If Democrats had not filibusterer Conservative Black appointees to the DC circuit court , There would have been one on the Supreme Court by now
Not all black judges are good, but some good judges are black. You should be glad sleepy Joe can tell the difference. Oh... what am I saying? This is a redhat I'm addressing. They think posting black criminals being violent is some sort of gotcha.
Biden thinks this will save him with black voters(He has the lowest black approval ratings with blacks of any democrat president I can find) .Good luck with that Two faced Joe.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Gives Forceful Response to Hawley Accusation She ‘Endangers Children’ https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch...-to-hawley-accusation-she-endangers-children/ Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a lengthy and forceful response to Sen. Josh Hawley’s accusation that her work on child pornography cases “endangers children.” Hawley attacked Judge Jackson in a lengthy Twitter rant last week, the conclusion of which asserted that her record on child pornography cases “endangers our children.” The attacks have been reviewed and debunked by multiple news outlets, but at Tuesday’s second day of confirmation hearings, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin asked the nominee to respond to Hawley’s characterization — in starkly emotional terms. “I thought about his charges as I watched you and your family listening carefully yesterday, and what impact it might have had on you personally to know that your daughters, husband, parents, family, and friends were hearing the charges that your implementation of this law, sentencing, endangered children. Could you tell us what was going through your mind at that point?” Durbin asked. “As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I was thinking that nothing could be further from the truth,” Judge Jackson replied soberly, then delivered a detailed and forceful response that included an explanation of the statute governing sentencing: These are some of the most difficult cases that a judge has to deal with because we’re talking about pictures of sex abuse of children. We’re talking about graphic descriptions that judges have to read and consider when they decide how to sentence in these cases. And there’s a statute that tells judges what they’re supposed to do. Congress has decided what it is that a judge has to do in this and any other case when they sentence. And that statute, that statute doesn’t say look only at the guidelines and stop, the statute doesn’t say impose the highest possible penalty for this sickening and egregious crime. The statute says calculate the guidelines, but also look at various aspects of this offense, and impose a sentence that is quote “sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment.” Judge Jackson went on to recount some of the messages she delivers to offenders in such cases. I tell them about the victim’s statements that have come in to me as a judge. I tell them about the adults who were former child sex abuse victims who tell me that they will never have a normal adult relationship because of this abuse. I tell them about the ones who say I went into prostitution. I fell into drugs because I was trying to suppress the hurt that was done to me as an infant. And the one that was the most telling to me that I describe at almost every one of these sentencing, when I look in the eyes of a defendant who is weeping because I’m giving him a significant sentence, what I say to him is, do you know that there is someone who has written to me and who has told me that she has developed agoraphobia? She cannot leave her house because she thinks that everyone she meets will have seen her, will have seen her pictures on the internet. They’re out there forever. At the most vulnerable time of her life. And so she’s paralyzed. I tell that story to every child porn defendant as a part of my sentencings so that they understand what they have done. (Article has video)