On Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted against the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

Why I Voted Against Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Dear John, On Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted against the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. I will vote against her again on the floor of the United States Senate this week. Because voting on a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important duties of a senator, I wanted you to hear directly from me about my decision to oppose Judge Jackson. My NO vote is based on multiple factors, including her: Record of judicial activism. Flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases. Belief she will not be deterred by the plain meaning of a law when it comes to liberal causes. I found Judge Jackson to be a person of good character, respected by her peers, and someone who has worked hard to achieve her current position. Unfortunately, her record is overwhelming in its lack of a steady judicial philosophy and includes 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. For these reasons, I am voting NO on her nomination. Sincerely, Lindsey Graham United States Senator P.S. Here are some areas of concern with Judge Jackson's record. Sentencing in Child Pornography Cases: Judge Jackson has taken off the table two sentencing enhancement factors that I think are vital to deter the explosion of child pornography on the internet. Judge Jackson will not enhance the sentence of a child pornographer based on the volume of material possessed. She will not enhance a sentence based on the perpetrator's use of a computer. These decisions destroy deterrence in this area and show a lack of appreciation for how the internet has become the venue of choice for child pornographers. Guantanamo Bay and the Law of War: My problem with Judge Jackson is not that she represented Guantanamo detainees but that she exhibited an activist zeal in how she characterized the detainees and called the Bush Administration "war criminals" in legal briefs. This is the language of the Left. Judge Jackson also advocated for ending Law of War indefinite detention of enemy combatants. Without this tool, many enemy combatants captured on the battlefield would be released from custody and return to the fight. Double Standards on Conservative Judicial Nominees: My Democratic colleagues often note the historic nature of Judge Jackson's nomination as she would be the first Black female to serve on the Supreme Court. I support the idea of making the Court more like America. However, the people celebrating this nomination are the same people who filibustered and blocked President George W. Bush's nominee Janice Rogers Brown, a Black member of the California Supreme Court, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for two years. It speaks volumes about their true desire. The true goal of Democrats is to make the Court liberal, not diverse. Finally, when I hear Judge Jackson's hearing compared to Justice Kavanaugh's hearing, it reminds me how in-the-tank the media is for the liberal cause. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Jackson was asked probative questions. However, no one withheld allegations from Judge Jackson or the committee, as was the case in Justice Kavanaugh's hearings. Many Senate Democrats were willing to push false allegations against Justice Kavanaugh as if they were true. They were willing to push unsubstantiated allegations that defied scrutiny to keep Justice Kavanaugh off the Court. They wanted the nomination to be made by a Democrat President. Nothing was off limits or out of bounds. Paid For By Team Graham, Inc.