Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court

[Bobref]

7 minutes ago, DE said:

She has shown her true colors.  Radical left wing extremist.  Her resume proves she empathizes with pedophiles, drug dealers, and doesn't even know she is a woman.

The left has turned the US (once the greatest country on Earth) into a f*cking laughing stock.

Oh, there’s a “f*cking laughing stock,” revealed alright.

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Oh, there’s a “f*cking laughing stock,” revealed alright.

Are you familiar with judicial selection in Alaska?

[DE]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Oh, there’s a “f*cking laughing stock,” revealed alright.

Yep.  I have already laid it out.

Glad I am on the correct side of history.

[Bobref]

36 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Are you familiar with judicial selection in Alaska?

I think you and I have had that discussion.

[Muda69]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/what-is-a-woman-judge-jackson/

Quote

In the waning hours of a marathon second day of Kentanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked whether Jackson could define the word “woman.” Jackson said she could not, at least, “not in this context.” After all, she said, she is “not a biologist.”

It is easy to mock her response. But it was not, from a progressive perspective, an easy question to answer. It forces the respondent to navigate several competing and contradictory left-wing claims about sex and identity.

The first is that the United States is, in some enduring sense, “a patriarchy”—that is, it was designed by men to benefit men and subjugate women. This claim requires a definition of the word “woman” so clear and unambiguous that a group of men could successfully construct an entire social order dedicated to the oppression of women.

The second claim, related to the first, is that women are and have been corporately oppressed in the United States. This again requires that “women” exist as a distinct and definable class of persons.

The third claim is that marginalized groups of people have perspectives that are unique to those groups and inaccessible to people who do not belong to those groups. Hence proponents’ claim that it is important to have a “black woman’s perspective” on the Supreme Court, which implies that women have a perspective meaningfully different from and inaccessible to men.

The fourth claim, quite at odds with the first three, is that a person with male reproductive organs and a Y chromosome who claims to be a woman is, in fact, a woman. Womanhood, according to this view, has no objective component, and can be claimed by any person who sincerely identifies as “a woman.” It is a self-referential definition.

If Jackson answered Blackburn’s question correctly—”a woman is an adult human female”—she would have run afoul of the fourth claim. If she answered incorrectly, she would run afoul of the first three claims. She also would have seemed like a lunatic.

In Wednesday’s hearings, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) tried to force Jackson to once again navigate this thicket of contradictions. Cruz asked Jackson whether a man who identified as a woman would have Article III standing in a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit. It was a good question. It used a live legal issue to get at the heart of Blackburn’s question. Jackson refused to answer, saying she would, if presented with such a case in the future, follow the same judicial methodology that she previously described to the committee.

It is understandable that Jackson, as a prospective Supreme Court justice, would not want to speculate on a hypothetical case. It is nevertheless disappointing that a person nominated to the Supreme Court in part on the basis of her sex would be unable to define what a woman is.

 

[swordfish]

51 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/what-is-a-woman-judge-jackson/

 

In other words, when she used the words "African American woman" during her opening statement she was disingenuous as to the gender of Judge Motley?

[Muda69]

6 minutes ago, swordfish said:

In other words, when she used the words "African American woman" during her opening statement she was disingenuous as to the gender of Judge Motley?

Possibly.  After all according to her only a biologist can answer such a question correctly.

 

[Muda69]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/no-on-ketanji-brown-jackson/

Quote

Barring an unexpected plot twist, the Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded its hearings on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Democratic senators appear primed to confirm her, but Republicans should vote “No.”

The hearings were testy at times, but they were a model of civility compared with the Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas hearings. Unlike Kavanaugh, Judge Jackson did not have senators reciting the preposterous claims of a since-imprisoned grifter that she was a gang rapist, and did not see the Capitol and the hearing room overrun by angry mobs. Unlike Amy Coney Barrett, she did not face a barrage of media attacks on her faith and her family. Unlike Samuel Alito, she was not slimed by tenuous association with racist or sexist groups, even though Jackson herself currently sits on the board of overseers of a college that is being sued for its open and notorious practice of anti-Asian race discrimination in admissions.

 

Indeed, Democratic paeans to the historic nature of her nomination to be the first African-American woman on the Court ring hollow due to their prior mistreatment of appellate nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, both of whom were targeted because Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, and other Senate Democrats feared letting a Republican president appoint a “first.”

