Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    18,947
    Reaction score
    25,934
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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:
    Here’s a great thread of running commentary that I found amusing:

     
    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.

     


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

    Back
    Top Bottom