The feds have found a new way of targeting police officers in the death of Breonna Taylor


LOUISVILLE, KY- According to reports, a former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) detective has pleaded guilty to lying on a search warrant.

On Tuesday, August 23rd, Kelly Hanna Goodlett, a former detective with LMPD, has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to violate the civil rights of Breonna Taylor for helping falsify an affidavit for the search of Taylor’s apartment.

Goodlett admitted that she knowingly included false information in the search warrant affidavit, which was used to search Taylor’s home and then conspired with another officer to cover it up.

Goodlett, who is 35-years-old, admitted to the charge before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings with Taylor’s mother and Tamika Palmer among others being present in the courtroom. She is the first to be convicted in connection with Taylor’s death.

She is supposed to be a star witness at the trial of Joshua Jaynes and Kyle Meany, when they are tried on civil rights charges in connection with Taylor’s death. A third detective, Brett Hankison, has also been charged in a separate federal indictment.

Jaynes and Hankison were previously fired from LMPD and Chief Erija Shields fired Meany during the second week of August.

Goodlett was previously released but ordered to surrender her passport and have zero contact with her co-defendants, including Hankison. She will remain out of jail pending sentencing. Goodlett could face up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years supervised probation.

Her sentencing date has been scheduled for November 22nd. Trials for the other detectives involved are scheduled for October.

During the hearing, Goodlett only spoke when questioned by the judge, typically answering, “Yes, your honor.” When asked how she pleads, she replied, “Guilty.”

Goodlett resigned from LMPD after the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its indictments against her and her three former colleagues.

She reportedly admitted that she falsely claimed a postal inspector had verified Taylor was receiving packages for her ex-boyfriend, convicted drug dealer Jamarcus Glover, at her apartment before the search warrant was executed.

The indictment of Jaynes alleges that Goodlett met with him in his garage so they could “get on the same page” after a postal inspector said the claim that Taylor was receiving Glover’s packages was not true.

Jaynes, 40, and Meany, 35, also face civil rights charges for the search that ended in the death of Taylor, while Hankison, 46, is charged with violating the civil rights of Taylor; her boyfriend, Kenneth Walking; and three of Taylor’s neighbors by blindly firing shots into her apartment.

When announcing the indictments, U.S. Attorney General Merrick said in a statement:

“The affidavit falsely claimed that officers had verified that the target of the alleged drug trafficking operation had received packages at Ms. Taylor’s address. In fact, defendants Jaynes and Goodlett knew that was not true.”

In may 2020, Tony Gooden, a U.S. postal inspector in Louisville said that LMPD did not confer with his office.

He said a different law enforcement agency asked his office in January 2020 to investigate whether any potential suspicious mail was going to the unit. The local office concluded that there was not.

Garland has also accused police of covering up their “unlawful conduct” after Taylor’s death. He said Jaynes and Goodlett “conspired to knowingly falsify an investigative document” after the shooting and “agreed to tell investigators a false story.”

Jaynes and Meany are scheduled for trial on October 11th before Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson III, while Hankison’s trial is set for October 13th before Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Years after incident, Atlanta officer indicted for man’s ankle being broken when running from cops

August 19th, 2022

ATLANTA, GA – Authorities have announced that an Atlanta police officer has been indicted in connection to an incident from 2019, where he is accused of breaking a man’s ankle.

The indictment shows that Officer Donald Vickers was charged on April 5, 2019, with aggravated assault and violation of oath by a public officer. Over two years later, on Tuesday, August 16th, Vickers’ indictment was filed in the Fulton County Superior Court.

On June 15, 2020, Griffin’s attorneys filed a lawsuit claiming that Vickers used unnecessary force when he allegedly tackled their client, Tyler Griffin, during a traffic stop.

The incident subsequently broke Griffin’s left ankle. The newly-released indictment states that Griffin’s ankle was deemed “useless.”

Vickers bodycam footage of the incident shows the officer and another officer approaching Griffin during the traffic stop. They reported that they suspected Griffin was drinking and driving at the same time.

In the video, officers can be heard telling Griffin to get out of the car, to which his complied. After that he is seen briefly brushing an officer’s hand away and in response, Vickers can be seen running and tackling Griffin to the ground.