Complaints about Republican behavior towards Jackson were overblown and sometimes patronizing to a veteran trial judge who was more than capable of handling herself. The Washington Post editorial board insulted the intelligence of its readers by claiming that Jackson had been treated worse than Kavanaugh. The White House has claimed that it is a “QAnon-signaling smear” to question Jackson on her record, as a judge, of sentencing defendants convicted of child-pornography offenses.

While there are fair grounds for argument over Judge Jackson’s approach to that subset of her criminal sentences, a number of Republican senators made unconvincingly harsh attacks over them instead of exploring her approach to the law itself. Criminal sentencing is a big part of Judge Jackson’s resume and sheds some light on her values, which tend to err on the side of leniency more broadly rather than simply in cases involving child pornography. That said, even though there are arguments to be made regarding sentencing guidelines, it is a subject that rarely intersects with the Court’s job.

Judge Jackson is sufficiently experienced for the job. At her hearing, she demonstrated that she is sufficiently learned in the law. We recognize the historic nature of her nomination, which should not be obscured by Joe Biden’s imprudent decision to narrow his criteria by race and sex. Our concern with her nomination is more fundamental: We do not trust her to faithfully apply the Constitution and laws of the United States. That is the core of a Supreme Court justice’s job, and there are no do-overs for the Senate if it confirms a nominee who will not do so.

 

The problem begins with Jackson’s slender record as an appeals judge and the limits of her docket as a trial judge. She testified under oath less than a year ago that she lacked sufficient judicial experience with constitutional cases to form a view on the interpretation of the Constitution. She has not written any opinions since then to change that, or to enable an evaluation of how she approaches the task. It was encouraging to hear Jackson, in her testimony, repeatedly embrace the original public meaning as the lodestar of constitutional interpretation. It was heartening to see her distance herself from her former boss, Justice Stephen Breyer, on the use of foreign law as a guide to what our Constitution should mean. But we have nothing but her say-so by which to judge the sincerity of those pledges.

The avowed enemies of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, including some who know her well, unanimously support Jackson’s nomination. Presumably they do so for a reason.

Jackson spoke eloquently of her love of America, her family members in law enforcement, the nation’s great racial progress, and how the United States has “the best criminal-justice system in the world.” But when asked simple questions about the human race, she balked at contradicting radical leftist ideology. When Senator Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) asked, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Jackson replied, “I can’t. I’m not a biologist.” When Senator John Kennedy (R., La.) asked Jackson when human life begins, she responded, “I don’t know.”

As a judge, Jackson was typically careful in uncontroversial cases, but prone to bend the law in a series of cases against the Trump administration. In one case on immigration policy, she somehow decided that she could judicially review a matter statutorily reserved to the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the secretary of homeland security. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by an Obama appointee, was aghast: “There could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the Secretary’s independent judgment.” On the D.C. Circuit, she joined an emergency order upholding Biden’s lawless CDC eviction moratorium, which was subsequently struck down by the Court.

Perhaps there is some chance that Jackson is sincere about respecting the original meaning of the Constitution, or would at least be open to persuasion by colleagues on the Court. But that’s obviously not enough to entrust her with the fate of the U.S. Constitution. Republican senators should oppose her nomination without hesitation.

 

[Bobref]

I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control.

Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

• By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control.

Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

• By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018

I teach in a school where kids cry in my room at least 2-3 times a week.  Guess what kind of teachers they have?  A few like those on these pages.  Closed minded folks shouldn't teach.  My biology teachers in a tiny Christian college in Indiana told us about 30 years ago that there was a lot of fuzziness in sex due to many factors.  Why is it so hard for these people today?  That was 3 decades ago.  There are e helluva lot of smart people out there.  I think I better go buy a pillow.  

[Bobref]

23 minutes ago, Robert said:

I teach in a school where kids cry in my room at least 2-3 times a week.  Guess what kind of teachers they have?  A few like those on these pages.  Closed minded folks shouldn't teach.  My biology teachers in a tiny Christian college in Indiana told us about 30 years ago that there was a lot of fuzziness in sex due to many factors.  Why is it so hard for these people today?  That was 3 decades ago.  There are e helluva lot of smart people out there.  I think I better go buy a pillow.  

It’s not about the truth. It’s about sound bites that people can mindlessly repeat, and they think that makes them look smart.

[Muda69]

14 hours ago, Bobref said:

I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control.

Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

• By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018

Dang hermaphrodites.  How many of them sit on the SCOTUS or want to swim at the collegiate level?

 

 

[swordfish]

Dang Bob, take you the whole weekend to come up with that?

"And you end up ignoring actual science" The "IDEA" of two sexes is "OVERLY SIMPLISTIC".

I guess I am one of the "Uninformed"......

Woman:  An adult female person.  (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I guess "open-minded" means "come up with your own definition" and/or things/science can just evolve to suit the flavor of the day or argument.  (Or else I'm just "close-minded")......

I get it, there are scientific oddities outside of the norms of male/female, but that refers to a natural occurrence, not an "identity choice".

Edited March 28, 2022 by swordfish

[DE]

16 hours ago, Bobref said:

I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control.

Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that.

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male

• By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018

😂

15 hours ago, Robert said:

I teach in a school where kids cry in my room at least 2-3 times a week.  Guess what kind of teachers they have?  A few like those on these pages.  Closed minded folks shouldn't teach.  My biology teachers in a tiny Christian college in Indiana told us about 30 years ago that there was a lot of fuzziness in sex due to many factors.  Why is it so hard for these people today?  That was 3 decades ago.  There are e helluva lot of smart people out there.  I think I better go buy a pillow.  

https://www.mypillow.com/

You are welcome.

[DE]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Dang Bob, take you the whole weekend to come up with that?

"And you end up ignoring actual science" The "IDEA" of two sexes is "OVERLY SIMPLISTIC".

I guess I am one of the "Uninformed"......

Woman:  An adult female person.  (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I guess "open-minded" means "come up with your own definition" and/or things/science can just evolve to suit the flavor of the day or argument.  (Or else I'm just "close-minded")......

I get it, there are scientific oddities outside of the norms of male/female, but that refers to a natural occurrence, not an "identity choice".

Correct.  Many lawyers go into politics and make laws.

[Bobref]

19 hours ago, DE said:

Correct.  Many lawyers go into politics and make laws.

Forrest Gump was right: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

[Bobref]

21 hours ago, swordfish said:

I get it,

Obviously not.

[swordfish]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Obviously not.

I get it, there are scientific oddities outside of the norms of male/female

BR, I read your "lengthy article" and while paraphrasing, this is the essence of that article.  (With a whole lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo) I chose not to be "open minded" I guess.  I can define a woman pretty easily and I'm not a biologist.  

Her answer seemed to emulate a former SOTUS Justice who during his confirmation was asked to define "pornography"  “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so, But I know it when I see it.”     I guess.

A better answer from Judge Jackson came later in the hearings when she answered Ted Cruz "I know that I am a woman".

Come on, she's a shoe-in, and YES, I get it.  I feel like Will Smith wanting to smack Chris Rock for some reason.......AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT BR.  🤣

[Bobref]

Seems that there are at least a few people willing to subordinate partisan politics to being faithful to the constitutional process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/senate-vote-ketanji-brown-jackson/

Jackson on course for confirmation, with 2 more GOP senators in favor

The Supreme Court nominee is now poised to win final approval by the end of the week

By Mike DeBonis

 and 

Seung Min Kim

The Senate put Ketanji Brown Jackson on a clear track to be confirmed later this week as the Supreme Court’s 116th justice — and its first Black woman — after three Republicans joined Democrats to advance her nomination in a Monday vote.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah become the second and third Republicans to announce support for Jackson, joining Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who publicly backed the judge last month.

All 50 members of the Democratic caucus also backed Jackson in a 53-to-47 procedural vote Monday evening, but the late-breaking support of the two GOP senators represented a minor triumph for President Biden and congressional Democrats who were eager to put a bipartisan stamp of approval on a nominee whom many Republicans had eagerly painted as a soft-on-crime leftist radical.

In a statement, Murkowski praised Jackson’s qualifications and temperament, as well as her “demonstrated judicial independence” and “the important perspective she would bring to the court” as a former Supreme Court law clerk, federal public defender, trial judge and now appeals court judge.

[Muda69]

Did Ketanji Brown Jackson Flout the Law When She Reduced a Drug Dealer's Sentence?

https://reason.com/2022/04/04/did-ketanji-brown-jackson-flout-the-law-when-she-reduced-a-drug-dealers-sentence/

Quote

Discussing Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination today, Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa) brought up her resentencing of a heroin dealer named Keith Young—a case that Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) grilled her about during her confirmation hearing last month. Grassley, like Cotton, suggested that Jackson had flouted federal law by retroactively applying a sentencing reform that Congress had chosen not to make retroactive. But the issue is not so straightforward, since federal appeals courts have disagreed about the legality of Jackson's rationale for shortening Young's sentence.

