#Ketanji Brown (1970- )

[youthchronical]

Justice Barrett May Have the Crucial Vote in Trump Cases

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the junior member of the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, having served just three full terms. But her vote may be decisive as the justices consider whether and how hard to push back against President Trump’s efforts to reshape American government. On Wednesday, for instance, she was the only one of the three justices appointed by Mr. Trump to vote against…

[lboogie1906]

Jurist Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson (September 14, 1970) serves as an associate justice of the SCOTUS. She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden and sworn into office on June 30, 2022. She was a US circuit judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

She was born in DC. Her father, Johnny Brown, further attended the University of Miami School of Law and became the chief attorney for the Miami-Dade County School Board; her mother, Ellery, served as school principal at New World School of the Arts in Miami.

She studied government at Harvard University. She performed improv comedy took classes in drama and led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window. She graduated from Harvard with an AB magna cum laude. Her senior thesis was entitled “The Hand of Oppression: Plea Bargaining Processes and the Coercion of Criminal Defendants”.

She worked as a staff reporter and researcher for Time magazine, then attended Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She graduated with a JD cum laude.

She is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services and the Council of the American Law Institute. She serves on the board of Georgetown Day School and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission.

She has served as a judge in several mock trials with the Shakespeare Theatre Company. She presided over a mock trial, hosted by Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, “to determine if Vice President Aaron Burr was guilty of murdering” Alexander Hamilton.

She has served as a judge for the Historical Society of the District of Columbia’s Mock Court Program. She served on the advisory board of Montrose Christian School, a Baptist school.

She presented at the University of Georgia School of Law’s 35th Edith House Lecture. She gave the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Lecture at the University of Michigan Law School and was honored at the University of Chicago Law School’s third annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Dinner, which was hosted by the school’s Black Law Students Association. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #deltasigmatheta

[dilawarmughal980]

Ketanji Brown Jackson: Age, Height, Family & Bio 2024

Ketanji Brown Jackson is an influential figure in American law and has made history as the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was born on September 14, 1970, in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, Florida. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson journey to the highest court in the land is a testament to her dedication and hard work.

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson?

Ketanji Brown Jackson, often called KBJ, is a highly esteemed Black Supreme Court Justice. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has spent her life breaking barriers. At 53 years old, she exemplifies resilience and excellence in law. Before her Supreme Court appointment, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Early Life and Family

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s early life was rooted in a strong educational foundation, thanks to her dedicated parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown. Justice Jackson, born in Washington, D.C., was raised in Miami, Florida. Her father studied law while her mother was a high school principal, instilling the value of education.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Amazing Career

Significant achievements and milestones mark Ketanji Brown Jackson’s amazing career. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1996, she clerked for Judge Patti B. Saris and then for Justice Stephen Breyer. In 2013, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Early Legal Career and Clerkships

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s early legal career began with prestigious clerkships. Initially, she clerked for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This role allowed her to gain invaluable insights into the judicial process. Later, she served as a clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court, further honing her legal acumen.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Husband/Boyfriend and Relationship Status

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s family is a significant part of her life. Justice Jackson met her husband, Patrick G. Jackson, while they were both students at Harvard. Patrick, a gastrointestinal surgeon, was Ketanji’s first serious boyfriend. They married in 1996 after six years of courtship. Together, they have two daughters, Talia and Leila.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Net Worth

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s net worth in 2024 is estimated at $3.5 million. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has garnered attention as a Black Supreme Court Justice for her distinguished career and financial success. While details about Ketanji Brown Jackson salary vary, her judicial roles and previous legal positions contribute significantly to her wealth Read More

[rantingcrocodile]

U prob gonna like this take: churels -dot- tumblr -dot- om/post/680893035725389824

Here's the link.

I agree to some extent, but it misses what I think are the most important points.

Not every single actual feminist can canvas door-to-door, or has the class and able-bodied privilege to be able to take part in physical protests or give massive donations. There's this strange belief that the only activism that counts is physically volunteering at a domestic violence shelter or something like that, when the truth is that recognising the truth of the world and then creating and enforcing boundaries for yourself is huge.

So what if you sign petitions or hold up a placard if you bow your head to a male colleague? How does stopping shaving your legs and armpits suddenly help in refusing to allow misogyny from a male trade worker? What does repetition of "I support all women" actually do if you keep seeing other women as lesser?

There's talk about "internet slacktivism," but it is incredibly important to teach every single individual woman how to fight against internalised misogyny and demand better for herself. That happens with individuals, through education, through one-to-one conversations, and the real feminism there is for those individual women to make a difference in their own lives so then they can pay that forward. That's massively important too, but that's erased as "meaningless" somehow.

Radical feminism isn't stagnant as a movement because there's been some co-opting or because of MRAs or because of women using the label "radfem" as swapped-in identity politics.

Radical feminism is stagnant as a movement because the ideology is stagnant and the emphasis surrounding it is miserable hopelessness, where the only "solutions" to bring women's liberation are pinned on "Well, sucks for you if you're not a lesbian or a bisexual woman who can pretend to be the superior lesbian lol" and "separatism!" that isn't a solution at all. Or, at worst, sitting back and basking in victimisation, hoping that male genes eventually die out thousands of years in the future, or hoping that women stop giving birth.

It's stagnant because the emphasis in radical feminism now is attacking TRAs and circling right back around to proving that women are oppressed for being women - and then blaming other women for it more than any kind of meaningful solidarity.

It's stagnant because from the outside, it looks like a bunch of bitter women whose only "joy" in life is feeling victimised for being women to absolve themselves of their other bigotries, bullying others, being as cruel as possible to others and making personalities out of hating men instead of celebrating women.

It's stagnant because aside from some modern texts about TRAs, the only basic parts of the ideology come from around the 1970s and there's no space to update it, where the old radfems are treated like religious figures, and where tales from WOC are used as tokens right before ignoring or scoffing at WOCs issues.

(And yes, as an aside, I am directly looking at the "feminists" who thoughtlessly scoffed at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's appointment to the US Supreme Court because in this current climate, she couldn't define what a woman was. Like it was less important for young black girls and black women in general to see a black woman in a prominent position of legal power than for her to not capitulate, considering absolutely no human being can ever be perfect. When there are sneering accusations of "white feminism," that is a perfect example of how that makes radical feminists look bad. You don't get to unironically state how TRAs use and abuse POC cultures and histories for gender reasons, and then dismiss WOC struggles until you can go, "But menstruation huts!" like they don't exist until there's a gotcha to be had. Especially when I've seen lesbians in this space pretend that bisexual issues are "white issues" to entirely erase bisexual POC, especially bisexual WOC. Like somehow, there's this underlying belief that homophobia > any other bigotry, including racism, which is a complete abuse of the idea of intersectionality and supports the downright offensive "Oppression Olympics" that goes on in radical feminism just as much as TRA and libfem spaces.)

It's stagnant because it's still obsessed with how you look rather than how you behave. Like a woman who is still shaving or wearing makeup is some worthless handmaiden libfem despite prioritising other women and genuinely being behaviourally GNC, whilst a woman who has a shaved head and never touches cosmetics but is still massively misogynistic to other women is somehow the "better feminist."

It's stagnant because it's full of hypocrisy that hasn't been updated and challenged. There for all women, but any woman who does have a decent relationship with a single man (romantic, familial, friend, colleague) is suddenly male-obsessed and worthless. Men are always to blame, but non-binary women and "trans men" are constantly dogpiled, and women who simply say positive things about men are attacked for something easily just ignored. Bigotry is always bad, but it's fine to be bigoted to dismiss the issues that women of specific classes go through, and it's good to be bigoted if there's a pretence that the bigotry is aimed at oppressed classes of men instead.

It's stagnant because the women that join sink their teeth into lashing out and being hateful to avoid having to deal with any trauma or issues in their own lives, and when those women either realise that everyone around them is being hateful, or that they regret being hateful themselves, they end up just leaving the label behind and moving on, either to continue decently without the label, or end up being sucked into a different label because they're vulnerable - and then end up being attacked and abused by radfems even more.

It's very easy to blame the MRAs, but the MRAs are attacking women's rights, not radical feminism as an ideology. Pretending that it's stagnant as a movement because of men and not because there's a failure of big names and a failure of leaders and a failure to appeal to other women is just a cop-out. Women are in charge of radical feminism, and women are failing to connect with other, ordinary women. It's great pointing the great finger of blame at men, but if you can't get women to listen to you over patriarchal conditioning, how, exactly, are you going to liberate women entirely?

[xtruss]

Opinion: Judge Jackson’s Long Journey To The Court — And Ours

— By Michele L. Norris, Columnist | April 9, 2022 | The Washington Post

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wipes tears as President Biden speaks at a White House event April 8 celebrating her confirmation to the Supreme Court. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

“In My Family, It Took Just One Generation To Go From Segregation To The Supreme Court Of The United States.”

Sometimes history can be summed up in a single sentence of naked simplicity. But there were all kinds of complex elements squeezed in between every vowel and consonant in that declaration by incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Friday in a ceremony on the White House South Lawn.

Jackson will become the first Black woman to serve on the highest court in the land — and the fervent applause she received after delivering that line was a powerful homage to both her journey and that of the country she serves.

But to understand the full importance of her ascent you need to dwell on the word that sits like a leaden anchor at the center of that sentence: segregation.

Jackson was born in 1970, when the victories of the civil rights movement were beginning to manifest themselves in housing, employment, sports, education and entertainment. But racial divisions remained stark after decades of legally sanctioned segregation that followed 250 years of legal enslavement of Blacks.

Because neither the passage of laws nor the dismantling of racial codes erased the deeply ingrained narrative of racial inferiority. America had long been invested in the separation of races and, to be more specific, the automatic privilege that comes with White skin. The vestiges of slavery and segregation are still with us, and yet we find ourselves in a time when the party that so viciously opposed Jackson’s nomination wants to eviscerate the teachings and discussions of our nation’s racial history and focus instead on the progress America has made.

They argue that we should not dwell on all that old-timey stuff like chains and shackles, dogs and hoses, or white hoods and black bodies swinging from trees. Well, to understand and fully appreciate the progress we’ve made, you need more than a passing understanding of the dark places Americans dwelled within the sanction of law to keep bodies in bondage, to keep people oppressed, to keep human beings in a subjugated state that mocks the core tenets of our Constitution.

And if you understand that history, you can quickly and clearly see how the waves of disrespect hurled at Jackson in the past month cut too close to the casual and constant denigration of Black people, and especially Black women, over centuries in this country.

