This is a false representation.
Take a look at the statements made during the three-day confirmation hearings.
ABORTION
TENNESSEESEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN : “I would like to speak to you about something you said while you were private practice. Your views on pro-life were very clear. In fact, you attacked prolife women. This was all in a short piece that you wrote. They were described by you, and I quote, “Hostile, noisy crowd, in-your face protesters.”… How can you justify such incendiary rhetoric towards pro-life women? Let me ask you this question. Do you think that pro-life women are noisy, hostile, in your face when you go to church? This is what Tuesday’s comment was about.
NORTH CAROLINASEN. THOM ILLIS: “I don’t necessarily say you put those words into the brief, but I did, and they were a hostile, noisy crowd.” — Comments Wednesday.
BLACKBURN argues that Jackson’s wider judicial and personal views are being represented by a line in a brief. Tillis was more measured. Jackson, a young lawyer in a law office, signed the brief. It did not call all anti-abortion females “hostile” or “noisy”, but was making legal arguments for a client regarding protesters outside abortion clinics.
A Massachusetts law provided for an 18-foot buffer zone surrounding the clinics. This would allow women to be free from protesters on both sides of the abortion debate. Contrary to what Blackburn claims, the case didn’t involve or refer more broadly to “pro-life” women.
The 2001 short state’s opening lines:
“Very few Americans who wish to exercise their constitutionally protected rights must face a hostile, loud crowd of protestors. Even fewer citizens must face a crowd of protesters when they seek medical or surgical treatment, especially if it involves deeply private matters.
Patients of reproductive health clinics can face any of these issues at any time. A woman might be on her way to get an HIV test, undergo day surgery, receive a mammogram or receive counseling regarding an intimate matter. However, regardless of her health or needs, a woman who is attempting to enter these clinics will be a cause for protest. Demonstrators might gather around her or her vehicle. To get into the vehicle, she might be subject to physical and emotional intimidation.
Jackson answered questions about Tuesday’s brief and Wednesday’s case. She said that she was working on the case because she joined a private firm representing a group calling for a buffer area. Jackson said that the Massachusetts law wasn’t directed at abortion rights supporters, but women and men protesting from both sides. In later years , the Supreme Court struck down the law when the buffer zone was extended to 35 feet.
Blackburn was more sympathetic to Tillis on this point than Blackburn. He stated that he was aware Jackson might not have been the one who wrote the “hostile and noisy” description in the brief she signed. He said that the matter could raise questions about Jackson’s commitment to free speech.
He said, “Look, I have had protesters come into my house and get in my face and be very rude.” “Four times on land, two times by sea. I live by a lake. I’m okay with them doing that, as long as they don’t get on my lawn. They didn’t in the previous case.
___
TRANSGENDER CASES
TEXAS SEN. TED CRUB: “So yesterday, Senator Blackburn asked you that. You said that you couldn’t define a woman, and that you aren’t a biologist. … I believe you are the — the only Supreme Court nominee who has been unable answer the question “What is a woman?” ?
FACTS
Like Marsha Blackburn, a Republican senator, Cruz was trying to score points in transgender issues. She pointed out her reluctance at being drawn into the discussion of what it means to define a female.
Cruz was told by Jackson that Jackson knew she was a woman. I know Senator Blackburn is a woman, and my mother is the woman I admire the most.
___
SENTENCING
BLACKBURN: There were 1,561 people detained at the DC Department of Corrections. Your statement, which was in your opinion, it was U.S.Vs. Wiggins. You stated that every DC Department of Corrections criminal defendant should be freed from custody because of the COVID-19 epidemic. You also lamented that as a federal judge, you were limited in your ability order the universal release criminals back onto streets.” — comments Wednesday.
FACTS: This is a distortion of Jackson’s rule.
Jackson, a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote in April 2020 that the health risks of COVID-19 could “reasonably indicate” that defendants in D.C. prisonal facilities should be released. After reviewing his personal health history and severity, Jackson ruled that a prisoner requesting home detention was not eligible for release. He was considered a threat to society.
Jackson’s ruling was the first to note the unusual circumstances of COVID-19 which was spiking across the nation, with more than 40 D.C. prisoners testing positive during the pandemic’s early weeks. Even the prosecutors acknowledged a threat to their health.
Jackson used this quote to begin her opinion.
“The increased danger of harm that COVID-19 poses to those who are currently detained in District’s correctional institutions reasonably suggests that every criminal defendant currently in D.C. DOC [Department of Corrections] custody — and who cannot take independent measures for hygiene and distance themselves away from others — should be freed.”
Jackson however proceeded to outline the law and concluded that it was up to the courts to decide “case by case”, whether or not to release prisoners in accordance with the law.
Jackson ruled in the present case that Jackson did not believe the violent, young and healthy criminal who wanted to escape was worthy of release. Jackson indicated that it would be up the Congress and other bodies, not Jackson herself, to decide whether a wider range of health circumstances warrants greater release in certain cases.
In 2020 and 2021, the Justice Department decided to release thousands of federal prisoners to home confinement because of the pandemic that ravaged federal prisons.
Jackson explained Wednesday that she had made her decision and wanted to take note of the COVID-19 threat’s compelling circumstances before making her “actual ruling” in which she said that it was not possible to release everyone. We are not opening prisons.