Griffin attempts to stand up and walk, but is unable to. Bodycam footage shows Vickers mocking his injured ankle as Griffin screams in pain. Vickers can be heard in the video:

“Come on man, you’re such a little girl right now.”

According to Griffin, he has never been in trouble with the police before and was confused as to why the officer responded by tackling him to the ground.

Documents indicate that the lawsuit is still pending and records from the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council show that Vickers remained on active duty all the way up until the recent indictment.

After learning of his indictment, the Atlanta Police Department (APD), released a statement saying, in part:

“The Department relieved Ofc. Vickers of duty and he will remain in that status pending an emergency hearing with the Chief of Police.”

According to reports, after learning about the indictment, Griffin said in an interview with ABC 17:

“I do feel 100 percent better, and it just goes into the fact that I know I did everything right that evening.”

He added:

“I have to walk on this ankle every day and the pain I’m experiencing causes me to think about my case because it’s not over. It’s like I’m reliving the trauma every single day.”

After his arrest, Griffin reportedly filed a complaint with the department. He said that the officers were in an unmarked car with no lights and sirens and be became concerned for his safety when he realized he was followed. At the time of the traffic stop, Griffin denied he was drinking and driving.

In December 2019, close to seven months after the incident with Griffin, Vickers was cited by the department’s Office of Professional Standards for breaking multiple police policies, including temporarily turning off his body camera and failing to provide medical attention.

Vickers joined the APD in 2006 after graduating from the police academy. In 2010, he was reportedly placed on administrative leave after witnesses say they saw him carry an assault rifle into The Underground in downtown Atlanta.

A civil trial against Vickers is set to start in September. Matt Kahn of the Butler Law Firm said that regardless of the outcome of the trial, due to a city ordinance, the City will not have to pay more than $2,000 per officer.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Far-left Philadelphia DA just got destroyed by the state Supreme Court over police use-of-force

August 13th, 2022

PHILADELPHIA, PA – On Wednesday, August 10th, Philadelphia prosecutors stated that they do not plan to appeal to the United States Supreme Court on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision related to police use-of-force.

The announcement came several weeks after Pennsylvania’s high court rejected a challenge by District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office to the current state statute governing how and when on-duty police officers are permitted to use force and/or deadly force.

The prosecutors stated that they believe Pennsylvania’s state law violates the state constitution and the Fourth Amendment because it “permits officers to shoot fleeing suspects even if there is no threat of imminent death or serious injury.”

However, in a 4-2 decision, the high court disagreed with Krasner’s office, stating that it believed he chose the wrong venue — former city Officer Ryan Pownall’s trial — to try and upend a portion of the state criminal code.

This decision by the high court is the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the murder prosecution of Pownall.

In the decision, the high court said that although it agrees police shootings warrant “serious examination, by every facet of government as well as those outside of it,” Krasner’s office chose the wrong venue. Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote:

“Doing as the DAO asks … would essentially criminalize conduct the General Assembly has deemed noncriminal.”

Dougherty also filed a blistering concurring opinion criticizing Krasner’s office for its handling of Pownall’s case. Without suggesting any remedy or potential penalty, the justice criticized nearly every step of the prosecution so far.

He stated that Kranser’s office did not properly instruct grand jurors about the law when the panel was deciding whether to charge Pownall and that the office went to “disturbing” lengths to prevent Pownall from having a preliminary hearing, and then right before trial, sought to “rewrite” the law and “retroactively apply it to Pownall’s case.” He wrote:

“Little that has happened in this case up to this point reflects procedural justice. On the contrary, the DAO’s prosecution of Pownall appears to be ‘driven by a win-at-all cost office culture’ that treats police officers differently than other criminal defendants. This is the antithesis of what the law expects of a prosecutor.”

Assistant District Attorney Clarke Beljean did not say why the officer has decided against appealing the ruling.

Kranser’s office charged Pownall with murder in 2018 for fatally shooting 30-year-old David Jones, who had run from Pownall after being stopped while riding a dirt bike and illegally carrying a firearm in North Philadelphia a year prior.

Pownall was terminated shortly after the shooting. Prosecutors said that the shooting of Jones “was not necessary to secure his apprehension — an apprehension that would never have been necessary if Pownall had not indicted the confrontation.”

