Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans turn Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing into a political circus

      by

      Republicans turn Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing into a political circus Solemn proceedings of confirmation hearing took a nosedive into farce with bizarre moments in Jackson’s epic inquisitionAt 2.54pm on the second day of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings that will determine whether she takes a seat on the US supreme court, the solemn proceedings took a nosedive into farce.Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, turned theatrically to an outsized blow-up of a children’s book, Antiracist Baby by Ibram X Kendi. Pointing to a cartoon from its pages of an infant in diapers taking their first walk, he asked Jackson: “Do you agree with this book… that babies are racist?”“Senator,” Jackson began with a sigh. And then she paused for seven full seconds, which in the august setting of the Senate judiciary committee hearing felt like a year.For the one and only time in the 13 hours of questioning that Jackson endured that day, the nominee appeared flummoxed. Or was it flabbergasted?Here she was, aged 51, with almost a decade’s experience as a federal judge behind her and, if confirmed, the history-making distinction of becoming the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court ahead of her. And she was being asked whether babies were racist?“I don’t believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or not valued, or less than, that they are victims, oppressors,” she said eventually. When Cruz refused to drop the subject she gave a more direct answer.“I have not reviewed any of those books,” she said. “They don’t come up in my work as a judge, which I’m respectfully here to address.”That Cruz chose to focus on critical race theory (CRT), the years-old academic theory that has become the latest conservative hot-button issue, in his questioning spoke volumes about the brutal social issue politics of today’s Republican party. That he did so to a Black woman lent the exchange the astringency of a racial dog-whistle.Cruz’s attack was not unique. Four hours before he began his interrogation, the official Twitter account of the Republican National Committee posted a gif of the nominee bearing her initials “KBJ” which are then scratched out and replaced with the letters: “CRT”. Critical race theory is an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society.There was another twist to Cruz’s questioning. The private elementary school at which he claimed CRT was being taught – Antiracist Baby and all – is Georgetown Day School on whose board Jackson sits as a trustee. When GDS was founded in 1945 it too made history as the first integrated school, serving both Black and white children, in the nation’s capital.Lest any of the attendants of the hearings inside the Hart Senate office building or following along on television had doubts about Cruz’s motivations, he grilled Jackson on several other racially-charged subjects. He began by vaunting his own anti-racist credentials by expressing the admiration he shared with Jackson for Martin Luther King.Within seconds of that warm embrace, however, the senator segued to a speech that Jackson made in 2020 – on MLK day – in which she referred to the 1619 Project.The project, initiated by the New York Times, seeks to reframe American history by placing the consequences of slavery and the role of African American women front and centre of the national narrative. Cruz asked Jackson if she agreed with some of its more contested conclusions, which he claimed were “deeply inaccurate and misleading”, to which she replied that she had only mentioned it because it was “well known to the students I was talking to”.Again, she stressed, this was a subject that had absolutely nothing to do with her work – or by implication, the job of a supreme court justice.Outside observers were incensed by Cruz’s tactics. “What we saw today was an attempt to assail the character of Ketanji Brown Jackson, because her record is so wholly unassailable,” Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the racial justice organization, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said on MSNBC.Raphael Warnock, the Democratic senator from Georgia and former senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist church in Atlanta where King once preached, pondered in the New York Times: “Would they be asking these questions if this were not a Black woman?”There were other awkward moments in Jackson’s epic inquisition, which she survived while barely dropping the perma-smile from her face. There was the moment that Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina, flounced out of the hearing having earlier wrongly accused Jackson of having called George W Bush and the then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals”.Yet more bizarre was the episode when Marsha Blackburn, Republican senator from Tennessee, asked Jackson whether she could “provide a definition for the word ‘woman’.” “No, I can’t,” came the curt reply.It was all a far cry from the promise delivered by Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican in the judiciary committee, at the start of the hearings. There would be no “spectacle” or “political circus” coming from his side of the aisle.Several Republican senators followed that pledge by channelling QAnon. Senators Josh Hawley from Missouri, Cruz and Graham all pursued the inquisitorial line that Jackson had been unduly lenient as a federal district court judge in her sentencing of sex offenders who consume and distribute images of child sex abuse.Though they avoided stating so explicitly, the senators clearly intended to imply that Jackson’s sympathies lay with pedophiles. That’s a short stone’s throw away from the core conspiracy theory peddled by QAnon, the toxic Donald Trump-supporting online movement.At its “Pizzagate” inception during the 2016 presidential campaign, QAnon fantasised about a child trafficking ring around Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders and liberal Hollywood celebrities.As Media Matters has noted, the claim that Jackson was lenient towards sex offenders consuming images of children first surfaced last month. A conservative group American Accountability Foundation (AAF) ran an “investigation” into her writings while a student at Harvard law school in which she explored discrepancies in sentencing policy in such cases.The group misleadingly claimed that her writing exposed her as a radical judicial activist dedicated to “social justice engineering”.Days before the confirmation hearings began, Republican senators had taken up AAF’s lead and were plotting how to use it during the confirmation process. Last week Politico obtained a document that was circulating among the senators in which they rehearsed the claim that the judge “routinely handed out light sentence”, and that the lightest of all were in “child pornography cases”.A pedophile-sympathising, critical race theory-loving, judicial activist, radical leftist social engineer. The vision of the nominee that was presented over hours of Republican grilling made for quite the spectacle.But will the political circus work? “They are trying to find some way to make her look less than qualified,” Nelson concluded. “They failed miserably.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump committed ‘numerous’ felonies, said resigning New York prosecutor – report

      by

      Trump committed ‘numerous’ felonies, said resigning New York prosecutor – reportNew York Times obtains letter by Mark Pomerantz condemning new district attorney’s decision not to prosecute ex-president A Manhattan prosecutor who investigated Donald Trump’s financial dealings wrote in a resignation letter that he believed Trump “is guilty of numerous felony violations” and blasted the new district attorney for not moving ahead with an indictment, the New York Times reported.Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, two top prosecutors on the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation of Trump, resigned abruptly last month, amid reports that the investigation into the former president’s finances was foundering.The newly elected district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was reportedly more skeptical than his predecessor that the evidence his office’s attorneys had gathered against Trump would be enough to convict him.In a February resignation letter obtained by the New York Times, Pomerantz wrote that the team of lawyers investigating Trump had “no doubt” he had “committed crimes” and that Bragg’s decision not to move ahead with prosecuting Trump “will doom any future prospects that Mr Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating”.“His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Pomerantz reportedly wrote.Republican says Trump asked him to ‘rescind’ 2020 election and remove Biden from officeRead moreThe clock is ticking on the case against Trump, as the current term of the grand jury which has been hearing evidence expires in April.Ronald Fischetti, an attorney for Trump, told the Guardian that the resignation letter simply reflected the prosecuting team’s failure to make a convincing legal case against the former president, describing his client’s “innocence”.“Pomerantz had several occasions to meet with Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, and his senior staff to lay out exactly what he intended to present to the grand jury in order to get an indictment, and he failed,” Fischetti said. “He was unable to convince the DA and his senior staff that he had sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment.”“Mr Bragg should be commended for not doing this on the basis of politics, and just doing it on the basis of law, which he’s supposed to do,” Fischetti said.While the resignation letter conceded that the case against Trump could be challenging and that there were “risks” of bringing it to court, it argued that there was a strong public interest in prosecuting Trump “even if a conviction is not certain”.The former Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance, who had been deeply involved in the case, had “directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible”, Pomerantz reportedly wrote, but Bragg, who was sworn in this January, reviewed the case and did not agree.Pomerantz believed Bragg’s decision not to seek an indictment of Trump was “made in good faith” but also “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest”.Pomerantz did not respond to a request for comment.“The investigation continues,” Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for the district attorney, wrote in an email. “A team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law. There is nothing we can or should say at this juncture about an ongoing investigation.”A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called Pomerantz a “never-Trumper” in a statement to the New York Times.TopicsDonald TrumpNew YorkUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson says Roe v Wade ‘the settled law of the supreme court’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      2.06pm EDT

      14:06

      Psaki tests positive for Covid-19

      11.33am EDT

      11:33

      Jackson: Roe v Wade is ‘settled law’

      8.58am EDT

      08:58

      Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings continue

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      5.42pm EDT

      17:42

      In response to Hawley’s insinuations that she was not tough enough on defendants in child sexual abuse cases, Jackson has explained in detail how sentencing works, saying, “What a judge has to do is determine how to sentence defendants proportionately consistent with the elements that the statutes include, with the requirements Congress has set forward … Judges are doing the work of assessing in each case a number of factors that are set forward by Congress, all against the backdrop of heinous criminal behavior … and Congress has given judges factors to consider.”
      Jackson said she has to consider the facts and the recommendations of government and the probation department in sentencing, adding, “You’re questioning whether or not I take them seriously or if I have some reason to handle them in a different way than my peers or in a different way than other cases, but I assure you I do not.”
      Hawley said: “I am questioning your discretion and judgment.” He asked her why she was not tougher on an 18-year-old in a case involving child sexual abuse images.
      Jackson explained that she was following guidelines and responding to specific facts in the case, and sentenced him to three months in federal prison.