She was interrupted. She was called a liar. She was asked about anti-racist textbooks that have little to do with her work on the bench. Her record was distorted. Her accomplishments were belittled. Senators addressed her in loud and hostile tones and language that wholly lacked the commensurate respect for the nominee or the process or even the building where the hearing took place.

If you can bring yourself to even glance at our painful racial past, the behavior of some of the senators leaves a particularly foul aftertaste. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held up Jackson’s confirmation vote for half an hour and eventually cast his vote from the cloakroom, a private meeting space off the Senate floor. Trifling is not a word one likes to apply to lawmakers, but how else do you describe that kind of loutish behavior? Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) didn’t wear a tie for the vote, which meant he could not appear on the Senate floor. He too cast a no vote from the cloakroom.

His office released a video from a news conference earlier in the day where he railed once again that President Biden should have taken his advice to nominate a preferable Black nominee from his home state. He managed to find a tie for that performance.

The people who opposed this nomination spent a lot of energy suggesting that Jackson was some kind of less-qualified affirmative action hire because her elevation fulfilled Biden’s campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. You didn’t hear that kind of howling years ago when Ronald Reagan pledged to nominate a woman before settling on Sandra Day O’Connor. One of the worst remnants of all those years of segregation is a latent assumption that Black people are inherently less qualified. It’s a lie. It’s always been a lie, and Jackson’s sparkling intellect and cool under pressure should remind us that America has been robbed of this kind of genius and talent for centuries, because women and all kinds of people of color have too often been kept out of consideration.

In the end, when Jackson was confirmed and the chamber broke out in thunderous applause, most Republican senators left the room like sore losers. (Utah’s Mitt Romney was an exception.) This was so much worse than athletes sulking off the field instead of rolling through the handshake line. This was refusing to show respect to a woman now charged with acting in the best interest of all Americans. That is what service at the highest levels is all about: acting in the interest of all Americans.

They could not stop her nomination, so they would not applaud it or show her the respect she deserves. But they will have to accept her confirmation as fact. Her name will someday grace schools, libraries and public buildings; her face will smile down from massive public murals; her words will likely be carved into stone for schoolchildren to memorize. They cannot stop that.

— Michele L. Norris is a columnist and consultant for Post Opinions and founding director of The Race Card Project.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

March 20, 2022 (Sunday)Tomorrow, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, to take a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Jackson is currently a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This small circuit is prominent and prestigious because its location in Washington, D.C., means that it decides cases concerning the U.S. government. It is often seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Three current members of the court—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—served previously as judges on the D.C. Circuit. 

Judge Jackson has a wide range of experience, having both worked in private practice at corporate firms and served as a public defender, during which time she defended detainees at Guantanamo Bay. After earning her degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor on the prestigious Harvard Law Review, she served as a law clerk for three judges, including Justice Stephen Breyer of the Supreme Court, whose seat she has been nominated to fill.

Today, reporters are focusing on how she might decide on cases relating to hot-button issues like abortion and gun rights. But what is at stake with our current Supreme Court is far broader than the question of how a justice will vote on any one issue: it is whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.

This question comes from the 1940s. In the wake of World War II, the gap between America’s stated democratic principles and the abusive treatment of racial minorities and women, especially in the southern states, was so glaring that pressure built to reinforce the idea that our laws should apply to everyone equally. Media-grabbing stories, like that of the sheriff who was acquitted by an all-white jury after putting out the eyes of Black veteran Issac Woodard, made the United States look far more like Nazi Germany than Americans liked.

But the laws necessary to protect Black and Brown Americans, including returning veterans, could not pass Congress because of the resistance of segregationist Democrats. So, under the guidance of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former Republican governor of California, the Supreme Court began to protect Black Americans from abuse by using the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states. 

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 as former Confederates in charge of state legislatures passed laws relegating formerly enslaved Americans to a state of second-class citizenship. The amendment addressed that legal establishment of racial hierarchies by stating, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The amendment gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment “by appropriate legislation.”

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court based civil rights decisions on the Fourteenth Amendment, and it continued that trajectory in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregation in public schools, the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision protecting the right of married couples to contraception, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision permitting interracial marriage, and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting a woman’s right to abortion without excessive government regulation all come from this doctrine. Under it, the federal government took up the mantle of protecting the rights of individual Americans in the states from the whims of state legislatures.

But opponents of these new civil rights protections quickly began to object that such decisions were “legislating from the bench,” rather than permitting state legislatures to make their own laws. These opponents began to call for “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted only as the Framers had intended when they wrote it, an argument that focused on the creation of law at the state level. 

Those who embraced this literal version of the Constitution called themselves “originalists” or “textualists,” and their intellectual representative was Justice Antonin Scalia, whom President Ronald Reagan appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986. The following year, six Republicans joined Democrats to reject extremist Robert Bork, who had openly called for the rollback of the Supreme Court’s civil rights decisions. 

At the time, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) warned that “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”

Kennedy’s words then seemed outlandish, but now, thanks to the three Supreme Court appointments by former president Donald Trump, six of the nine members of the court are originalists. They have indicated their willingness to permit state legislatures to act as they wish, overturning constitutional rights like abortion, outlawing “divisive” instruction in our classrooms, and suppressing the vote of minority voters. 

