Mar 31 2022

ICYMI: Graham Speaks On Senate Floor On Opposition To Judge Jackson Nomination

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced he will oppose and vote against the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

  • GRAHAM: “I will oppose [Judge Jackson’s nomination] and I will vote no. My decision is based on her record of judicial activism, flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases, and a belief that Judge Jackson will not be deterred by the plain meaning of a law when it comes to liberal causes.

“I find Judge Jackson to be a person of exceptionally good character, respected by her peers, and someone who has worked hard to achieve her current position. However, her record is overwhelming in its lack of a steady judicial philosophy and a tendency to achieve outcomes in spite of what the law requires or common sense would dictate.

“After a thorough review of Judge Jackson's record and information gained at the hearing from an evasive witness, I now know why Judge Jackson was the favorite of the Radical Left, and I will vote no.”

Sentencing in Child Pornography Cases:

  • GRAHAM: “Judge Jackson's sentencing methodology [on child pornography cases] in my view, misses the mark. I don't doubt that personally she's offended by the behavior that we're all talking about, but as a judge she has an opportunity to deter the behavior of going on the internet and downloading images of exploited children. Every time she has that opportunity, she refuses to exercise it.”

Double Standards on Conservative Judicial Nominees:

  • GRAHAM: “We live in a world where if you're a person of color, a woman, and you're conservative, everything is fair game. If you're a person of color and liberal, how dare anybody question or use the same standard against you that was used against the other nominees? I don't accept that.”

Guantanamo Bay and the Law of War:

  • GRAHAM: “Judge Jackson took the position as an advocate that we could not hold [Gitmo detainees] indefinitely, creating a dilemma where you have to charge them with the crime or let them go…We're not fighting criminals. These are not wayward goat herders. These are people committed to the jihadist cause, and they would kill us all if they could.”

Activism on the Bench:

  • GRAHAM: “[Judge Jackson] ignored the plain meaning of the statute, the language of the statute, to get a result she wanted. The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit] said that there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent. That is judicial activism on steroids, and it makes managing our immigration policy problem even worse when you have activist judges that ignore the law and take discretion away, given by Congress to the executive branch, because they don't like the outcome.”
  • GRAHAM: “I find in [Judge Jackson’s] judging a desire to get an outcome, and no matter what she has to do to get that outcome, she will pursue it. And this is a case where you couldn’t have written a statute more clear, and she just went around it, got the result she wanted, and was slapped down an appeal.”

Watch Full Remarks Here