Pownall’s attorneys have long said that he was legally justified in firing his gun and the police union, which as continued to support Pownall, called his arrest an “absurd disgrace.” He was the first Philadelphia officer to be charged with murder over an on-duty shooting in two decades.

In 2019, weeks before Pownall’s trial was set to being, prosecutors asked the judge to give jurors instructions about the state’s use-of-force law that differed from the state’s criminal code.

They stated that it was necessary because state law permits officers to shoot fleeing suspects even if there is no threat of imminent death or serious injury. Prosecutors allege that it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

One of Pownall’s attorneys said in court that he plans to ask that Pownall be tried before jurors from another county because publicity about the case might make it impossible for Pownall to receive a fair trial before Philadelphia jurors.

Common Pleas Court Judge Barbara A. McDermott set Pownall’s trial date for November 7th. Pownall faces charges including third-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Jones.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Suspect accused of attempting to murder Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh admits he was after at least 3 justices

July 28th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. – According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the man who has been accused of attempting to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has allegedly admitted that Kavanaugh was not the only justice he was after.

The recently unveiled FBI search warrant, which was obtained by Fox News Digital, indicates that 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske Googled several search terms related to the attack, including “how to be stealthy,” “assassin skills,” and “most effective place to stab someone” in the weeks leading up to the planned attack.

Not only did the suspect meticulously plan the alleged plot, but he even reached out for advice on internet forums. In an online conversation, Roske told another internet user, “im gonna stop roe v wade from being overturned.”

According to the documents, the other user responded with, “what u tryna do.” Roske allegedly wrote back, “remove some people from the Supreme Court.”

The same user responded to Roske’s threats, saying: “two dead judges ain’t gonna do nothing. The whole government is (expletive). There’s no fixing that. You would die before you killed them all.” According to Fox News and the documents obtained by them, Roske wrote back:

“Yeah but I could get at least one, which would change the votes for decades to come, and I am shooting for 3. All of the major decisions for the past 10 years have been along party lines so if there are more liberal than conservative judges, they will have the power.”

Roske was planning on targeting at least two other members of the Court, but the released documents did not identify which justices those were. Roske also used the online address [email protected] In the warrant application, authorities said:

“Roske said that he used his Reddit account to ask individuals, who were unknown to him, questions in order to refine his plan to kill the justice.”

According to reports, Roske, of Simi Valley, California, was carrying a gun, ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, zip ties, and other gear when he was arrested by Montgomery County Police Department deputies early in the morning outside of Kavanaugh’s home back in June.

Roske, who has been charged with the attempted murder of a federal judge, told officials that he was upset about the conservative justice’s position on Roe v. Wade and the Second Amendment.

Reportedly, Roske took a taxi to Kavanaugh’s neighborhood and was spotted by U.S. Marshals. He was apprehended after he called 911 and told the operator that he was having suicidal thoughts and was planning to kill Kavanaugh.

Pro-choice activists have protested outside the homes of conservatives justices, including Kavanaugh’s, since the leaked Supreme Court decision to officially overturn Roe v. Wade. Lyric Winik, one of Kavanaugh’s neighbors, said that the “protesters have gotten out of control,” adding:

“Nothing about [the protesting] is healthy. We’ve got kids on this street scared to leave their homes.”

Recent polling shows that Kavanaugh’s neighbors were not alone in their frustration with the rising threats and intimidation from pro-choice activists outside private residences.

The Judicial Network’s CRC research polling found that over 80 percent of registered voters said that acts of violence and vandalism by protesters should be prosecuted.

Over half, nearly 58 percent of registered voters told CRC that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland should protect Supreme Court justices by enforcing federal laws that outlaw protesting in front of their homes.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Within hours of SCOTUS going on recess, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett’s house targeted by pro-choice insurrectionists

July 2nd, 2022

FALL CHURCH, VA – Within hours of being on recess, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Virginia home was met with a group of pro-choice protesters who were outside chanting expletives and waving signs reading “Liar.”

On Thursday, June 30th, Chief Justice John Roberts formally recognized the end of the Supreme Court’s session, stating:

“I am authorized to announce that the Court has acted upon all cases submitted to the Court for decision this Term.”

One of the last decisions the high Court made was overturning the highly controversial Roe v. Wade case, which has sent many pro-choice protesters and advocates on a rampage.

