Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline
Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

 
OP
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline
I plan to pay attention, as much as I can, to which R senators engage in this particular smear. They are unfit for their positions.
 
OP
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline
But isn't that what confirmations are, smear campaingns?
Smear implies unfounded or untrue. When even The National Review says it’s a smear against her, it’s definitely a smear.
 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
3,645
Age
47
Location
San Antonio
Offline
Josh Hawley has one of the most punchable faces in America. We should have a "Punch Hawley in the Face Day" where everybody gets to go up to Hawley and punch him in the face free of consequence and feel good about themselves.

Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:



Also, in the long tradition of Russian's, Trump and Republican's falsely and disingenuously accusing others of thing they are in fact doing ... I'm going to go ahead and declare that Hawley is likely a child predator.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline
Here’s a great thread of running commentary that I found amusing:

 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
3,645
Age
47
Location
San Antonio
Offline
This opinion piece is so on point. If there is one constant in everything Republicans do, it's that they're always disingenuous. They never speak honestly about what they want to achieve and always fight these proxy information wars that are meant to distract from their real aims and goals.

This is comfortable terrain for Republicans because they know that dressing up policy preferences in a phony “philosophy” is a game only they usually play; liberals tend not to bother. Jackson herself was asked about this during her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; she replied, “I do not have a judicial philosophy per se, other than to apply the same method of thorough analysis to every case, regardless of the parties.”

While liberals sometimes talk about the “living Constitution” — the idea that as society evolves, our understanding of the Constitution changes — they don’t pretend that it’s some kind of guidebook that tells you the “right” ruling in any given case.


But that’s what conservatives claim to possess in their favored “philosophy,” originalism. They say that the original intent of the Framers should be paramount when deciding constitutional questions, and once that intent has been located, the answers to legal questions will reveal themselves, lit from within with the glowing light of divine wisdom.
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of the time, the Framers’ intent is either impossible to discern or utterly irrelevant to the question before us, for the simple reason that they wrote the Constitution almost two and a half centuries ago. What would the Framers think of voter file purges, or regulations on carbon emissions, or the use of facial recognition by police? To even ask is preposterous. Yet conservatives claim to know what Madison and Jefferson would say — and by fortuitous coincidence, their seances with the Framers’ spirits always lead right to their preferred policy outcomes. Funny how that works.
There are other variants of conservative judicial philosophy that are just as likely to demand conservative rulings. “Textualism” requires close readings of the Constitution and legislative texts — unless conservatives don’t like what the text says, at which point the text is discarded. They passionately oppose “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench,” until the court considers laws they don’t like.


The alternative to all this hogwash would be a little candor. If they wanted to be honest, Republicans could just say that they oppose Jackson because they’re hoping for Supreme Court rulings that advance conservative policy goals — striking down Roe v. Wade, limiting the federal government’s power to regulate, weakening voting rights, diminishing the ability of unions to organize workers — and she is unlikely to provide them.

 
OP
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
10,933
Reaction score
15,941
Location
Midwest
Offline


Notice he doesn’t characterize Barrett nor Kavanaugh as qualified. Because they’re not. They’re very weak Justices.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,168
Reaction score
2,512
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
getting real tired of seeing (Rs) beating the same drum

Graham: “I want to know about your judicial philosophy because people on the left, the far extreme part of the left, believe that you were the best bet," Graham said. "And I want to know why they reached that conclusion.”
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
8,805
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
getting real tired of seeing (Rs) beating the same drum

Graham: “I want to know about your judicial philosophy because people on the left, the far extreme part of the left, believe that you were the best bet," Graham said. "And I want to know why they reached that conclusion.”

It’s such an obnoxious performative hack question.

“So tell us, when did you stop beating your wife?”
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom