Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee ‘Willing to Ignore the Law’

President Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his nominee to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson, who donated to and worked with former President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, has a record of rulings that seemingly favor Democrats.

In a 2015 ruling, for example, she declined to force former Hillary Clinton aide Philipe Reines to explain why he used a private account for work-related emails, according to Politico.

“Jackson might be willing, in politically charged cases, to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome”

Jackson, who refuses to refer to illegal immigrants to the U.S. as “aliens” or “illegals,” also blocked the Trump administration’s “expedited removal” plan for deporting illegal immigrants in 2019, Politico reported.

As a District Court judge, Jackson made numerous decisions that were reversed by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit appellate court, Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News in early February.

“For example, in Make the Road New York v. Wolf, a D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic nominees concluded that Jackson had set aside a Trump administration rule where there was no legal basis to do so,” Severino told Fox News.

In another case, Jackson’s decision to strike down former President Donald Trump’s executive orders that made it easier to fire federal employees was unanimously rejected by a federal court in 2019, The New York Times reported.

“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing, in politically charged cases, to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice,” Severino told Fox News.

Jackson also worked as a lawyer for multiple terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay, including a Taliban officer, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

The Republican National Committee said Friday that Jackson’s membership on the Harvard University Board of Overseers could pose a conflict of interest for ruling on a major upcoming affirmative action case involving the university.