In July 2018, Jackson, then a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sentenced Young, who had been convicted of possessing with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, to 20 years in federal prison. That penalty was mandatory once prosecutors invoked 21 USC 851, which applies to defendants with certain prior drug convictions. Two years later, Young filed a motion for "compassionate release" under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), which allows judges to shorten sentences for "extraordinary and compelling reasons."

The FIRST STEP Act, a package of criminal justice reforms that Congress enacted in December 2018 (five months after Young was sentenced), allowed prisoners to file such motions directly after exhausting administrative remedies. Previously, requests for sentence reductions under the compassionate release provision had to come from the Bureau of Prisons. Young, like many other prisoners who filed such motions during the pandemic, argued that he should be released in light of the danger posed by COVID-19, citing his asthma and smoking history as factors that made him especially vulnerable to the disease.

Although Jackson rejected that request, she shortened Young's sentence from 20 years to 10, which is the term he would have received without the Section 851 enhancement. During her confirmation hearing, she noted that the FIRST STEP Act had tightened the requirements for such enhancements so that Young's prior conviction would not have triggered Section 851 had he been sentenced after the law took effect on December 21, 2018. While that change was not retroactive, it meant that Young's prison term would have been half as long had he been sentenced five months later. Jackson viewed that fact as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason to shorten his sentence.

As Grassley sees it, Jackson improperly substituted her policy judgment for the one reflected in the FIRST STEP Act. "Judge Jackson said she based her 'extraordinary [and] compelling' finding on the nonretroactive change in the law," he said during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee today. "This is a terrible and dangerous interpretation. Congress chose…which provisions of the FIRST STEP Act would apply retroactively…The Senate is currently considering legislation that I cosponsored with [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D–Ill.)] that makes some of the FIRST STEP Act retroactive. But Congress must make that change."

It makes little sense for Congress to decide that penalties for certain drug offenses are excessively severe while forcing current prisoners to continue serving sentences it now considers unjust. Yet that is what Congress did, and Grassley argues that such inconsistency was the price of winning approval for the FIRST STEP Act. "The compromise that I brokered with Sen. Durbin on the FIRST STEP Act," he said, "wouldn't have been possible if we thought that the activist judge would insert their own views into the law. Decisions like this represent serious separation-of-powers concerns and will make bipartisan work harder in the future."

Grassley noted that neither the compassionate release provision nor the U.S. Sentencing Commission's guidelines mention nonretroactive penalty changes as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for reducing a prison term. "It's a radical position," he said, "and it's outside of the confines of law."

Not according to several federal appeals courts, which have held that the phrase "extraordinary and compelling reasons" is broad enough to encompass Jackson's rationale for shortening Young's sentence. In the 2020 case United States v. McCoy, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld "compassionate release" reductions for several defendants who had been sentenced under 18 USC 924(c), which prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum for anyone who possesses a firearm "in furtherance of" a drug trafficking offense, whether or not he actually used it. The gun sentence, which must be served in addition to the sentence for the underlying offense, rises to 25 years for each subsequent violation.

Prior to the FIRST STEP Act, first-time offenders who owned guns and were convicted of multiple drug charges could receive draconian sentences under 18 USC 924(c). One notorious case involved Weldon Angelos, a 24-year-old Utah record producer who received a 55-year mandatory minimum sentence in 2004 based on three eight-ounce marijuana sales to a government informant. Angelos, who was released in 2016 after prosecutors declined to oppose his petition for resentencing, never threatened or harmed anyone with a gun. But the fact that he possessed one was enough to trigger what could have amounted to a life sentence.

Outrageous cases like that persuaded Congress to prohibit the sort of "stacking" that prosecutors used against Angelos. Under the FIRST STEP Act, the 25-year mandatory minimum applies only to defendants with prior convictions for possessing a gun "in furtherance of" drug trafficking. But that change was not retroactive. The question for the 4th Circuit was whether it could nevertheless be considered in the context of a compassionate release motion. The appeals court said it could.