Justice Stephen Breyer, under whom Jackson clerked, offered a new intellectual counterpoint to originalism that sought to move beyond the political lines of the post-Reagan era. He explained that we should approach constitutional questions by starting at the beginning: what did the Framers intend for the Constitution to do? Their central goal was not simply to protect liberties like free speech or gun ownership, he argued; their goal was to promote democracy. All court decisions, he said, should take into consideration what conclusion would best promote democracy.

The conviction that the point of the Constitution was to promote democracy meant that Breyer thought that the law should change based on what voters wanted, so long as the majority did not abuse the minority. Every decision was complicated, he told an audience in 2005—if the outcome were obvious, the Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case. But at the end of the day, justices should throw their weight behind whichever decision was more likely to promote democracy.

It is notable that in her decisions, Judge Jackson has argued for this approach, repeatedly focusing on democracy and the rules that preserve it. In her 118–page decision in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (2019) concerning whether Congress could compel members of the executive branch to testify, she famously wrote: “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”

Her conclusion began: “The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men.”

[glitterypeanutmugnickel]

March 20, 2022

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 21

Comment

Share

Tomorrow, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, to take a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Jackson is currently a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This small circuit is prominent and prestigious because its location in Washington, D.C., means that it decides cases concerning the U.S. government. It is often seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Three current members of the court—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh—served previously asjudges on the D.C. Circuit.

Judge Jackson has a wide range of experience, having both worked in private practice at corporate firms and served as a public defender, during which time she defended detainees at Guantanamo Bay. After earning her degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor on the prestigious Harvard Law Review, she served as a law clerk for three judges, including Justice Stephen Breyer of the Supreme Court, whose seat she has been nominated to fill.

Today, reporters are focusing on how she might decide on cases relating to hot-button issues like abortion and gun rights. But what is at stake with our current Supreme Court is far broader than the question of how a justice will vote on any one issue: it is whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.

This question comes from the 1940s. In the wake of World War II, the gap between America’s stated democratic principles and the abusive treatment of racial minorities and women, especially in the southern states, was so glaring that pressure built to reinforce the idea that our laws should apply to everyone equally. Media-grabbing stories, like that of the sheriff who was acquitted by an all-white jury after putting out the eyes of Black veteran Issac Woodard, looked far more like Nazi Germany than Americans liked.

But the laws necessary to protect Black and Brown Americans, including returning veterans, could not pass Congress because of the resistance of segregationist Democrats. So, under the guidance of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former Republican governor of California, the Supreme Court began to protect Black Americans from abuse by using the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment aggressively to apply the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 as former Confederates in charge of state legislatures passed laws relegating formerly enslaved Americans to a state of second-class citizenship. The amendment addressed that legal establishment of racial hierarchies by stating, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The amendment gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment “by appropriate legislation.”

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court based civil rights decisions on the Fourteenth Amendment, and it continued that trajectory in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregation in public schools, the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision protecting the right of married couples to contraception, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision permitting interracial marriage, and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting a woman’s right to abortion without excessive government regulation all come from this doctrine. Under it, the federal government took up the mantle of protecting the rights of individual Americans in the states from the whims of state legislatures.

But opponents of these new civil rights protections quickly began to object that such decisions were “legislating from the bench,” rather than permitting state legislatures to make their own laws. These opponents began to call for “originalism,” the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted only as the Framers had intended when they wrote it, an argument that focused on the creation of law at the state level.

Those who embraced this literal version of the Constitution called themselves “originalists” or “textualists,” and their intellectual representative was Justice Antonin Scalia, whom President Ronald Reagan appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986. The following year, six Republicans joined Democrats to reject extremist Robert Bork, who had called for the rollback of the Supreme Court’s civil rights decisions.

At the time, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) warned that “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”

Kennedy’s words then seemed outlandish, but now, thanks to the three Supreme Court appointments by former president Donald Trump, six of the nine members of the court are originalists. They have indicated their willingness to permit state legislatures to act as they wish, overturning constitutional rights like abortion, outlawing “divisive” instruction in our classrooms, and suppressing the vote of minority voters.

Stephen Breyer, under whom Jackson clerked, offered a new intellectual counterpoint to originalism that sought to move beyond the political lines of the post-Reagan era. He explained that we should approach constitutional questions by starting at the beginning: what did the Framers intend for the Constitution to do? Their central goal was not simply to protect liberties like free speech or gun ownership, he argued; their goal was to promote democracy. All court decisions, he said, should take into consideration what conclusion would best promote democracy.

The conviction that the point of the Constitution was to promote democracy meant that Breyer thought that the law should change based on what voters wanted, so long as the majority did not abuse the minority. Every decision was complicated, he told an audience in 2005—if the outcome were obvious, the Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case. But at the end of the day, justices should throw their weight behind whichever decision was more likely to promote democracy.

It is notable that in her decisions, Judge Jackson has argued for this approach, repeatedly focusing on democracy and the rules that preserve it. In her 118–page decision in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (2019) concerning whether Congress could compel members of the executive branch to testify, she famously wrote: “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”

Her conclusion began: “The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men.”

