Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

 

[Optimus Prime]

The street cred of SCOTUS nominees is an underrated metric

 

[DaveXA]

Opinions are great and all, but specific examples are better. What other nominees? Kavanaugh had a real accuser, of something hard to prove.

Jackson's record is clearly and easily reviewable... were any cases really out of whack? Or was it just made up?

I'd expect someone as open minded as you to be able to have an adult discussion about this.

All I've seen from every objection I've seen amounts to a bunch of partisan nonsense. There's no good reason other than these idiots trying to gin up faux outrage with their base. The Republicans on the committee couldn't care less about her qualifications. They have no honor or integrity. Republicans are utterly embarrassing these days.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Captain Obvious

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The would pick the second option. They just wouldn't fill seats. They've done it before.

But that's under a framework where they know they might eventually retake the White House and be able to appoint with a vote of 50+VP. If it's 2/3rds then the Democrats would simply do the same thing to a Republican President and there would literally be no more judicial replacements. Eventually things would deescalate out of necessity.

 

[DaveXA]

But that's under a framework where they know they might eventually retake the White House and be able to appoint with a vote of 50+VP. If it's 2/3rds then the Democrats would simply do the same thing to a Republican President and there would literally be no more judicial replacements. Eventually things would deescalate out of necessity.

Yeah, it would just take a while to return to some sense of normalcy.

 

[MT15]

 

[Optimus Prime]

2nd GOP senator after Collins
=======================

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she will vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “historic nomination” to the Supreme Court, bolstering bipartisan support for the first Black woman to be nominated for the court.

The Alaska senator announced her decision Monday evening ahead of a procedural Senate vote to advance the nomination. Murkowski, who is up for reelection this year, joins Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine who has also said she will support Jackson……..

Murkowski, Romney back Jackson, all but assure confirmation

Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney say they will vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s historic nomination to the Supreme Court, giving President Joe Biden’s nominee a new burst of bipartisan support to become the first Black woman on the high court.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

I wrote my senior senator today to tell him that I see right through his hypocrisy - he announced he would vote no because he felt she would be an “activist” on the bench. In spite of zero evidence so far in her career of that, and in spite of his enthusiastic support of Barrett - the very definition of an activist justice. I’m sure he won’t even see it, but it made me feel better.

She is highly qualified, unlike the two most recent R nominees, and there’s no valid reason to vote no on her nomination.

 

[zztop]

(unsurprisingly all 11 replublicans voted against)

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-11 on Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination.

The move forces Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to invoke special procedures to advance Jackson's nomination.

The so-called discharge vote is expected to happen on Monday afternoon.

 

[MT15]

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Bill Cassidy might, too. He's already has zero shot at reelection by having the 'gall' to vote to convict Trump. So might as well vote however you want on things at this point.

Scratch that: He put out a statement a few hours ago saying he wouldn't.

 

[Taurus]

But that's under a framework where they know they might eventually retake the White House and be able to appoint with a vote of 50+VP. If it's 2/3rds then the Democrats would simply do the same thing to a Republican President and there would literally be no more judicial replacements. Eventually things would deescalate out of necessity.

No they wouldn't. You're talking about men who are *fine* with armed insurrection. They *want* America to fail.

 

[FullMonte]

That doesn't matter to Republicans. They want a true believer that will always rule for the Republican side, regardless of the law. They don't actually care about judicial restraint. They care about getting their way.

No, I get that. I understand that, when it comes to SCOTUS justices, any one that is nominated by a democratic president is automatically not qualified.

I was more looking for the reasoning. I understand when they say "She couldn't define woman," they are saying that she is a far leftist who will clearly go against the law and the constitution when she is presented with a case involving transgender rights. I understand when they say "she is easy on child predators," they are saying that she will allow child porn to become mainstream, and it will be taught in school with CRT.

But, I can't seem to understand how they get from "The law says that only citizens are allowed to vote," to some kind of negative outcome.

 

[MT15]

No they wouldn't. You're talking about men who are *fine* with armed insurrection. They *want* America to fail.

Sadly, there’s a non-zero number of Republicans who want exactly that.

 

[coldseat]

No they wouldn't. You're talking about men who are *fine* with armed insurrection. They *want* America to fail.

That's the thing that so many independents can't see. Republicans, both the base and the elected representatives representing the base, don't care about maintaining a democratic republic. In fact, they no longer want one. They want the equivalent of a Christian ethno state that's going to restrict and claw back social-liberal progress. With every institution that fails, they see it as a win for them. Only a small minority of Republicans are fighting against the authoritarian march of that party, and it's not nearly enough.

They'll gladly let the judicial branch fail and blame it on Democrats.

 

[Taurus]

That's the thing that so many independents can't see. Republicans, both the base and the elected representatives representing the base, don't care about maintaining a democratic republic. In fact, they no longer want one. They want the equivalent of a Christian ethno state that's going to restrict and claw back social-liberal progress. With every institution that fails, they see it as a win for them. Only a small minority of Republicans are fighting against the authoritarian march of that party, and it's not nearly enough.

They'll gladly let the judicial branch fail and blame it on Democrats.

Or claim credit for foiling "activist judges" once and for all.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

No they wouldn't. You're talking about men who are *fine* with armed insurrection. They *want* America to fail.

I don't buy into this. Obviously the GOP is trying to reap the whirlwind by pandering to the nutjobs but the wealthy don't benefit from anarchy. Had the mob broke into the Senate chamber on January 6th they would have killed Cruz and Hawley because 99% of those rubes probably have no idea who is who in terms of Republican and Democrat.

 

[MT15]

We have members here who are ready to rip it all up. I think you may have expressed that sentiment yourself - my apologies if it was someone else. But I can think of 3 right off the top of my head.