"Today, the defendants' sentences would be dramatically shorter—in most cases, by 30 years—than the ones they received," the court noted. While the compassionate release provision prohibits "sentence reductions that are not consistent with 'applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,'" the 4th Circuit said, the commission had not addressed the issue of what counts as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" when prisoners file the motions authorized by the FIRST STEP Act. "Nor was it otherwise improper," the appeals court said, "for the district courts to consider the First Step Act's declaration of the appropriate level of punishment under § 924(c) in assessing the defendants' cases, on an individualized basis, for compassionate release."

The government argued that sentencing commission guidelines issued before the FIRST STEP Act precluded consideration of nonretroactive reforms. Those guidelines said the justification for a reduced sentence could include a prisoner's health, age, or family circumstances, along with "other reasons" that the Bureau of Prisons deemed "extraordinary and compelling." But that "policy statement," the prisoners successfully argued in McCoy, had plainly been superseded by the FIRST STEP Act: It was based on the assumption that only the Bureau of Prisons could file a "compassionate release" motion.

In the absence of an "applicable policy statement" from the sentencing commission, can the contrast between current penalties and the ones they replaced count as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason? The 4th Circuit thought so.

"Multiple district courts have concluded that the severity of a § 924(c) sentence, combined with the enormous disparity between that sentence and the sentence a defendant would receive today, can constitute an 'extraordinary and compelling' reason for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)," the 4th Circuit said. "We find their reasoning persuasive….We think courts legitimately may consider, under the 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' inquiry, that defendants are serving sentences that Congress itself views as dramatically longer than necessary or fair."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reached the same conclusion in the 2021 case United States v. Maumau, which involved the same sentencing provision. In the 2022 case United States v. Ruvalcaba, which involved the 25-year mandatory minimum for defendants with two or more prior convictions for a "serious drug felony," the 1st Circuit likewise held that a court "may consider the [FIRST STEP Act's] non-retroactive changes in sentencing law on an individualized basis, grounded in a defendant's particular circumstances, to determine whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists for compassionate release."

In the 2020 case United States v. Brooker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed that "the First Step Act freed district courts to consider the full slate of extraordinary and compelling reasons that an imprisoned person might bring before them in motions for compassionate release." It noted that the authority granted by that provision is "broad" and that federal judges had cited "overly long" sentences as a reason for granting relief. "Congress seemingly contemplated that courts might consider such circumstances when it passed the original compassionate release statute in 1984," the 2nd Circuit said, citing the Senate report on the bill, which said relief might be appropriate when "other extraordinary and compelling circumstances justify a reduction of an unusually long sentence."

In the 2021 case United States v. Andrews, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed that judges are not bound by the sentencing commission's outdated compassionate release guidance. But it held that neither "the duration of a lawfully imposed sentence" nor "nonretroactive changes to the § 924(c) mandatory minimums" qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for granting a compassionate release motion.

Agreeing with Grassley's take on the issue, the 3rd Circuit said "considering the length of a statutorily mandated sentence as a reason for modifying a sentence would infringe on Congress's authority to set penalties." And it noted that "Congress specifically decided that the changes to the § 924(c) mandatory minimums would not apply to people who had already been sentenced."

The 6th Circuit and the 7th Circuit have taken a similar view. The 8th Circuit this year agreed that "a non-retroactive change in the law…cannot constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for reducing a sentence."

Grassley, in other words, is hardly alone in thinking that Jackson exceeded her statutory authority when she shortened Keith Young's sentence. But given the circuit split and the ambiguity of "extraordinary and compelling reasons," it goes too far to describe Jackson's view as "a radical position" that is clearly "outside of the confines of law."

 

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Did Ketanji Brown Jackson Flout the Law When She Reduced a Drug Dealer's Sentence?

https://reason.com/2022/04/04/did-ketanji-brown-jackson-flout-the-law-when-she-reduced-a-drug-dealers-sentence/

 

Of course she did.  Kinda.....But she's smart like that.  And like this one - (which is just now coming out - but would have been helpful had the Senate had access to this one)  Had the Senators been able to peruse deeper into her cases I kinda think even most Democrats would have been appalled at some of the light sentences on baby sex torture cases.

But she is an African American Female Federal Judge, so President Biden keeps a campaign promise and practically dared anyone to vote against her.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/03/rapist-gets-lax-sentence-from-jackson-then-nabbed-for-sex-assault/

She gives a child rapist (A CHILD RAPIST) who violently raped a 13 year old (A 13 YEAR OLD) a 16 month prison sentence, 4 years probation and ordered to register as a sex offender.  