The most recent incident happened to conservative Supreme Court Justice Barrett when nearly 20 people were reportedly seen marching outside the judge’s home, yelling and chanting, “(Expletive) you, Barrett.” The angry crowd also clutched signs reading:

“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries”

“Reproductive Rights are Human Rights”

“Impeach Expand Codify”


Some of the signs had a photo of Barrett printed underneath the sayings. According to the New York Post, many of the protesters appeared to be with the activist group “Our Rights DC,” which has allegedly organized several protests outside the homes of the six conservative justices who voted in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Our Rights DC” was scheduled to hold another “resistance march” in the Virginia neighborhood of Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, on the evening of Friday, July 1st. The pro-choice activist group tweeted:

“What is there to explain? Thomas continues to attack human rights at every opportunity. His wife, Ginni, is an insurrectionist. Meet us at 6:30PM at the CVS on Burke Centre Pkwy & we will carpool to/from Thomas’s street to protest the ‘best friends.’

The demonstrators gathered within hours of President Joe Biden making an extraordinary attack on the Supreme Court while overseas — blasting the integrity of the high court. At the conclusion of the NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, Biden said:

“The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

He added:

“And overturning not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy. We’ve been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights. And it is a mistake, in my view, for the Supreme Court [to] do what it did.”

During his press conference in Madrid, Biden also emphasized his support for codifying federal abortion rights by any means necessary — even through bypassing the filibuster. Biden said:

“I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law and the way to do that is to make sure that the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way … we provide an exception for this.”

Dozens of pro-choice demonstrators have swarmed the homes of the court’s conservative justices since the June 24th ruling after the pro-choice group “Ruth Sent Us” quickly circulated the justices’ addresses.

The protesters are planning to target Thomas’ home again and Barrett’s as well as Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch. Fox News reported that the media is also accusing some of the conservative justice’s of lying about Roe v. Wade.

Some prominent Democrats and their allies the media are claiming that two Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade somehow “lied” during their confirmation hearings.

On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade’s precedent, MSNBC’s Joy Reid claimed that the Court was filled with “religious zealots” who “lied” about precedent to get past “gullible senators” and land a spot on the bench.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Report: Several Supreme Court Justices moved to undisclosed locations after protesters march in front of their homes

May 8th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Within five days of a leaked draft opinion from the United States Supreme Court that suggested the court is poised to overturn the landmark case Roe v. Wade, a number of the justices have had to relocate to undisclosed locations.

According to reports, nearly 100 protestors bearing signs and chanting slogans marched from Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Chevy Chase, Maryland to Chief Justice John Robert’s house about a half mile away.

The leaked draft opinion, which was first published by Politico, states that Kavanaugh was one of five justices that allegedly cast preliminary votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

CNN later reported that Roberts opposed overturning Roe completely and was trying to forge a compromise that would leave parts of the ruling intact while upholding a Mississippi law that limits abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

According to a report from Breitbart News, Justice Samuel Alito has also been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, given the additional opposition he is facing as the writer of the leaked majority opinion. The report said:

“Militant leftists, including a group called Ruth Sent Us, are trying to physically intimidate the five justices who are expected to sign the final version of Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with the four other justices being Clarence Thomas – appointed by Bush 41 – and the three justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.”

The report added:

“While doxing the justices’ home addresses is ostensibly so protestors can go to those justices’ homes to protest – which many Americans consider objectionable by itself, and in fact which violates federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1507 – many others also note this could lead to violence, if an activist were to attack a justice or the justice’s family.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, criticized protests at the home of justices and other public officials as “demeaning and adolescent.”

Tow other Judiciary Committee members, Republican John Cornyn of Texas and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, introduced a bill that would extend security protection to the justices’ families. Cornyn said in a statement:

“The events of the past week have intensified the focus on Supreme Court justices’ families, who are unfortunately facing threats to their safety in today’s increasingly polarized political climate.”

Roberts, who has ordered an investigation of the leak, called the leak “absolutely appalling” and said that the person responsible would be “foolish” to think it would affect the court’s deliberations. Breitbart News stated:

“There is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to physically intimidate a judge to change his court decision out of fear for his or her family’s safety. President Joe Biden and his White House have still not condemned this crossing of that important line.”