—

Notes:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-guantanamo-and-role-defense-attorneys

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-susan-collins-790632

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-election-2020-amy-coney-barrett-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-084bd8c246cce2418f7cc49a1cd31cd5

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/idahos-anti-abortion-law-takes-a-page-from-texas-playbook.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/ketanji-brown-jackson-republicans.html

https://www.democracydocket.com/news/ketanji-brown-jackson-scotus-nominee-on-democracy/

[sageglobalresponse]

Five things to know about US Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Jackson

25 February 2022

Kindly share this story:

Biden nominates Ketanji Jackson as first Black woman on US Supreme Court

President Biden has chosen Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his pick to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court — fulfilling his campaign promise of appointing a Black woman to the nation’s highest court.

Biden formally announced Jackson, 51, as his nominee at the White House on Friday afternoon.

“Judge Jackson is an exceptionally qualified nominee as well as a historic nominee,” the White House said in a statement. “And the Senate should move forward with a fair and timely hearing and confirmation.”

Here are 5 things to know about Jackson.

She clerked for Breyer

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Jackson served as a law clerk to three federal judges, including Breyer on the Supreme Court.

As Breyer’s clerk during the court’s 1999-2000 term, Jackson “learned up close how important it is for a Supreme Court Justice to build consensus and speak to a mainstream understanding of the Constitution,” the White House said in its announcement.

According to the Boston Globe, the 83-year-old Breyer considers Jackson a member of his extended “family.”

Confirmed to her current post with bipartisan support

Biden nominated Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last summer, and she was confirmed by the Senate in a 53-44 vote, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voting in her favor.

But in a tweet early Friday, Graham said that the nomination of Jackson “means the radical Left has won President Biden over yet again.”

Graham had heaped praise on U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was speculated to be one of Biden’s leading contenders for the Supreme Court.

“She would be somebody, I think, that could bring the Senate together and probably get more than 60 votes,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” earlier this month. “Anyone else would be problematic.”

Life experiences not race play a role in her work

Born in Washington, D.C., in 1970, Jackson moved to Florida as a young child with her parents, graduates of historically Black colleges and universities who worked as public school teachers.

During her confirmation hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked Jackson how race would affect her job.

“I don’t think that race plays a role in the kind of judge that I have been and would be. I’m doing a certain thing when I get my cases,” Jackson replied. “I’m looking at the arguments, the facts and the law. I’m methodically and intentionally setting aside personal views [and] any other inappropriate considerations, and I would think that race would be the kind of thing that would be inappropriate to inject into my evaluation of a case.”

Jackson also made it clear that she believed her perspective was still crucial to the court.

“I’ve experienced life in perhaps a different way than some of my colleagues because of who I am, and that might be valuable — I hope it would be valuable — if I was confirmed to the court,” she said.

She was a public defender

If confirmed, Jackson would be the first Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall to have represented indigent criminal defendants.

During her April confirmation hearing, Jackson discussed how her experience as a public defender would benefit her approach to cases on the bench.

“One of the things that I do now is I take extra care to communicate with the defendants who come before me in the courtroom,” Jackson said. “I speak to them directly, and not just to their lawyers. I use their names.”

In addition to her public-defender work, Jackson served as vice chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, working to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine offenders.

Ordered Trump’s former counsel to testify in his impeachment inquiry

In her work as a federal judge, one of Jackson’s most prominent rulings was a 2019 decision in which she ordered former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in the impeachment inquiry against then-President Donald Trump.

McGahn, a key witness in Robert Mueller’s investigation, was called to testify by the House Judiciary Committee to determine if there were grounds for Trump’s impeachment. Trump ordered McGahn not to testify on the grounds that his role as the president’s close adviser had granted him immunity.

In her 118-page decision, Jackson declared that immunity “simply does not exist,” even for the commander in chief.

“Presidents are not kings,” she wrote. “This means that they do not have subjects bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”

She’s related by marriage to Paul Ryan

Jackson met her husband, Patrick Jackson, when the two were at Harvard College. He is a surgeon and they have two daughters.

His twin brother is the brother-in-law of Janna Ryan, wife of former House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“Janna and I are incredibly happy for Ketanji and her entire family,” Ryan tweeted on Friday. “Our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, and for her integrity, is unequivocal.”

[orbemnews]

