Posted on 02/25/2022 8:30:06 AM PST by algore
President Joe Biden will nominate federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, making her the first black woman selected to serve on the bench, the White House announced on Friday.
She also would be the high court's first former public defender, although the Harvard graduate possesses the elite legal background of other justices.
Friday marks two years to the day that Biden pledged to make history by nominating the first black woman to the high court. He made the vow during the 2020 primary debate in South Carolina.
Biden had whittled down his search to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer to a final three: Jackson, 51, Michelle Childs, 55, and Leondra Kruger, 45.
'President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law,' the White House said in a statement on Friday.
'He also sought a nominee - much like Justice Breyer - who is wise, pragmatic, and has a deep understanding of the Constitution as an enduring charter of liberty. And the President sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court's decisions have on the lives of the American people.'
Jackson's nomination is part of Biden's push to diversify the judicial branch. His pick is not expected to change the tilt of the consevative-leaning court but his focus on younger nominees will ensure his pick will have a long influence on its decisions.
The first step in the process was for Biden to make the formal offer to Jackson, which he did on Thursday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’m glad we’ve selected the best available candidate.
My first question to her in the confirmation hearings would be:
Ms. Brown in your opinion, what in your opinion are the odds that...
while being selected because you are a black woman, you are also the most qualified candidate available for this post?
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Notable_rulings
NOTABLE RULINGS OF JUDGE KENTAJI BROWN JACKSON:
On September 11, 2013, in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jackson preliminarily allowed a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule to stand that required meatpackers to identify the animal’s country of origin. She found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.[51]
On September 5, 2014, in Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services, Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise, despite the fact that Gralise met the statutory requirements for exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act.[52]
On September 11, 2015, in Pierce v. District of Columbia, Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate’s need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.[53]
In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early.[54] Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.[55]
On August 15, 2018, in AFGE, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions.[56]
On November 23, 2018, Jackson held that 40 lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which had been combined into a single multidistrict litigation, should be brought in Malaysia, not the United States.[57][58]
On September 4, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan, Jackson held that Congress had stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a border wall on the United States and Mexico border.[59]
On September 29, 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in Make The Road New York v. McAleenan, blocking an agency rule that would have expanded “fast-track” deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants.[60] Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule.[61]
On November 25, 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its impeachment inquiry on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration.
McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides “who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena” even if the President orders them not to do so.[62] Jackson rejected the administration’s assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that “with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.”[63]
According to Jackson, that conclusion was “inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law.”[63][64][65] Jackson’s use of the phrase “presidents are not kings” gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling.[66][67][68][69] In noting that Brown took four months to resolve the case, including writing a 120 page opinion, The Washington Post wrote: “That slow pace contributed to helping Mr. Trump run out the clock on the congressional oversight effort before the 2020 election.”[11]
The ruling was appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice,[70] and the D.C. Circuit affirmed part of Jackson’s decision nine months later in August 2020.[71] While the case remained pending, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration.[72]
...because nothing else important is going on...
If I ran an ad saying I will only consider a white female for my CLO position, I couldn’t afford the lawsuits and penalties. Would face jail time
This is one of those cases where we should fight knowing we’re going to lose. Barring a major skeleton in her closet the woman is going to be confirmed. But the left gave Trump’s nominee’s so much s*it, particularly Kavanaugh that if we don’t return the favor the left will say some crap like, “See, Joe Biden selects UNIFYING rather than DIVISIVE candidates”.
This will be smooth sailing on the Republican side ...
A look at her record at the District Court:
In 2019, Jackson ruled that provisions in three Trump executive orders conflicted with federal employee rights to collective bargaining. Her decision was reversed unanimously by the D.C. Circuit. Another 2019 decision, involving a challenge to a Department of Homeland Security decision to expand the agency’s definition of which noncitizens could be deported, was also reversed by the D.C. Circuit.
Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, defended Jackson’s record, saying Jackson “has written nearly 600 opinions and been reversed less than twelve times.”
I thought he would pick the SC judge. For Clyburn.
There is no reason for reviewing her now.
Any approval by the Senate will let Biden place her on the Court, WITHOUT A RETIREMENT, making it a packed Court.
She’s a commie, Jim.
Uh, aren’t we already “graced” with two ‘bipocs’ females on the scotus? At least one anyway?
The GOP knows they’ll vote for her. It’s theater.
Basically zero.
Ain’t Affirmative Action wonderful.
dont care if its ink, what is on the resume?
KBJ was the most leftist of the three under consideration. Childs would have been the most moderate (not saying much).
KBJ is a Black Sotomayor clone.
Diversify? She’s just another Harvard judge.
I’m sure she will be a sober and thoughtful jurist not a militant beast /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.