On Thursday, May 5th, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to criticize the practice of protesting outside a justice’s home. She said in a statement:

“I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. We want it, of course, to be peaceful.”

According to reports, the justices are scheduled to rule in the case of overturning Roe v. Wade by July.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

‘Endangers our children’: Senator raises concerns about Biden Supreme Court pick being soft on child sex offenders

March 20th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As confirmation hearings are set to begin shortly for Biden Supreme Court pick and radical leftist Ketanji Brown Jackson, one Senator has raised the alarm on Jackson’s apparent history of being soft on child sex and pornography offenders.

In an 18-part Twitter thread, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) recently introduced multiple concerns regarding Judge Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child sex offenders and pedophiles.

Hawley began:

“I’ve been researching the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions, articles, interviews & speeches. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

Hawley continued:

“Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.

“She’s been advocating for it since law school.

“This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children.”

Hawley went on to describe a longtime approach from Jackson, dating back to law school, that appeared to exhibit a soft touch with child sex offenders.

He wrote:

“As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders – saying it leads to ‘stigmatization and ostracism.’

“She’s suggested public policy is driven by a ‘climate of fear, hatred & revenge’ against sex offenders.”

Hawley also reported that Jackson “questioned sending dangerous sex offenders to civil commitment.”

In addition, Hawley raised concerns that Jackson, as part of the U.S. Sentencing Commission,  called for “drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.”

Hawley then referenced some of Jackson’s past words, quoting her as saying:

“So the people who are in this [child pornography] for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community, but would be categorized as non sexually motivated, how many are we talking about?”

Regarding these words, Hawley asked:

“What community would that be?  The community of child exploiters?”

Hawley also gleaned from Jackson’s words a question on a “less-serious child pornography offender,” apparently motivated by “technology.”

Jackson reportedly stated:

“And I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a – that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge, or to use the technology?

“They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it?”

Hawley went on to summarize several cases of Jackson’s in which she appeared to be lenient with child pornographers and child sex offenders.

For instance, he wrote:

“In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18.

“The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison.

“Three months.”

Also for example:

“In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl.

“The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months.

“Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months.”

Hawley also wrote:

“In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years.

“The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months.

“Judge Jackson gave him 28.”

Hawley then opined:

“This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land.

“Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate.

“Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.”

Hawley’s concerns over Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child predators will likely be front and center in his upcoming questioning of Biden’s Supreme Court nominee.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

‘She believes the Constitution is racist’: Editor says Biden Supreme Court nominee’s radical ideology should disqualify her

Originally published March 19, 2022

The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Joe Biden boxed himself into a corner when he decided that his first nomination for a vacant Supreme Court opening had to be a woman and she had to be black.

That certainly eliminated a plethora of overwhelmingly qualified candidates.

Still, there were a number of qualified jurists who fit the bill. Yet, Biden decided to pick probably one of the most radical possible choices for the seat of retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

According to a piece in Breitbart, Joel Pollak, Senior Editor at Large paints a disturbing picture of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Biden has put forth for the Supreme Court.

She apparently is a proponent of Critical Race Theory, admires the Black Lives Matter movement, and has touted the bogus “1619 Project.” All of this, Pollak proposes, should disqualify her from serving on the United States Supreme Court.

Pollak noted that Jackson’s sentiments about these radical beliefs and ideologies were discovered during a recently discovered lecture she delivered at the University of Michigan Law School.

These were not the sentiments, he wrote, of a young student but rather were delivered while she sat as a federal judge in 2020, who would be confirmed a year later to the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals.

For reasons which are unknown, all of this somehow escaped scrutiny during Jackson’s previous confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However it is one thing to sit as a district judge and perhaps an appeals judge. It is an entirely different matter for a Supreme Court justice to admire philosophies which run counter to the foundation of our republic, since part of their responsibility is to uphold our founding documents, including the Constitution.

Hopefully, and it seems that it is so, Republicans are paying close attention to Jackson’s radical beliefs, which paint her as likely the most radical judge ever appointed to the nation’s high court.

Pollak notes the sheer irony in Jackson’s selection as a SCOTUS nominee, due to Biden’s declaration his nominee was being put forth solely based on their gender and the amount of melanin in their skin, which he notes invokes “the kind of discrimination that the Supreme Court itself has said is unconstitutional.”

