Biden’s Pick Is A Radical, Left-Wing Activist Who Will Rubberstamp His Failed Agenda
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: A RUBBERSTAMP FOR BIDEN’S AGENDA
- Today, Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Democrat partisan who will put far-left special interests ahead of defending the liberties of Americans, to the Supreme Court.
- Jackson would be the left-wing activist judge that Biden has repeatedly promised he would nominate and who would be a rubberstamp for his far-left policies.
- NBC News: “Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement's agenda” and that “her labor-friendly rulings as a judge have drawn praise.”
- “Liberal advocacy organizations” pushed for Jackson to be on Biden’s list of Supreme Court nominees.
- Jackson is a Democrat partisan, having worked for Obama’s presidential campaign as a poll monitor and donated to Obama.
JACKSON’S RULINGS FAVOR THE LEFT
- In just a few short years on the bench, Jackson repeatedly has ruled against conservative policies.
- In 2015, Jackson ruled in favor of Hillary Clinton aide Phillipe Reines, shielding him from having to explain why he used a private email account for official work.
- Jackson has “a striking record of reversals” of her decisions by appeals courts.
JACKSON HAS A RECORD THAT INCLUDES DEFENDING TERRORISTS
- Jackson worked as a lawyer for several terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay, including a Taliban intelligence officer who was likely a leader of a terrorist cell.
- Jackson’s advocacy for these terrorists was “zealous,” going beyond just giving them a competent defense.
- Despite Jackson’s claim that she did not get to choose her clients as a public defender, she continued to advocate for Guantanamo terrorists when she went into private practice.
- In 2001, Jackson was part of an amicus brief filed by several pro-abortion groups including NARAL in support of a “buffer zone” around abortion clinics that targeted the free speech rights of pro-life Americans.
JACKSON’S BACKGROUND RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS
- Jackson is affiliated with multiple groups that raise questions about her judgment and how she would rule on the Supreme Court.