      5.31pm EDT

      17:31

      Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri, started his questions with detailed descriptions of child sexual abuse cases and accusing Jackson of not being tough enough on offenders. Here’s the response from a White House spokesperson, saying Halwey’s remarks are “embarrassing” and a signal to QAnon conspiracy theorists:

      Andrew Bates
      (@AndrewJBates46)
      Hawley’s embarrassing, QAnon-signaling smear has been fact checked by: @washingtonpost, @nytimes, @AP, @CNN, @ABC, and @NRO:https://t.co/JDHAWH7l3dhttps://t.co/JbPnmE7lbIhttps://t.co/8DuoUg80hGhttps://t.co/fA4hUmeqGyhttps://t.co/fA4hUmeqGyhttps://t.co/UVCtmAImJ2

      March 22, 2022

      5.17pm EDT

      17:17

      Martin Pengelly

      Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, is now questioning Jackson. There was an interesting nugget from Punchbowl News this morning, on Hawley and why he is pressing his attack on the judge over her past sentencing of offenders convicted over child sexual abuse images. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson defends against Republican’s claims on child abuse sentences

      by

      Ketanji Brown Jackson defends against Republican’s claims on child abuse sentencesSupreme court nominee responds to Josh Hawley’s accusations, which have have been debunked as false, at Senate hearing

      Ketanji Brown Jackson faces questions on second day of confirmation hearings – live updates
      Ketanji Brown Jackson gave a passionate defense of her sentencing of child sexual abuse imagery offenders as a rebuttal to attacks from a Republican senator who has accused her of endangering children, as her confirmation hearings for a seat on the US supreme court entered a critical second day.Ketanji Brown Jackson vows to defend US constitution in opening remarksRead moreAt the start of an epic day of questioning before the Senate judiciary committee on Capitol Hill, Jackson strongly rejected claims made by Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri.The senator has spent several days advancing the theory that the Biden nominee, in her eight years as a federal district court judge, handed down sentences that were far more lenient than federal guidelines suggested or prosecutors requested.Hawley’s accusations have been debunked as misleading and false. On Tuesday, Jackson gave a personal response to the claims.“As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, nothing could be further from the truth,” Jackson said under questioning from Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic committee chair.She said child abuse cases were among the most difficult she dealt with as a judge, and described child sexual abuse imagery as a “sickening and egregious crime”.On the second day of hearings, each committee member was given 30 minutes to engage with Jackson. On Wednesday, they will get 20 minutes for follow-up questions. The final decision on confirmation will be made in a vote of the full Senate that is likely to be held by the first week in April.After a relatively amicable opening day, Jackson was facing up to 12 hours on Tuesday of possibly grueling interrogation from the 22-member committee, half of which is Republican. If confirmed, Joe Biden’s nominee would become the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court in its more than two centuries of existence.At Durbin’s invitation, Jackson defended herself against the Republican attack line that she was soft in her legal approach to terrorist suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay military camp in Cuba. Jackson spent two years as a federal public defender and in that role represented some of the detainees in their bid for review of their cases.Jackson pointed out that her brother, Ketajh Brown, joined the US military in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. But she went on to say that American justice required all defendants to be represented and treated fairly.“That’s what makes our system the best in the world, that’s what makes us exemplars,” she said.The committee also scrutinised amicus briefs filed by Jackson before the supreme court relating to Guantánamo. Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina, focused on a brief that argued that detainees held there indefinitely as “enemy combatants” should either be put up for trial or released.Graham said that if her argument had been accepted by the court it would have damaged the US war on terrorism. “This is not how you run a war,” he said.Jackson replied that she had been conveying the views of the private groups and thinktanks that she had been representing, not her own opinions.Graham also tried to impugn Jackson by association, pointing to progressive groups who had backed her nomination. He especially referred to groups that wanted to dilute conservative dominance of the supreme court by expanding the number of its justices.“Every group that wants to pack the court, that believes this court is a bunch of rightwing nuts that is going to destroy America, that considers the constitution trash – all wanted you picked … That is problematic for me,” Graham said.The nominee was asked by the committee to lay out her views on abortion. The subject is currently before the supreme court which is expected to dismantle the fundamental right to a termination enshrined in its own 1973 ruling Roe v Wade.Jackson said that she agreed with two of Trump’s appointees to the court, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett, when they said in their respective confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law. She added that she believed that stare decisis – the legal principle of sticking with the court’s past precedent – was “very important”.John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, tried to puncture the stare decisis argument that Roe should be respected as established precedent by invoking Dred Scott, the 1857 supreme court ruling that stripped people of African descent of US citizenship, and Plessy v Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that approved racial segregation. “Thank goodness the supreme court has been willing to revisit its precedent, otherwise we’d still be living with Plessy and Dred Scott,” he said.Cornyn quizzed Jackson on her views about same-sex marriage and whether it was legitimate for the supreme court to have declared gay marriage legal in 2015. She said the court had decided that marriage equality was a right under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.Cornyn riposted that five unelected justices had created a new fundamental right ignoring the will of voters. “We five members of the supreme court are going to decide what the law of the land should be, and anyone who disagrees with me will be labeled a bigot.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trial

      by

      Cowboys for Trump creator found guilty in second US Capitol attack trialJudge declares Couy Griffin guilty of one of the two offenses, bolstering a key theory from lawyers in hundreds of related cases A New Mexico county commissioner who founded a group called Cowboys for Trump was found guilty by a judge on Tuesday of breaching the US Capitol during the January 6 riot, a second consecutive win at trial for the US Department of Justice.Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic StateRead moreFollowing a two-day non-jury trial, the US district judge Trevor McFadden said the defendant, Couy Griffin, was guilty of one of the two misdemeanor offenses.The ruling bolsters a key theory from prosecutors in hundreds of related cases.They argued that the Capitol grounds were strictly off-limits on 6 January 2021, and that should have been apparent to the thousands of Donald Trump supporters who breached them in an attempt to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s election.The judge found Griffin guilty of entering a restricted area protected by the US Secret Service but cleared him of disorderly conduct.McFadden said Griffin should have known not to scale walls and enter the Capitol grounds, but said Griffin was innocent of disorderly conduct because he never tried to rile up the crowd at the Capitol or engage in violence.McFadden scheduled a June sentencing hearing for Griffin, who faces up to a year behind bars.Before the mob stormed the Capitol, Trump gave a fiery speech in which he falsely claimed his election defeat was the result of widespread fraud, an assertion rejected by multiple courts, state election officials and members of his own administration.About 800 people face criminal charges relating to the riot, which sent the then-vice-president, Mike Pence, and members of Congress running for their lives. Some 200 have already pleaded guilty.Griffin’s bench trial is seen as an important test case as the DoJ attempts to secure convictions of the hundreds of defendants who have not taken plea deals.The first jury trial for a 6 January defendant ended in a decisive victory for prosecutors earlier this month. After a quick deliberation, a jury unanimously found a Texas man guilty on all five of the felony charges he faced, including bringing a gun onto the Capitol grounds and obstructing an official proceeding.TopicsUS Capitol attackNew MexicoDonald TrumpUS politicsLaw (US)US crimeReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The woman jailed for a voting mistake

      by

      Pamela Moses, a Black Lives Matter activist , was sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote. Sam Levine tells the remarkable story

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      In 2015 Pamela Moses was convicted of a felony crime in the US state of Tennessee. She pleaded guilty to charges of stalking, tampering with evidence, theft and perjury, although she later said she bitterly regretted accepting those charges. Her punishment was not a prison sentence but a period of probation. But it was the beginning of a chain of events that led to her being sent to jail years later for voter fraud. The Guardian’s Sam Levine tells Nosheen Iqbal that people convicted of certain crimes in Tennessee are automatically disbarred from voting while serving out their sentence, but a bureaucratic mistake in the probation office led to Moses being given the impression that she was once again eligible to cast her ballot. When she began an unlikely run for elected office, it came to light that she was in fact not allowed to vote and she was arrested and charged with voter fraud, and later sentenced to six years in jail. When Levine published a story about this in the Guardian, it was picked up elsewhere and became a huge national story. And one that at the time of recording still has a final act yet to play out. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican Hawley’s attack on supreme court nominee Jackson is wrong, says senator

      by

      Republican Hawley’s attack on supreme court nominee Jackson is wrong, says senatorSenate judiciary committee chair Dick Durbin says Hawley’s attacks should be ignored in confirmation hearings this week The Missouri Republican Josh Hawley is wrong to attack Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden’s supreme court nominee, and should be ignored in confirmation hearings this week, the Senate judiciary chair said.How Ketanji Brown Jackson became Biden’s supreme court nominee – podcastRead moreHawley, the Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin said, is “part of the fringe within the Republican party … a man who was fist-bumping the murderous mob that descended on the Capitol on 6 January of the last year.“He doesn’t have the credibility he thinks he does.”If confirmed, Jackson will be the first Black woman on the court. If Democrats hold their 50 votes she will be installed, via Kamala Harris’s vote as vice-president.Jackson has attracted Republican support before and some have indicated they may back her this time. Jackson’s confirmation will not affect the balance of a court which conservatives dominate 6-3, as she will replace another liberal, the retiring Stephen Breyer.Hawley is however one of several hard-right members of the judiciary committee, alongside Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, to harbour presidential ambitions. Such senators could see attacking a Biden nominee as a way to appeal to supporters.This week, in tweets echoed by the Republican National Committee, Hawley highlighted a potential line of attack.“I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children,” Hawley said.He did not raise the issue when he questioned Jackson last year, before voting against her confirmation to an appeals court. The White House said the senator was pushing “toxic and weakly presented misinformation”.Jackson sat on the US Sentencing Commission, an agency meant to reduce disparity in federal prison sentences. The sentencing expert Douglas Berman, an Ohio State law professor, has said her record shows she is skeptical of the range of sentences recommended for child pornography cases, the subject seized upon by Hawley.“But so too were prosecutors in the majority of her cases and so too are district judges nationwide,” Berman wrote.Durbin told ABC’s This Week: “As far as Senator Hawley is concerned, here’s the bottom line – he’s wrong. He’s inaccurate and unfair in his analysis.“Judge Jackson has been scrutinised more than any person I can think of. This is her fourth time before the Senate judiciary committee. In three previous times, she came through with flying colors and bipartisan support, the last time just last year.“And now Senator Hawley is making these charges that came out of nowhere. The independent fact checkers … have discredited his claims already. They should have. There’s no truth to what he says.“And he’s part of the fringe within the Republican party. This was a man who was fist-bumping the murderous mob that descended on the Capitol on 6 January of last year. He doesn’t have the credibility he thinks he does.”This week, Politico demanded Hawley stop using for fundraising purposes a picture of his famous raised-fist salute to protesters before the deadly attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters. Hawley indicated that he would not stop using the image.12:30PM: Senator Josh Hawley pumps his fist at pro-Trump crowd gathered at the east side of the Capitol before heading into the joint session of Congress. #Jan6NeverAgain #TheBigLie pic.twitter.com/rEFsfLY4x9— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) April 16, 2021
      On ABC, John Barrasso of Wyoming, a member of Senate Republican leadership, was asked if Hawley was guilty of “character assassination” in his attack on Jackson.“The whole process is going to be fair, respectful and thorough,” Barrasso said, adding that he found Jackson “clearly, very intelligent”.Using a key Republican attack line in an election year, Barrasso added: “Going through the record, there are some concerns that people have about her being perceived as soft on crime. That’s all going to come out with the hearings but they’re going to be respectful, they’re going to be thorough and they’re going to be fair.”Asked if Hawley’s attack was fair, Barrasso said: “Well, he’s going to have his opportunity to question the judge as will all the members of the committee.“The last time we had a hearing with [Brett] Kavanaugh, he was accused of being a serial rapist with no evidence whatsoever. So, I think we’re going to have a fair process and a respectful process, unlike what the Democrats did to Justice Kavanaugh.”In fact Kavanaugh – who denied allegations of sexual assault detailed by an alleged victim in confirmation hearings – was the second of three justices installed by Republicans under Donald Trump. The third, Amy Coney Barrett, was jammed on to the court shortly before the 2020 election, after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, told CBS’s Face the Nation he and Jackson “had a very good conversation”. He asked her, he said, to “defend the court” against those who say Democrats should expand it beyond nine justices to redress its ideological balance.Mug shot: Republican Josh Hawley told to stop using January 6 fist salute photoRead more“Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Breyer both publicly opposed court packing,” McConnell said, “that is trying to increase the number of members in order to get an outcome you like. That would have been an easy thing for [Jackson] to do, to defend the integrity of the court. She wouldn’t do that.”The man who drastically shifted the balance of the court in part by denying a nomination to Barack Obama in 2016 and swiftly confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett four years later also said: “I haven’t made a final decision as to how I’m gonna vote.”Hearings begin on Monday. Jackson is expected to make a statement and answer questions. Harvard-trained, she spent two years as a federal public defender. That makes her the first nominee with significant criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall, the first Black American on the court.The American Bar Association has given Jackson its highest rating, unanimously “well qualified”.Janette McCarthy Wallace, general counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she was excited to see a Black woman on the verge of a seat.“Representation matters,” Wallace said. “It’s critical to have diverse experience on the bench. It should reflect the rich cultural diversity of this country.”
      The Associated Press contributed to this report
      TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)RepublicansDemocratsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More