Moreover, there are pending cases due to come before the high court that Jackson would hear as a justice, which makes her views on these topics overwhelmingly important.

And the fact that Jackson admires the 1619 Project raises a number of alarm bells, since the author of that garbage, Nikole Hannah Jones, proposes that the United States was founded upon racism and slavery and is therefore a systemically racist country. That fact alone should disqualify Jackson.

The title of her University of Michigan lecture was “Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement Era and Beyond.” There is certainly not, as Pollak notes, anything controversial inherent in that title; it was clearly an acceptable topic.

Jackson’s remarks, which were delivered in observance of Martin Luther King Day were generally that black women have served on the front lines in the fight for equal rights in the United States, which would hopefully direct the country to adhere to our founding principles. She noted that due to those women, America became a freer country for everyone. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, Jackson went off the rails when she claimed that Critical Race Theory and its founder, Derrick Bell were a “source of inspiration,” Pollak wrote.

Bell proposed that America is a fundamentally racist country, with that racism being part and parcel of all of our institutions, claiming that because slavery was prevalent when the Constitution was written, it was therefore acceptable in the founding of our country to engage in racism. Which of course, makes no sense.

Bell posited that only through the redistribution of wealth…aka socialism…could our country be saved from so-called “systemic racism.”

Jackson cited Bell’s book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, which she said was “omnipresent” in her home when she was growing up, a book which posited that “America is so racist that we would sell our black citizens to space aliens for gold to pay off our national debt.” Tremendous role model right there.

Then there is the Hannah-Jones program of fiction, the 1619 Project.  In the opening essay published in the New York Times magazine, Hannah-Jones made the absurd, ridiculous, and easily debunked claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.

Therefore in her mind, slavery was the “founding principle” of the United States. An overwhelming number of historians have dismissed Hannah-Jones’s claims as fantasy.

Then there is her admiration for Black Lives Matter, an organization that has been marred by allegations of financial malfeasance and whose founder, Patrisse Cullors has somehow been able to leverage into a significant real estate empire.

Jackson said in the lecture that her “favorite civil rights photograph of modern times” was a picture of a BLM protester being arrested by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police at a 2016 march protesting police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

It apparently didn’t enter into the equation that both of those men were shot while armed. And of course, we don’t have to address the violence BLM fomented in 2020 after George Floyd’s overdose death in Minneapolis.

All of this raises concern about Jackson’s judgment and what her judicial philosophy would be if she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As Pollak notes, “we cannot have a Justice who believes the Constitution is racist; who believes America was founded on slavery; or who believes police are guilty until proven innocent.”

About the only thing that can be said is as the court is currently constructed, a potential Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be in the minority—for now.

There are important questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee need to ask Jackson, although it is pretty much a given that Democrats’ questions will be typical hanging curveballs. That’s why it is important for the Republicans on the committee to ask her tough questions and not worry about being labeled as “racist” for simply asking questions that it is important to know the answers to.

“Does she share Derrick Bell’s view that the Constitution is racist? Does she share the 1619 Project’s view on the American Revolution? Does she believe the officers who shot Sterling and Castile are guilty of murder? And—crucially—does she believe the race and gender criteria of her own nomination are acceptable?” Pollak asks.

All of these are important questions.

Also, Jackson’s comments…only two years old…are certainly pertinent to her nomination. Breitbart cites the case of a Trump nominee, Ryan Bounds, who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2017.

In that case, two Republicans—Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC)—slammed Bounds for writings he authored…as a college student…twenty years prior. The essays mocked identity politics and political correctness, yet were characterized as “racist.”

While Bounds apologized for his writings as a young college student, his nomination went down in flames.

However, as Pollak notes, nothing Bounds wrote comes anywhere near the “racial extremism” of Jackson’s role models.

Racial extremism goes both ways, or at least it should. We agree with Pollak.

“If a Republican nominee had to withdraw because of skepticism of racial politics as a student, a Democratic nominee with radical racial views in the present day should not be on the Supreme Court.” [emphasis added]

The feds have found a new way of targeting police officers in the death of Breonna Taylor

For our prior article on the threat Judge Jackson poses to the Second Amendment, we invite you to:


By Larry Keane and our friends at NSSF

President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson, who was only recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has authored just two opinions on the merits, both in the past month. Her judicial record tells us truly little about her views on the Second Amendment or about the firearm industry.