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first Breyer, 82, has declined to speak publicly on any retirement intentions. But if he decides to step down this spring or next, history suggests he will slip early word to President Joe Biden and the public will not know until weeks later. That was the protocol for Breyer’s predecessor, Justice Harry Blackmun, in 1994, when he privately told President Bill Clinton months before his retirement announcement on April 6. More recently, Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 quietly passed his intention to retire to President Barack Obama. Obama’s administration then reached out behind the scenes to possible candidates. White House counsel Bob Bauer called now-Justice Elena Kagan on March 5, 2010, according to details she later provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only when Stevens formally announced on April 9 did the public learn he was leaving. The pattern is not confined to Democratic presidents. In March 1981, two months after Republican Ronald Reagan became president, Justice Potter Stewart invited then-Attorney General William French Smith to his Washington home and told him in confidence that he would be stepping down that June. The conversation triggered a stealthy search for the first female justice, as Reagan had promised as a candidate. Reagan settled in July 1981 on Sandra Day O’Connor, then an Arizona state court judge. Breyer did not respond to questions about his retirement plans or any White House contact. He has appeared healthy and energized in his many extracurricular Zoom appearances with academic and legal groups. He speaks from the Cambridge, Massachusetts, home he shares with his wife, a daughter and three grandchildren, rather than from his usual chambers lined with a private collection of antique books. Breyer enjoys many off-bench pursuits, including architectural study, and some people close to him believe his understanding of nomination politics, along with those varied interests, would prompt him to retire this year or next. A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday on whether any Supreme Court justices have signaled their intentions to retire. Opportunity to make a mark A Supreme Court vacancy presents any president with a tantalizing choice and an enormous chance to make a mark on American law. But the selection and confirmation of a justice can also be time-consuming, politically fraught and a distraction from other executive branch business. Ideally, a new White House would prepare for the opportunity but not be overwhelmed by it, as Cabinet officers are confirmed, legislative priorities launched and nominations for lifetime lower-court seats begin. Once a high court vacancy becomes public, the pressure from would-be nominees and their supporters intensifies. Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to name the first African American woman to the bench, so supporters of individual Black jurists have already been making their cases in public and private. The New York Times reported that Rep. James Clyburn recently urged Vice President Kamala Harris to consider South Carolina-based US District Judge Michelle Childs for the high court. Clyburn, a long-serving African American Democrat from South Carolina, endorsed Biden at a crucial stage of the presidential campaign and is widely credited with helping him win the Democratic nomination. Other African American judges who enjoy significant support in legal circles and among liberal advocates include US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, based in Washington and a former law clerk to Breyer, and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, a former law clerk to Stevens and lawyer in the US solicitor general’s office, where she argued regularly before the nine justices. When Biden first made the pledge during a February 2020 debate in Charleston, South Carolina, he said, “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation.” RELATED: John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act Veterans of SCOTUS nomination process This President is a veteran of selection politicking, as is his chief of staff, Ron Klain. Biden, a senator for more than three decades, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, including during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. (The Senate voted down Bork and confirmed Thomas.) Klain served as the Judiciary Committee chief counsel from 1989 to 1992. Breyer has his own earlier connection to the Judiciary Committee. He was committee counsel in the mid-1970s and its chief counsel in 1979-1980. Even after becoming an appellate judge and then a Supreme Court justice, Breyer remained captivated by Senate politics and would be aware of the benefits to Biden of a Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, who earlier held a narrow majority, confirmed President Donald Trump’s three nominees after abolishing the rule requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster. For the Supreme Court, now controlled by a 6-3 conservative-liberal majority, a Breyer retirement and succession by another liberal would not alter the ideological split. Yet a Biden choice would offer new diversity and youth. In his 27 years on the high court, Breyer has been a low-profile but crucial player. He is a solid liberal but believes in bridging differences when possible and has tried to find compromise between the right-wing majority and remaining liberals. When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has shifted to the center, as when he voted in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act, it has often involved some negotiations with Breyer and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan. In upcoming months, the justices will certainly confront new legal challenges to Biden’s policy agenda, along with cases heading their way that test abortion rights, racial remedies, religious liberty and gun regulation. Making the list While early word of a retirement forces an administration to focus on candidates, a White House team typically has some list of possible names ready if an opening suddenly occurs. That was the situation for then-President Donald Trump when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died suddenly last September. Trump had already interviewed his eventual nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Similarly, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Obama chose Judge Merrick Garland, who had previously been on his Supreme Court short list. The Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland’s nomination for nine months, leaving an immediate vacancy for Trump. Biden has selected Garland to be his new attorney general. During President George W. Bush’s first term, his legal team interviewed appellate judges for possible elevation, but it was only in his second term that an opportunity for appointment arose. (Justice O’Connor announced her intention to retire on July 1, 2005, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died two months later, on September 3.) Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales referred in a memoir to Bush’s “habit of going with his gut” and wrote that “it was all the more important that I meet with the serious contenders and get to know them on a personal level. Well before any Supreme Court vacancies occurred during the Bush administration, I met privately with Samuel Alito and Emilio Garza in my West Wing office. I met with Michael Luttig at his home in northern Virginia. I spent an hour with John Roberts in April 2005 in my office at the Department of Justice.” Bush initially nominated Roberts for the O’Connor slot but then moved him to the chief justice post when Rehnquist died. Bush then selected Alito for the O’Connor opening. Such serendipity can upend plans. But one consistency in recent decades has been spring timing. Justices announce their retirement intentions to coincide with the last weeks of the annual Supreme Court term. That way, a presidential choice for successor can be subject to the Senate confirmation process in the summer and ready for the new session, which begins on the first Monday in October. When Clinton first took office in 1993, Justice Byron White revealed his decision to retire on March 19. He said he would leave in late June when the court began its summer recess but that he wanted to give Clinton sufficient time to choose a successor. (Clinton selected Ginsburg.) Justice White decided against giving word secretly. Rather, he asked a former law clerk then serving as an associate White House counsel to convey his retirement letter to Clinton. The Supreme Court then made White’s letter public. That former White-clerk-turned-Clinton-counsel? Current chief of staff Klain. In White’s brief letter, the justice wrote that after 31 years on the high court, he thought “someone else should be permitted to have a like experience.” CNN’s Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report. Source link Orbem News #Breyer #House #Justice #Politics #retirement #rules #theWhiteHousemightknowfirst-CNNPolitics #WhenJusticeStephenBreyerrules(onretirement) #White

[lboogie1906]

