Ketanji Brown Jackson is refusing to answer even the most basic questions.
Even a child could answer the questions that she’s avoiding.
There’s one simple question that Biden’s SCOTUS pick refused to answer.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has made clear that she is a far-left candidate by her refusal to answer clear questions.
Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton noted during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that homicides jumped from about 16,000 in 2019 to more than 20,000 in 2020, an increase of 25%. He pointed out the prison population has declined by approximately 14% in the same space of time.
Cotton then questioned whether the country needed more police or fewer police.
“As you just noted,” Jackson began, “I have law enforcement in my background, and I am very familiar with the problems that crime [causes] in the communities where we live—”
“Okay, judge, I’m sorry,” Cotton interjected. “We have a few minutes here; you have a lifetime appointment if you’re confirmed. I asked a simple either/or question.” Cotton then repeated his question: “Does the United States need more or fewer police?”
“Senator, the determination about whether there should be more or fewer police is a policy decision by another branch of government. It is not something that judges have control over, and I will stay in my lane in terms of the kinds of things that are properly in the Judicial branch,” Jackson responded.
Cotton stated that she was evading the question which pointed out her terrible record on sentencing. “In general, is someone more or less likely to commit a crime if they know that they will be caught, convicted, and sentenced?” he asked.
“Senator, what is in my lane is the consideration of particular cases,” Jackson began to reply.
Cotton cut in again. “Judge, you’ve spoken a lot today about criminal sentencing, about the theory of sentencing, you’ve written a lot about it in your record. It is a very simple question. Is someone more likely or less likely to commit a crime if they’re more certain that they’re going to be caught, convicted, and sentenced?”
“Senator, I am aware from my work on the sentencing commission and not as a judge, that there is research into recidivism rates, into rehabilitation, into the factors that go into a determination about whether someone is more or less likely to commit crime,” Jackson responded. “Part of what Congress has taken into account, when it determined that one of the purposes of punishment is deterrence, is the idea that if someone is convicted and punished, they will be deterred from committing other crimes.”
“And you’ve mentioned that, and you’ve written about that in your writings; there’s four purposes of punishment, one of those is deterrence. Isn’t it inherent in the concept of deterrence that people are less likely to commit crime if they’re more likely to get caught, convicted, and sentenced? Why can’t you just say [that] that’s the case?”
“It’s not that I’m avoiding saying that’s the case—” Jackson said.
“No, judge, that’s exactly what you’re doing,” Cotton fired back. “I’m asking a very simple question. In general, is someone more likely or less likely to commit a crime if they know they’re going to be caught, convicted, and sentenced?”
Previously on Tuesday, Jackson refused to define what a “woman” was.
When asked to define “woman” by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, she replied, “I can’t…I’m not a biologist.” Blackburn shot back, “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”
If you want Black Eye Politics to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.