SCOTUS Nominee Kentaji Brown Advocated for Removal of Registration for Sexual Predators

“Her Harvard Law Review note in 1996 chose to focus on statutes that impose registration and community-notification requirements for sex offenders. Jackson argued for “deeming the laws ‘punitive’ to the extent that they operate to deprive sex criminals of a legal right” — rather than treating those laws as protective of communities — and argued, “if . . . a community notification statute deprives the [sex] offender of his right to mobility or bodily integrity and if it makes him the ‘target of widespread community rejection, antipathy, and scorn’ in a manner that is more retributive than rehabilitative, then it should be considered ‘punishment’” and therefore apt to be found unconstitutional under the analytical frameworks of “the Eighth Amendment, Ex Post Facto Clause, Double Jeopardy Clause, and Bill of Attainder Clause.” Jackson complained that “state legislators these days have little tolerance for sex convicts.””

This woman is IMMENSELY unqualified for the SCOTUS.

On a side note why am I not surprised that Biden would nominate a woman who believes pedophiles and sexual predators should not have to register or notify the community when they move in.

I’m curious how many of our liberal friends agree with Kentaji that sexual predators and pedophiles should not have to register nor should they have to notify the community when they move in.

 

I don’t blame you Libs I wouldn’t wanna talk about it either if I was you

 

Listening to some of the live questioning going on. Ketanji seems to think her job is to search for precedents that she likes and base all her decisions on that. Has yet to even mention the Constitution in her answers.

Precedents are for the intellectually lazy to cherry pick and do the work for them. She is worthless as a SCJ, but obviously amazing as a liberal activist.

 

At the time you mention the judge was a student at Harvard law. Students in law schools are given positions to argue for and against. This an educational exercise she was assigned. The fault is Hasrvard law"s not hers. We should immediately remove all court judges who have graduated from Harvard Law

 

Pretty sure her leniency towards those pedophiles and sexual predators in her record says she hasn’t changed those opinions.

And that was not a “school exercise” she was doing. She was taking a public position in the Harvard law journal. And her position was that pedophiles and sexual predators are treated too poorly by our justice system. And those poor sexual predators and pedophiles get stigmatized by having to register and notify people. So we need to be more lenient on them.

Is that REALLY who u want on the scotus bro? REALLY??

 

I'm certain Biden has his finger on this decision.

 

She is immensely unqualified to be a babysitter,

 

I can promise you this if Trump had put someone up for nomination to THE highest court in the land who PUBLICLY asserted pedophiles and sexual predators should not have to register or notify communities when they move in... I would have had a ******n stroke/hissy fit.

Not that it would have changed anything in regards to the nominee obviously but it would have pissed me off beyond measure.

 

Didnt he nominate someone who at the time of his confirmation have serious allegations of sexual assault against?

Also are you detailing your own thread?

 

Allegations from people who aren’t credible is not the same thing as the candidate themselves making the statement.

Do you agree with Kentaji? You’re supposedly a teacher right? Do you think pedophiles and sexual predators shouldn’t have to register or notify the community?

 

I am certain that Biden has his finger on Putin's head.

 

I think liberals are angling for an inclusive version of pedoland for their elite appetites. As an aside, can we just all agree that Sheldon Whitehouse is a ******? Is there an actual question for the candidate, or is this just him grandstanding for reelection... not a question. Is this him coaching for how he wants future cases his little rant is highlighting decided by her on the court? That seems illegal as hell....

 

Im incredulous... how did this woman pass the sniff test??

 

Kinda skirting around what I said now aren’t you? I said at the time of his confirmation he had serious allegations of sexual assault against him. Shouldn’t they have waited until they could have investigated the matter before confirming him?

As for what I believe, coming from someone who derailed their own thread? The question is whether publishing and requiring sexual predators disclose their convictions rehabilitates them into society. The answer has been settled for some time socially. The answer is it doesn’t. Primarily because it paints a target on their back. As for what I believe? I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t think I really have one beyond “the current method isn’t working as well as it needs to”.

 

I'm not a liberal but this is not the issue I have with Jackson. There is a constitutional question when it comes to post correctional treatment for sex offenders as opposed to treatment of post correctional murderers, burglers ect. I want them to register sure. Is it constitutional? Some people think not. Sex offenders are a category where many don't care whether it's constitutional or not to make them register.

 

You mean made up stories by what is clearly s set of deranged women who were ultimately demonstrated as being so in public? How embarrassing for you to bring that debacle up now...

DiFI should have been censured for it. Ms Jackson however, doesn't seem to know the difference between advocacy and juris prudence. Her testimony so far indicates that she's just as likely to invent opinions based on the barest of finding to support her agenda...

 

"Serious allegations" ? Reminds me.. and I paraphrase here " never really what the crime is, but the “seriousness of the charge” that counts" false allegations! She and the others should have been charged with a crime

 

I'd go for that. Harvard law has been a deseminator if judicial nonsense for several decades now.

 

Sheldon just said: "Appealate courts should have the ability to free range re-litigate".. what a turd. And of course ms Jackson nodded along dutifully. Is this really what we want on the SCOUTS?

 

K

What if Kavanaugh was indeed guilty of sexual assault? Do you honestly think those politicians who confirmed him would feel good about their decision? I doubt it. And if you were in their shoes, would you confirm Kavanaugh, when you just heard Fords testimony as well? Or would you ask for an investigation into the allegations first?

 

Just a question, what are uninumerated rights? And why are they so important to progressive folk?

 

Again a school exercise: see https://harvardlawreview.org/about/ .

Questions we need to think about:
Do we have any proof that her decisions are somehow more or less lenient than other judges except from partison accusations?
She has been through two other confirmations in front of this committee and the full senate which she passed with bipartisan support. Why wasn't this a big concern then?
Did she meet the requirements of the law or how many of her decisions have bee overturned in this area.

I propose we have a test in order to confirm her position in this area. I propose she sit on the bench for the sex trafficing trial of Representative Matt Goetz (R. Florida) we watch how she conducts the proceedings and if he is found guilty we see how her sentanceing stands up. Rediculous proposal absolutely, but no more rediculous than pointing to a something that she wrote while in school.

There is plenty of accusing here and I would be more inclind to give it creadence if there were more than accusations.

 

“
The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2,500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations.

Aside from serving as an important academic forum for legal scholarship, the Review has two other goals. First, the journal is designed to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students of the law. Second, it provides opportunities for Review members to develop their own editing and writing skills. Accordingly, each issue contains pieces by student editors as well as outside authors.”

Not sure how you come up with the idea that was just an assignment she was arguing on the “other side” for.

She has shown NOTHING which would make anyone believe she’s changed her mind either.

 

Of course it’s constitutional. The constitution still allows for criminals to be ENSLAVED. If that’s not cruel and unusual punishment then having them register and “stigmatizing” them definitely isn’t.

 

Ford's was the biggest of BS, nobody could collaborate a single contension of hers and in fact some disputed her contentions. She took the mood of the "me too" movement to attack Kavanaugh with no evidence what so ever, I can't beleive anybody had to sufer through her lies for as long as we did.