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson (born September 14, 1970) is a jurist who serves as an associate justice of the SCOTUS. She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden and sworn into office on June 30, 2022. She was previously a US circuit judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was born in DC. Her father, Johnny Brown, further attended the University of Miami School of Law and became the chief attorney for the Miami-Dade County School Board; her mother, Ellery, served as school principal at New World School of the Arts in Miami. She studied government at Harvard University. She performed improv comedy and took classes in drama and led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window. She graduated from Harvard with an AB magna cum laude. Her senior thesis was entitled "The Hand of Oppression: Plea Bargaining Processes and the Coercion of Criminal Defendants". She worked as a staff reporter and researcher for Time magazine, then attended Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She graduated with a JD cum laude. She is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services and the Council of the American Law Institute. She serves on the board of Georgetown Day School and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission. She has served as a judge in several mock trials with the Shakespeare Theatre Company. She presided over a mock trial, hosted by Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law, "to determine if Vice President Aaron Burr was guilty of murdering" Alexander Hamilton. She has served as a judge for the Historical Society of the District of Columbia's Mock Court Program. She served on the advisory board of Montrose Christian School, a Baptist school. She presented at the University of Georgia School of Law's 35th Edith House Lecture. She gave the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Lecture at the University of Michigan Law School and was honored at the University of Chicago Law School's third annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Dinner, which was hosted by the school's Black Law Students Association. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence https://www.instagram.com/p/CifBckHuahG5BC-APhbtfvlNhwRbH2-QD02mog0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[dipulb3]

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/when-justice-breyer-rules-on-retirement-white-house-might-know-first/

When Justice Breyer rules (on retirement), White House might know first

Breyer, 82, has declined to speak publicly on any retirement intentions. But if he decides to step down this spring or next, history suggests he will slip early word to President Joe Biden and the public will not know until weeks later.

That was the protocol for Breyer’s predecessor, Justice Harry Blackmun, in 1994, when he privately told President Bill Clinton months before his retirement announcement on April 6. More recently, Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 quietly passed his intention to retire to President Barack Obama.

Obama’s administration then reached out behind the scenes to possible candidates. White House counsel Bob Bauer called now-Justice Elena Kagan on March 5, 2010, according to details she later provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only when Stevens formally announced on April 9 did the public learn he was leaving.

The pattern is not confined to Democratic presidents. In March 1981, two months after Republican Ronald Reagan became president, Justice Potter Stewart invited then-Attorney General William French Smith to his Washington home and told him in confidence that he would be stepping down that June. The conversation triggered a stealthy search for the first female justice, as Reagan had promised as a candidate. Reagan settled in July 1981 on Sandra Day O’Connor, then an Arizona state court judge.

Breyer did not respond to questions about his retirement plans or any White House contact.

He has appeared healthy and energized in his many extracurricular Zoom appearances with academic and legal groups. He speaks from the Cambridge, Massachusetts, home he shares with his wife, a daughter and three grandchildren, rather than from his usual chambers lined with a private collection of antique books. Breyer enjoys many off-bench pursuits, including architectural study, and some people close to him believe his understanding of nomination politics, along with those varied interests, would prompt him to retire this year or next.

A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday on whether any Supreme Court justices have signaled their intentions to retire.

Opportunity to make a mark

A Supreme Court vacancy presents any president with a tantalizing choice and an enormous chance to make a mark on American law. But the selection and confirmation of a justice can also be time-consuming, politically fraught and a distraction from other executive branch business.

Ideally, a new White House would prepare for the opportunity but not be overwhelmed by it, as Cabinet officers are confirmed, legislative priorities launched and nominations for lifetime lower-court seats begin.

Once a high court vacancy becomes public, the pressure from would-be nominees and their supporters intensifies. Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to name the first African American woman to the bench, so supporters of individual Black jurists have already been making their cases in public and private.

The New York Times reported that Rep. James Clyburn recently urged Vice President Kamala Harris to consider South Carolina-based US District Judge Michelle Childs for the high court. Clyburn, a long-serving African American Democrat from South Carolina, endorsed Biden at a crucial stage of the presidential campaign and is widely credited with helping him win the Democratic nomination.

Other African American judges who enjoy significant support in legal circles and among liberal advocates include US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, based in Washington and a former law clerk to Breyer, and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, a former law clerk to Stevens and lawyer in the US solicitor general’s office, where she argued regularly before the nine justices.

When Biden first made the pledge during a February 2020 debate in Charleston, South Carolina, he said, “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation.”

RELATED: John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act

Veterans of SCOTUS nomination process

This President is a veteran of selection politicking, as is his chief of staff, Ron Klain.

Biden, a senator for more than three decades, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, including during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. (The Senate voted down Bork and confirmed Thomas.) Klain served as the Judiciary Committee chief counsel from 1989 to 1992.

Breyer has his own earlier connection to the Judiciary Committee. He was committee counsel in the mid-1970s and its chief counsel in 1979-1980. Even after becoming an appellate judge and then a Supreme Court justice, Breyer remained captivated by Senate politics and would be aware of the benefits to Biden of a Democratic-controlled Senate. Republicans, who earlier held a narrow majority, confirmed President Donald Trump’s three nominees after abolishing the rule requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster.

For the Supreme Court, now controlled by a 6-3 conservative-liberal majority, a Breyer retirement and succession by another liberal would not alter the ideological split. Yet a Biden choice would offer new diversity and youth.

