Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer hasn’t even retired yet. But the radical left is already trying to replace him. We know that his retirement was orchestrated by the failing Biden administration to push identity politics.
That’s why Biden is promising to nominate a woman of color to the post—in a doomed attempt to win back the black voters he is hemorrhaging.
His narrow criteria leaves few candidates qualified for the post. We can be guaranteed, however, that whoever Biden’s handlers pick, it’s going to be a radical leftist. And guess, what? We were right. Because the current “frontrunner” is someone that advocated for criminals in Gitmo.
From The Washington Free Beacon:
Supreme Court frontrunner Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was an active and dedicated advocate for terror suspects housed at Guantanamo Bay, contrary to press accounts and her own representations…
Her advocacy was zealous and often resembled ideological cause lawyering, even in her capacity as a public defender. At times, she flirted with unsubstantiated left-wing theories that were debunked by government investigators. On other occasions, she accused Justice Department lawyers of egregious misconduct with little evidence.
Weird. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is being floated as a “frontrunner” for Biden’s Supreme Court replacement. Sure, she is a woman of color, as Biden promised. But instead of picking a tried-and-true jurist who stands for the Constitution, he might pick someone that appears to be a radical activist.
Years ago, as a public defender, Jackson represented criminals inside Gitmo. You know, killers we captured overseas? But she claims she was just doing her job and had no personal motivation to fulfill this assignment. Yet court filings appear to say otherwise.
It seems Jackson was “deeply committed” to her clients. She came off as a “zealous” defender of these enemies of our country. According to records, she appeared to support “left-wing theories” about Gitmo. And she even attacked the Justice Department—who were prosecuting people that fought against the United States.
We can understand why Jackson was forced to defend these men. As a public defender, she would have been assigned this difficult and unenviable job. But it seems she had a personal stake in these cases. Perhaps she chose to represent these Gitmo prisoners, in order to defy and undermine the U.S. government and the then-Bush administration?
If that’s so, should she really serve on the highest court in the land? Would she be an unbiased and Constitution-supporting justice? Or would she be a radical partisan that would tear our laws to shreds?
Source: The Washington Free Beacon