He left town and hid until getting caught 4 years later and went before her again after pleading guilty for failing to register.  The prosecutor asked for 2 years behind bars  (the low end of federal guidelines). 

Her response: “I do believe that criminal history is having a disproportionate impact on the sentence that the guidelines prescribe in this particular case in light of what you actually did here,” said Jackson before sentencing Weekes to 12 months, with credit for time served, according to the transcript.  (She let him go - in other words)

Then (when he would have been in jail serving his 2 year sentence) he is arrested again for sexual assault that the victim eventually dropped because he paid her $2,500 bucks to keep quiet.

Then in 2017, he shows up AGAIN in front of her (while already in jail) for multiple probation violations......

Redbord, the prosecutor, couldn’t resist reminding Jackson of her earlier sentence.

“The Court imposed a 12-month sentence, I think really giving the defendant every benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to complete a period of treatment, supervision, and really kind of have an opportunity to turn his life around,” he said, according to a transcript. ” … And he failed at every turn to take advantage of that opportunity.”

Earlier in the hearing, Redbord referred to Weekes as “the worst defendant that I have ever seen on supervision” and asked for two years to be tacked on to the end of his DC sentence.

Even then, Jackson did not agree, imposing her 24-month sentence to partially overlap with his punishment in connection with the assault on his sister-in-law.

[Muda69]

18 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Of course she did.  Kinda.....But she's smart like that.  And like this one - (which is just now coming out - but would have been helpful had the Senate had access to this one)  Had the Senators been able to peruse deeper into her cases I kinda think even most Democrats would have been appalled at some of the light sentences on baby sex torture cases.

But she is an African American Female Federal Judge, so President Biden keeps a campaign promise and practically dared anyone to vote against her.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/03/rapist-gets-lax-sentence-from-jackson-then-nabbed-for-sex-assault/

She gives a child rapist (A CHILD RAPIST) who violently raped a 13 year old (A 13 YEAR OLD) a 16 month prison sentence, 4 years probation and ordered to register as a sex offender.  

He left town and hid until getting caught 4 years later and went before her again after pleading guilty for failing to register.  The prosecutor asked for 2 years behind bars  (the low end of federal guidelines). 

Her response: “I do believe that criminal history is having a disproportionate impact on the sentence that the guidelines prescribe in this particular case in light of what you actually did here,” said Jackson before sentencing Weekes to 12 months, with credit for time served, according to the transcript.  (She let him go - in other words)

Then (when he would have been in jail serving his 2 year sentence) he is arrested again for sexual assault that the victim eventually dropped because he paid her $2,500 bucks to keep quiet.

Then in 2017, he shows up AGAIN in front of her (while already in jail) for multiple probation violations......

Redbord, the prosecutor, couldn’t resist reminding Jackson of her earlier sentence.

“The Court imposed a 12-month sentence, I think really giving the defendant every benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to complete a period of treatment, supervision, and really kind of have an opportunity to turn his life around,” he said, according to a transcript. ” … And he failed at every turn to take advantage of that opportunity.”

Earlier in the hearing, Redbord referred to Weekes as “the worst defendant that I have ever seen on supervision” and asked for two years to be tacked on to the end of his DC sentence.

Even then, Jackson did not agree, imposing her 24-month sentence to partially overlap with his punishment in connection with the assault on his sister-in-law.

Ughh,  a real evil loser there.  He should be locked up and the key thrown away.  Doesn't appear to be any chance of rehabilitating such a repeat offender.

 

 

[swordfish]

17 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Ughh,  a real evil loser there.  He should be locked up and the key thrown away.  Doesn't appear to be any chance of rehabilitating such a repeat offender.

 

 

Pretty obvious to most (close-minded) people I think.  But, welcome to the SCOTUS Judge (open-minded) Brown.....

[DE]

On 3/29/2022 at 5:51 AM, Bobref said:

Forrest Gump was right: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

I am not the lawyer thinking I am smarter or above everyone else.

[Bobref]

15 minutes ago, DE said:

I am not the lawyer thinking I am smarter or above everyone else.

You don’t have to be a lawyer — or particularly smart, for that matter — to see what’s going on here. In fairness, the Democrats were just as guilty during the confirmation hearings for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett. But neither party is serving the interests of justice and good government with the disgraceful display of intellectual dishonesty and pandering that goes on during these hearings.