair of cases challenging Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s race-based admissions policy. The Court had agreed to hear the cases just days before it was leaked that Justice Breyer had decided to retire. Since Judge Jackson currently sits on the Harvard Board of Overseers — the University’s second-highest governing body — this may present a conflict of interest for her. But that’s small potatoes.
The New York Times ran a profile on Judge Jackson just after Justice Breyer’s retirement was leaked.
Attention quickly turned on Wednesday to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as one of a small number of likely options who could fulfill President Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, after the disclosure that Justice Stephen G. Breyer has decided to retire.
Judge Jackson, 51, already successfully went through the Senate confirmation process last year, when Mr. Biden elevated her from the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
She was confirmed to the appeals court in June by a 53-to-44 vote. All 50 members of the Democratic caucus voted for her, as did three Republican senators: Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Three Republicans did not vote.
Source: New York Times
While the NYTimes piece focuses on her background, some of her high-profile court decisions, including her 2019 ruling that compelled Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn to obey a congressional subpoena and testify as part of the Russian collusion investigation.
At the time, Jackson wrote, “Presidents are not kings,” and added that current and former White House officials owe their allegiance to the Constitution. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”
This will clearly get a lot of “Yass Queens” from the libs, but the Times also notes that “her handling of that case was a prime example of how Mr. Trump’s legal team successfully used the slow pace of litigation to run out the clock on congressional oversight efforts, effectively winning despite court rulings against them.”
The Times article also noted that she’s related by marriage to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — her husband is the twin brother of Ryan’s brother-in-law — but it failed to mention that Judge Jackson was “a zealous advocate” for terrorists detained at Gitmo despite claiming that she was just doing her job as a public defender.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
Supreme Court frontrunner Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was an active and dedicated advocate for terror suspects housed at Guantanamo Bay, contrary to press accounts and her own representations.
Jackson has portrayed her work for the detainees as that of a disinterested professional fulfilling an assignment. But a Washington Free Beacon review of court filings dating back to 2005 indicates that Jackson was deeply committed to equal treatment for accused terrorists. Her advocacy was zealous and often resembled ideological cause lawyering, even in her capacity as a public defender. At times, she flirted with unsubstantiated left-wing theories that were debunked by government investigators. On other occasions, she accused Justice Department lawyers of egregious misconduct with little evidence…
…”Many of the most egregious interrogation techniques used in the Abu Ghraib detention center and other detention facilities in Iraq—such as the use of aggressive dogs to intimidate detainees, sexual humiliation, stress positions, and sensory deprivation—were pioneered at Guantanamo,” she wrote, by way of arguing her client was subject to inhumane confinement conditions.
Such allegations were common among Democratic lawmakers and left-wing advocacy groups. But a 2005 report of the Pentagon inspector general, much of which remains classified, rejects that assessment. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005, Vice Admiral Albert Church rejected any such Abu Ghraib-Gitmo nexus…
..But Jackson continued to advocate for Gitmo prisoners after she left the government for private practice, which further undercuts claims that she simply discharged a professional duty in representing Gul.
Jackson had a hand in one of the most important detention disputes in the War on Terror, a 2008 Supreme Court case called Boumediene v. Bush. As an appeals lawyer at Morrison & Foerster, she and two other lawyers filed an amicus brief in Boumediene on behalf of retired federal judges who were backing Guantanamo prisoners who asserted a constitutional right to challenge their confinement in federal court.
Source: Washington Free Beacon
If that’s not raising some red flags, maybe this will.
It also seems that one of Jackson’s former clerks decided to go on a Wikipedia editing spree to bolster the liberal bona fides of his ex-boss and downplay her competitors.
Former colleagues identified the serial editor “H2rty” as Matteo Godi who has been editing Jackson’s Wikipedia page “as a matter of course” for several years.
Godi made more than 20 edits to seven Wikipedia pages beginning two days after Justice Breyer announced his retirement and continued until February 2.
One of the changes to Jackson’s page included an edit about the ruling on McGahn cited earlier that altered the tone to sidestep the criticism that Trump won through stalling tactics despite losing the case itself.
Changes were made to Jackson’s page, as well as several potential nominees — South Carolina federal district court Judge J. Michelle Childs, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, Minnesota district court Judge Wilhelmina Wright, Judge Tiffany Cunningham who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Arianna J. Freeman, who was nominated by Biden to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and her confirmation is still pending, and Judge Holly Thomas who was confirmed to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 20, 2022.
After POLITICO began inquiring about the changes on Friday, a group of former law clerks for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson identified the anonymous editor as Matteo Godi, another former Jackson clerk. Godi did not respond to multiple emailed requests or a phone call.
In a statement, the former clerks for Jackson — who requested anonymity in order to identify the online editor — said Godi has edited his former boss’s Wikipedia page “as a matter of course” for several years. They said Jackson was not aware of Godi’s edits on the pages of other judges.
Those edits display a pattern: The page for Jackson, seen by many as a Supreme Court frontrunner, was tweaked to paint her in a more favorable light for a liberal audience, while the pages for other potential nominees — South Carolina federal district court Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — were altered to make them potentially less appealing to a left-leaning audience…
…Edits to Childs’ and Krugers’ pages by the user took a decidedly different tone, emphasizing characteristics of the potential nominees that call into question their liberal bona-fides. A passage on Childs’ tenure at South Carolina-based law firm Nexsen Pruet notes her “reputation for being an expert in employment and labor law.” User H2rty added that Childs worked on behalf of “employers dealing with allegations of race based and gender based discrimination, employee efforts to unionize, and other alleged civil rights violations.”
Kruger’s page notes she is “sometimes considered one of the swing votes” on the California Supreme Court. H2rty added that she “is seen as a moderate on the seven-member court — moderately liberal on civil cases, more conservative on criminal matters.”
It’s unclear if Godi was editing the pages because he thought it was the right thing to do or if he was doing it at someone else’s behest. But it does raise some alarms. Jackson apparently knew that Godi had been making edits to her Wikipedia page since 2017. Was she aware of how he was editing it in early 2022?
It seems like a reasonable question to ask.
It wouldn’t hurt to ask why she was downplaying her advocacy for terrorists while pushing conspiracy theories, either.
Do you hear that, Senate GOP?