The Federal Judiciary is Not About the Rule of Law

If there ever was a time for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to impose term limits on the federal judiciary, it's now.

By Rich Kozlovich

For weeks I've been watching these YouTube hearings on Biden's nominees to the judiciary, and other positions.  One thing, and one thing only seems clear from their answers:  They must have all gone to the same school of clabber as they started all their answers with "Senator, Thank you for that question", and then failed to answer it.   

Senator John Kennedy Asks One Judicial Nominee Same Question Nine Times, trying to get to her personal views on a subject, and still can't get it even after stipulating they would be fair and unbiased in their judgements, if they would just answer the questions asked.  He finally got an answer.  He asked what her favorite color was.  Blue.  And this pattern plays out over and over and over and over and over again.  Every one of these nominees were clearly leftist radicals, and one nominee Biden put forward was a Soviet trained economist he chose to be the next comptroller of the currency.

So, why would we think this latest nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Supreme Court of the United States would be any less radical?  Any less leftist?  Any less destructive to the Constitution? Let's take a look at what's being said about Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Biden  claims she's a “proven consensus builder” and a “distinguished jurist.”  But he also said he want's a justice who thinks it's their job to "expand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments. President Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a "living constitution" approach, including a broad view of “unenumerated rights.”  Jackson has not answered that question.  The phrase to describe her view: "Obscure and conflicted", and at one point answered she "simply did not have experience with such interpretations as a judge."  Just as obscure and evasive as all these other radicals.

And former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has nothing but praise for her "intellect, for her character, and for her integrity, [which according to him] is unequivocal."  He went on to say, "I know she is clearly qualified. But it bears repeating just how qualified she is," ..... "She’s an amazing person, and I favorably recommend her for consideration."  I would think he would know as she's related to him through marriage.   But, how good are the tenuous views of this major RINO on anything? He proved his mettle while Speaker of the House and was found seriously wanting.  

Liberty Nation’s legal affairs editor, Scott D. Cosenza, offers his thoughts on Jackson’s nomination and how she measures up to the nation’s highest court saying: 

There is nothing about Judge Jackson’s history to indicate she will be especially impulsive or partisan. She seems well suited to the role of justice.......... I expect her to be a reliable vote for the left, as Justice Breyer would, and also deviate from partisan wishes when she believes they are wrong........Leaving aside the race and sex-based discrimination baked into her nomination, it’s that public defender experience..........

Well, let's take a look at her intelligence, integrity and character.

First off, I will stipulate a public defender is obligated to do everything ethical to defend their client no matter how contemptible their deeds may have been.  But while defending one of the terrorists jailed at Guantanamo she blatantly lied about the treatment of prisoner at Guantanamo claiming:

"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,"

This was investigated and it was an absolutely false accusation.  She accused them of performing heinous acts which never happened, and I can't believe she was doing that out of ignorance.  

Is that a preview of her character?  Her intelligence? Her integrity? And is she really well qualified? Or is this nominee a hard left radical, and is this a Wink and Nod nomination?  Let's see. 

Jim Hoft claims she's "a radical judge who has ruled many times against the Trump administration", but does that make her radical and unqualified?

• She broke the client attorney privilege rule declaring "Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as Trump’s White House counsel"
• "temporarily blocked the deportation of two migrants who claimed the Trump Administration’s new “lesson plan” for asylum officers makes it harder to prove fear of returning to their home country.  Her ruling was so radical that Acting US Citizenship and Immigration Director Ken Cuccinelli slammed the activist judge.
• Judge Jackson also was accused of judicial overreach in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump in 2018, when she stopped the Trump administration from implementing provisions limiting the ability of federal workers’ unions to collectively bargain. Noting that Jackson was a prospective choice for the Supreme Court, The Washington Post heralded the ruling as a major victory for unions. However, a unanimous ruling by the D.C. Circuit held that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to decide the case because the statute clearly mandates such challenges must be brought first in the agency process and that judicial review is then available in the courts of appeals.

This is her "sterling" judicial reputation? This is a judge that has been reversed by left wing judges, and it's clear she has been, and will be, guilty of judicial overreach, and who will overturn her once she's on the Supreme Court?  I wouldn't count on Roberts, Kavanaugh or Barrett. This is a Wink and a Nod nomination for a totally unqualified judge whose intelligence, character and integrity isn't unequivocal, it's all highly questionable.

The left and the media claim she's in the main stream, and all agree that she's the best choice, however, none of them can explain why, and if she's mainstream, that stream must be running through the center of Venezuela.  

Remember, they all claimed Merritt Garland (the now Attorney General who unreleased the FBI on parents protesting school board decisions) was a "moderate" also.   

 So, back to my earlier question: Why would we think this latest nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States would be any less radical?  Any less leftist?  Any less destructive to the Constitution?

We shouldn't!