Ketanji Brown Jackson,,,

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Shouldn’t it be compared to federal guidelines? since that it the framework they should be using.
What other judges do is largely irrelevant.
A judge's sentencing record can be evaluated in various ways. You can compare it to sentencing guidelines, prosecutor recommendations, defense recommendations, what other judges do in similar cases, and probably more. What you compare something to depends on the question you seek to answer when doing the comparison.

I don't follow this issue at all. But it was interesting for me to hear that judges often divert from the federal sentencing guidelines. If that is in fact the case, if the guidlines are seldom followed, it would suggest the problem lies not with the judges but with the guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Her record speaks for itself.

"The viewpoints expressed by Judge Jackson while on the U.S. Sentencing Commission were apparently put into action once Biden's nominee became a federal judge. According to Hawley's review, "In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child porn offenders."
Among the sentencing decisions Hawley reviewed, there were multiple examples of Judge Jackson handing down lesser punishments than what is called for in federal sentencing guidelines."
Yes. What's on record is what's on record. But the way the record is being presented by Republicans is questionable.

It is not fair to single out a judge and hold his/her sentencing record against federal guidelines as if that was the entire story. To be fair, additional information should be considered before the isolated facts are use to spin a political narrative. For example:

In a case where Jackson deviated from guidelines in favor of something lighter, was a deal made by the prosecutor beforehand?

In say 10 cases for the same crime with similar circumstances, what did other judges do in their sentencing? If we don't know that, we don't know if Jackson is more lenient or stringent than the others.

Comparing a sentencing record to the guidelines alone and considering nothing else is like comparing two expediter trucks based on their engine size alone. Yes, it's an important thing to consider, but there is much more to know if you want to understand the whole story.

I don't closely follow the breaking news when a Supreme Court nominee is being considered, but I do not recall a previous time when any nominee's sex-offender sentencing record was focused on like Jackson's was. It would be interesting to know if any other nominee was ever asked such a question. And it would be even more interesting to see a spreadsheet showing the sex-offender sentencing records of all current Supreme Court Justices.

There is no way to know without such a comparison, but for all we know, now, Jackson might be one of the more stringent Supreme Court justices when it comes to sentencing sex-offenders.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
Yes. What's on record is what's on record. But the way the record is being presented by Republicans is questionable.

It is not fair to single out a judge and hold his/her sentencing record against federal guidelines as if that was the entire story. To be fair, additional information should be considered before the isolated facts are use to spin a political narrative. For example:

In a case where Jackson deviated from guidelines in favor of something lighter, was a deal made by the prosecutor beforehand?

In say 10 cases for the same crime with similar circumstances, what did other judges do in their sentencing? If we don't know that, we don't know if Jackson is more lenient or stringent than the others.

Comparing a sentencing record to the guidelines alone and considering nothing else is like comparing two expediter trucks based on their engine size alone. Yes, it's an important thing to consider, but there is much more to know if you want to understand the whole story.

I don't closely follow the breaking news when a Supreme Court nominee is being considered, but I do not recall a previous time when any nominee's sex-offender sentencing record was focused on like Jackson's was. It would be interesting to know if any other nominee was ever asked such a question. And it would be even more interesting to see a spreadsheet showing the sex-offender sentencing records of all current Supreme Court Justices.

There is no way to know without such a comparison, but for all we know, now, Jackson might be one of the more stringent Supreme Court justices when it comes to sentencing sex-offenders.
When your talking about putting someone on the supreme court his or her sentencing record matters... you can compare the record to others placed on the supreme court which would make for a good comparison.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and muttly

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes. What's on record is what's on record. But the way the record is being presented by Republicans is questionable.
Actually, the Republicans went pretty light on her by sticking with issues related her sentencing record, advocation of CRT, etc, compared to the way Brett Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, or even Clarence Thomas years before. And let's not forget the treatment imposed on Janice Rogers Brown by Democrats in general and Joe Biden in particular, who threatened to filibuster her nomination to SCOTUS when Sandra Day O'Connor retired in 2005. So Joe Biden personally blocked the first Black woman who would've been nominated to the Supreme Court. He was the same hypocritical jackass then as he is now.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Actually, the Republicans went pretty light on her by sticking with issues related her sentencing record, advocation of CRT, etc, compared to the way Brett Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, or even Clarence Thomas years before. And let's not forget the treatment imposed on Janice Rogers Brown by Democrats in general and Joe Biden in particular, who threatened to filibuster her nomination to SCOTUS when Sandra Day O'Connor retired in 2005. So Joe Biden personally blocked the first Black woman who would've been nominated to the Supreme Court. He was the same hypocritical jackass then as he is now.

It’s accurate though.
#childish
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just to jog the memory of those who've forgotten the details about Janice Brown, who was truly qualified and deserving to serve on the Supreme Court. After all, it's been 19 years.

"The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court...
Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.”


 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: muttly and RLENT
Top