Facing questions during her confirmation hearing before the US Senate on March 22, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson caught what may be the strangest sort of flak I’ve seen in one of these circuses.

“Do you support, then, the idea that indefinite detention of an enemy combatant is unlawful?” asked US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), referring to Jackson’s representation of detainees held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the course of that representation, Jackson signed an amicus brief asserting — correctly — that the detainees were entitled to challenge their indefinite detention without trial.

Before storming out of the hearing like one of the kids in Animal House — “you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America” — Graham informed Jackson that according to the brief, the government “would have to release these people or try them and some of them, the evidence we can’t disclose because it’s classified.”

US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) didn’t have to go as far as the amicus brief in question to come up with an objection. His problem was with Jackson representing those particular clients at all. After doing so as a public defender, he noted, “[s]he volunteered to continue that representation in private practice, which I think is interesting, and frankly, from my point of view, a little concerning.”

As attorneys themselves, it’s reasonable to expect that Graham and Hawley understand what attorneys do — represent clients. But apparently not.

As US Senators, one might also expect that they’d remember their oaths to “support the Constitution of the United States.” No dice there, either, when it comes to the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

When the Gitmo detainees have received “trials” at all, those “trials” haven’t been speedy, or public, or before an impartial jury (the “trials” are secret affairs conducted by military tribunals).

Graham is firmly on record as opposing even that last bit, “Assistance of Counsel”: “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.” Hawley seems to agree.

Their problem with Jackson is that she did her job — and that, above and beyond doing her job, she supports the Constitution while they oppose it.

That position should disqualify them from holding their Senate seats, not her from taking the SCOTUS bench.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

When the New York Post broke its “Hunter Biden laptop” stories in October 2020, mainstream media tried to ignore them. On the social media side, Twitter  banned linking to them and Facebook used its algorithm to minimize discussion of them pending “fact checks” that apparently never happened.

The Streisand Effect — a tendency toward keen public interest in anything that looks like a cover-up — came to the rescue. If you were the least bit interested in presidential politics, you knew as much as you wanted to about the matter (and then some) in short order.

The fallback plan, as is so often the case these days, was to trot out “former intelligence officials” in an attempt to discredit the laptop’s provenance and contents as a “Russian disinformation” operation.

Seventeen months later, even the New York Times admits the laptop (and the incriminating emails) are very real. Without, of course, admitting any prior error or bias. What was the problem back then? Or, alternatively, what’s the problem now?

The “problem” back then wasn’t that the stories weren’t true. They clearly were. But they were also potentially damaging to Joe Biden, and helpful to Donald Trump, in the November 2020 presidential election. That’s why the Post ran the stories and Fox covered them; that’s why other outlets ignored or tried to discredit them. If you think American mainstream media are non-partisan, think again.

The “problem” now? In December, federal investigators served subpoenas to Hunter Biden and several associates pursuant to a tax probe. Grand jury testimony followed, with indictments possibly to come. Publications which wouldn’t touch the story then are racing to get ahead of it now.

I didn’t consider the matter any more a “scandal” than Trump’s hush money to Stormy Daniels. Everyone already knew Trump was a philanderer, and that Biden abused his influence to financially benefit and protect his son. Voters had already made up their minds on the importance of such things before the story broke.

But if Hunter Biden is indicted, Joe Biden probably won’t seek a second presidential term. And any likely successor will bring similar closets full of skeletons, which our media protectors will reveal, or try to conceal or discredit, based on their partisan leanings..

“Just the facts, ma’am” journalism has always been myth, not reality. But our media should willingly give us those facts, even with partisan spin, instead of trying to hide or discredit them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

If my picture appeared in the dictionary next to a word, that word would likely be “anti-government.” Or perhaps “pro-gridlock.” I don’t like government much, and I’m happier when it’s not getting anything done. Especially anything described as “bi-partisan,” which usually means something incorporating the worst instincts of Republicans and Democrats alike.

But on March 15 the US Senate, in a stunning display of  un-gridlocked  bi-partisanship, voted unanimously to do something I wholly approve of.

The august deliberative body, in an unusual collective seizure of wisdom, voted to stop demanding that everyone move their clocks forward one hour each spring, and back one hour each fall, by making “Daylight Saving Time” permanent as of November 2023.

This may seem like a minor thing — at least if you’re not one of , or a loved one of, the 30 excess auto accident fatalities University of Miami economics professor Austin C. Smith ascribes to our annual “spring forward” — but it’s also a GOOD thing.

We could quibble over making Daylight Saving Time permanent or abandoning it altogether, I guess.

My wife is on the “abandon” side because she likes her daylight earlier in the morning (as do many parents with kids who have to catch a bus to school in the dark).

I’m on the “make it permanent” side because I get up at oh-dark-thirty anyway, and prefer to have some light left if I feel like tinkering in the garden or mowing the lawn (don’t get me started on the lawn) before bed.

But the big issue, to the extent that there’s an issue at all, is the discombombulation that arbitrarily changing our clocks twice a year causes.

“Springing forward” robs those of us who live on schedules of an hour of sleep, and we’re just not the same for a couple of weeks while our bodies adjust (hence the grog-induced car wrecks and other negative side effects).

“Falling back” theoretically means an extra hour of sleep one Sunday morning, but try telling that to young kids and pets. They’re up wanting breakfast or barking to go out and do their business at the same “natural” time for days or weeks afterward.

The whole thing made little sense even when electric lighting was a luxury and almost everyone worked “daytime” hours. It makes no sense at all now.

Kudos, for once, to the Senate. To the House and the president, go and do thou likewise.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY