What a dumb fuc$king article.
Oh, yeah, let's center a story on a family who obviously doesn't like the outcome of a case call into question a judge's legal expertise. Let's THEN extrapolate one case to "prove" she's in bed with big business.
Guess what, about 95% of the time one party in a matter will be dissatisfied with a ruling--and by extension the judge.
Ask any dude who gets fleeced in a divorce--the judge is clearly "pro female" or "didn't pay attention to the facts."
Ask any chick who doesn't get what she wants in a divorce--good ol' boy network.
This sums up the absurdity:
“The lawyers thought, just like I’m sure Biden and the Democrats think, that oh, this is a great thing. Here’s a female. She’s a public defender.” She might want to stand up for “the little guy.”
Far from it. As the family were to discover, Jackson was on the side of big business.
Literally, that is everything a judge ISN'T supposed to do.
A judge shouldn't disregard the facts and the law. A judge shouldn't say, "well, my court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a foreign company where the negligence is asserted to have happened in a foreign country, but...what the hell...I'll just disregard the law and STAND UP FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE."
WTF.
GTFOOH with this.
Oh, of course not noted in the article is that Jackson's ruling was appealed and the Appeals court unanimously upheld the lower court decision.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malay...SKBN1Z921F