In his 27 years on the high court, Breyer has been a low-profile but crucial player. He is a solid liberal but believes in bridging differences when possible and has tried to find compromise between the right-wing majority and remaining liberals. When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has shifted to the center, as when he voted in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act, it has often involved some negotiations with Breyer and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

In upcoming months, the justices will certainly confront new legal challenges to Biden’s policy agenda, along with cases heading their way that test abortion rights, racial remedies, religious liberty and gun regulation.

Making the list

While early word of a retirement forces an administration to focus on candidates, a White House team typically has some list of possible names ready if an opening suddenly occurs.

That was the situation for then-President Donald Trump when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died suddenly last September. Trump had already interviewed his eventual nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Similarly, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Obama chose Judge Merrick Garland, who had previously been on his Supreme Court short list. The Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on Garland’s nomination for nine months, leaving an immediate vacancy for Trump. Biden has selected Garland to be his new attorney general.

During President George W. Bush’s first term, his legal team interviewed appellate judges for possible elevation, but it was only in his second term that an opportunity for appointment arose. (Justice O’Connor announced her intention to retire on July 1, 2005, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died two months later, on September 3.)

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales referred in a memoir to Bush’s “habit of going with his gut” and wrote that “it was all the more important that I meet with the serious contenders and get to know them on a personal level. Well before any Supreme Court vacancies occurred during the Bush administration, I met privately with Samuel Alito and Emilio Garza in my West Wing office. I met with Michael Luttig at his home in northern Virginia. I spent an hour with John Roberts in April 2005 in my office at the Department of Justice.”

Bush initially nominated Roberts for the O’Connor slot but then moved him to the chief justice post when Rehnquist died. Bush then selected Alito for the O’Connor opening.

Such serendipity can upend plans. But one consistency in recent decades has been spring timing. Justices announce their retirement intentions to coincide with the last weeks of the annual Supreme Court term. That way, a presidential choice for successor can be subject to the Senate confirmation process in the summer and ready for the new session, which begins on the first Monday in October.

When Clinton first took office in 1993, Justice Byron White revealed his decision to retire on March 19. He said he would leave in late June when the court began its summer recess but that he wanted to give Clinton sufficient time to choose a successor. (Clinton selected Ginsburg.)

Justice White decided against giving word secretly. Rather, he asked a former law clerk then serving as an associate White House counsel to convey his retirement letter to Clinton. The Supreme Court then made White’s letter public.

That former White-clerk-turned-Clinton-counsel? Current chief of staff Klain.

In White’s brief letter, the justice wrote that after 31 years on the high court, he thought “someone else should be permitted to have a like experience.”

Appradab’s Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

[shamefulright]

Justice Dept. Releases Legal Opinions That Could Bolster Trump’s Claim of Executive Privilege

Justice Dept. Releases Legal Opinions That Could Bolster Trump’s Claim of Executive Privilege

The legal opinions were written during previous Democratic and Republican administrations by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

[naijawapaz1]

Ketanji Brown Jackson Bio, Age, Height, Weight, Married, Ethnicity, Wiki

Ketanji Brown Jackson Bio, Age, Height, Weight, Married, Ethnicity, Wiki

Born on September 1970, Ketanji Brown Jackson is an American lawyer who is currently a US District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. To learn more about her, read the article below.

Before Fame: She attended Harvard University.

Family/ Relationships Ketanji Brown Jackson Ethnicity/Religion

Ketanji was born in Washington D.C to Johnny and Ellery Brown.…

[lboogie1906]

Ketanji Brown Jackson (born September 14, 1970) is an attorney, and jurist serving as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Born in DC and raised in Miami, she attended Harvard University for college and law school, where she served as an editor in the Harvard Law Review. She began her legal career with three clerkships, including one with Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. She served as a district judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. She was vice-chair of the US Sentencing Commission. She has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. On February 25, 2022, President Joe Biden announced that she was his nominee for associate justice of the SCOTUS. During her time at Harvard, she led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window. She performed improv comedy and took classes in drama. She worked as a staff reporter and researcher for Time magazine, then attended Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She graduated with a JD cum laude. She is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services and the Council of the American Law Institute. She serves on the board of Georgetown Day School and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission. She has served as a judge in several mock trials with the Shakespeare Theatre Company. She presided over a mock trial, hosted by Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law, "to determine if Vice President Aaron Burr was guilty of murdering" Alexander Hamilton. She has served as a judge for the Historical Society of the District of Columbia's Mock Court Program. She served on the advisory board of Montrose Christian School, a Baptist school. She presented at the University of Georgia School of Law's 35th Edith House Lecture. She gave the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Lecture at the University of Michigan Law School and was honored at the University of Chicago Law School's third annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Dinner, which was hosted by the school's Black Law Students Association. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence https://www.instagram.com/p/CcDRVLIrO9J-islBwBoxIzKqP0jB5GGpnxZf6k0/?utm_medium=tumblr

[shamefulright]

Trump Keeps Losing in Court. But His Legal Strategy Is Winning Anyway.

Trump Keeps Losing in Court. But His Legal Strategy Is Winning Anyway.

As fights over the president’s stonewalling of Congress play out slowly in courts, he is reducing the prospect that voters learn new damaging facts about him before the 2020 election.