Unlike Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who openly told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that her family is a gun-owning family and openly advocated for originalism on the court, Judge Jackson doesn’t offer similar insights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on a D.C. Court of Appeals decision to uphold a ban on most semiautomatic firearms and a firearm registration requirement in Washington, D.C. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an outdoorsman and hunter, was introduced as an originalist jurist and “very much in the mold” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her Record

Judge Jackson would undeniably be paving a new path if she is confirmed. She would be the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

When it comes to gun rights, her judicial experience and philosophy are less obvious. Judge Jackson could be expected to be in the ideological mold of the justice she is to replace, Justice Breyer for whom she clerked from 1999-2000.

When it comes to firearms and gun rights, Justice Breyer was certainly no ally of gun rights.

Justice Breyer dissented on Heller and MacDonald, and holds views that are hostile to individual Second Amendment rights. Justice Breyer once claimed the Founding Fathers intended for government to strictly regulate firearms, though no legislative evidence shows this.

In fact, the first gun control laws were openly racist and intended to deny guns to slaves. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication, pointed out that in 1640, Virginia had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on Black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts.

Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes during the post-Civil War reconstruction era and those were racist laws designed to suppress recently freed Blacks.

Still, Judge Jackson’s judicial record affords no direct insights into how she might rule on Second Amendment-related or firearm industry-related cases. An opinion she authored in her eight months on the D.C. Court of Appeals was published just one day before her nomination.

That case related to unions and the federal government. The closest case that Judge Jackson related to firearms was Baisden v. Barr, in which she dismissed the complaint of a convicted felon petitioning to reclaim gun rights.

The plaintiff offered no evidence that he ever owned a firearm, obtained a permit, ever used, intended to use, or expressed a desire to possess a firearm prior to his conviction.

Her Philosophy

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton directly asked Judge Jackson about the Second Amendment when she was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her answer was similar to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who both stated that they would be bound by Heller’s precedent. Little more was said.

Gun rights advocates would disagree that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor respect individual gun rights, especially after hearing their questions to the pending New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett hearing.

Justice Kagan posed the question of whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

While Justice Barrett openly embraced her ideas on originalism and how that informs her judicial philosophy, Judge Jackson has been ambiguous on her answers of a “living Constitution” approach.

Professor Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote in The Hill that Judge Jackson told the courts she didn’t believe in the concept when nominated to the district court.

Later, when she was nominated to the appellate court, she told the Senate she didn’t have the experience to make such interpretations as a judge.

Professor Turley was baffled by that response since it wasn’t a question of her signed opinions but her judicial opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Judge Jackson has been overruled for judicial overreach.

There’s proof she’s willing to engage in legislating from the bench when faced with questions she doesn’t like.

Her Critics

When President Biden nominated her last year to the Court of Appeals, the National Review wrote that Judge Jackson is, “not highly regarded as a judge” and was, “considered to have a middling reputation.”

The article added that Judge Jackson has, “a striking record of reversals by the [Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings.”

Professor Turley noted that as a district court judge she was reversed in 2018 by a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a federal workers’ collective bargaining case based on lack of jurisdiction and again overruled in an immigration case in 2019 for judicial overreach.

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, wrote for Fox News that Judge Jackson would be little more than a politician in robes for liberal special-interest causes. She said Judge Jackson’s nomination is, “paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network” that was instrumental in President Biden’s campaign.

“Since it comports with a strategy of moderate rhetoric/radical substance, expect to hear little from Biden and his supporters about Judge Jackson’s past advocacy for terrorists, softness on crime, upholding racial preferences, hostility toward pro-lifers, and reversed decisions involving Trump-era policies.”

There’s nothing to indicate that Judge Jackson will strictly interpret the Constitution. She will be what President Biden wants – a secure replacement for Justice Breyer. When it comes to gun rights and the industry, that’s what America can expect. Judge Jackson will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment and the firearm industry.

There’s just one other thing that won’t change. Should Judge Jackson be confirmed, the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same, currently a 6-3 conservative majority.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First


Submit a Correction
Related Posts