Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

 

[Taurus]

if you would honestly look back - you will find that, while I do believe the story that the witness told, I thought it was more of a goof by Kavanaugh. More of a way to humiliate someone who didn’t fit into their little clique than anything else. Hence the huge amount of laughter she remembered during it. But you’d rather paint a different picture. It’s just not an honest picture.

I actually don’t remember a single person here accusing him of “gang rape” nor do I believe that was alleged, but the point was made that there were sometimes gang rapes carried out in that timeframe and among the kids at that school. Just to point out what was evidently acceptable at that time.

So do you think the way the Republicans acted toward Jackson was acceptable?

To me, it's more about the temperament shown during questioning.

So let's pretend that both sets of accusations are equally meritless.

Jackson handled herself with poise, grace and patience.
Kavanaugh acted like a spoiled fratboy.

 

[SaintForLife]

You're right. Let's just look at the qualifications. Jackson is much more qualified than Kavanaugh was at the time of his nomination. If we are only going to look at the qualifications (which I am completely in favor of), we can all agree she should be confirmed with an overwhelming vote of Republicans and Democrats supporting the nomination.

Of course she's qualified. The hearing for SCOTUS are a joke and that's including the Democrats perfecting their technique of character assassination including accusation of being a gang rapist. The Republicans do their part to focus on insignificant or stupid things but they can't even come close the Democrats disgusting and pathetic ways they go about it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Of course she's qualified. The hearing for SCOTUS are a joke and that's including the Democrats perfecting their technique of character assassination including accusation of being a gang rapist. The Republicans do their part to focus on insignificant or stupid things but they can't even come close the Democrats disgusting and pathetic ways they go about it.

So the thing that you made up in your head is worse than actually implying that Judge Jackson is soft on pedophiles?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Nah, they are not equivalent... mostly because SFL prefers the GOP nominees but never mind objectivity.

 

[Sandman]

Of course she's qualified. The hearing for SCOTUS are a joke....

That is where you should have stopped. Want to end this type of garbage, call your Republican Senator and tell him to drop the nonsense and vote based only on qualifications. Until Republicans hold Republicans accountable and Democrats hold Democrats accountable, this will continue. At this point in time, the Democrats hold their people much more accountable than the Republicans.

 

[dtc]

Yeah, it's not like SCOTUS decides the number, so her opinion on it shouldn't matter. Of course, they asked her asked her all sorts of nonsensical questions. That whole charade was pretty much unwatchable.

Had a friend over for dinner the other night who tries to hide that he's a Trump loving bigot, but he revealed himself when he got enraged about the nominee refusing to define woman. He went on and on about how simple and easy it is and I'll quote "they have ovaries and boobs and can have babies"

I enjoyed greatly when the non-practicing, female attorney at the table informed him that judges are appointed to interpret law and not define terms to which he replied that it was absolulte. He then said she had been overturned because she was too stupid to understand the difference between shall and should.

After a little conversation, our lady friend decided to explain to him that she has no ovaries, but that she does have kids. She went on to explain that her boobs were fake and so by his definition she was not a woman.

From there it got funny.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Had a friend over for dinner the other night who tries to hide that he's a Trump loving bigot, but he revealed himself when he got enraged about the nominee refusing to define woman. He went on and on about how simple and easy it is and I'll quote "they have ovaries and boobs and can have babies"

I enjoyed greatly when the non-practicing, female attorney at the table informed him that judges are appointed to interpret law and not define terms to which he replied that it was absolulte. He then said she had been overturned because she was too stupid to understand the difference between shall and should.

After a little conversation, our lady friend decided to explain to him that she has no ovaries, but that she does have kids. She went on to explain that her boobs were fake and so by his definition she was not a woman.

From there it got funny.

the ”from there” part is the part I’d to hear

 

[Optimus Prime]

Susan Collins has said that she will vote to confirm, the first GOP senator to do so

We'll see how many follow suit

 

[SaintForLife]

That is where you should have stopped. Want to end this type of garbage, call your Republican Senator and tell him to drop the nonsense and vote based only on qualifications. Until Republicans hold Republicans accountable and Democrats hold Democrats accountable, this will continue. At this point in time, the Democrats hold their people much more accountable than the Republicans.

The SCOTUS hearings are political theater for both sides, but let's not act like any of the Republicans current stupid takes come anywhere close to what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees.

 

[MT15]

The SCOTUS hearings are political theater for both sides, but let's not act like any of the Republicans current stupid takes come anywhere close to what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees.

no, a case could be made it was worse. Far worse. And please do tell what other R nominees were treated badly, in your opinion?

 

[SaintForLife]

no, a case could be made it was worse. Far worse. And please do tell what other R nominees were treated badly, in your opinion?

Lol Okay.

Ummm the hearings that started all this character assassination in Bork and also Thomas and Kavanaugh were the worst ones. The Democrats ran the same rapist accusation campaign against Thomas and Kavanaugh.

 

[Sandman]

Lol Okay.

Ummm the hearings that started all this character assassination in Bork and also Thomas and Kavanaugh were the worst ones. The Democrats ran the same rapist accusation campaign against Thomas and Kavanaugh.

Thomas was accused of sexual harassment, not rape.

 

[CoolBrees]

Can you link the rapist allegations against Thomas? Harassment charges were levied but rape? I don’t remember that.

Also, Bork was a not confirmed for refusing to affirm commitment to civil rights acts.

That and he was intimately involved in the Watergate coverup as Nixon’s solicitor general.

BTW- welcome back!

 

[Sandman]

The SCOTUS hearings are political theater for both sides, but let's not act like any of the Republicans current stupid takes come anywhere close to what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees.

There were allegations by individuals regarding specific conduct as to Kavanaugh and Thomas. I'm sorry, but if someone says, "hey, that person raped me" it needs to be looked at during the nomination process. Rapist do not belong on the Supreme Court, so it is something that should be looked into. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[coldseat]

Fist poll in. Looks like the GOP failed miserably in their attacks to defame soon to be Justice Jackson. Hopefully this will carry over into November.

When President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, Republicans knew they probably wouldn’t be able to stop her confirmation. But they hoped to make it controversial enough that the process would still be a political win for them.

With a new poll indicating surprisingly broad support for Jackson, it now looks as though they failed spectacularly on both counts.

...

Americans don’t just think Jackson should be on the Supreme Court. She might well turn out to be the most popular court nominee in history.
That’s what the new Marquette Law School poll suggests. It finds Jackson’s nomination is supported by 66 percent of Americans overall, including 95 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents and even 29 percent of Republicans.

If that result is supported in subsequent polls, it would make her the most popular nominee since pollsters started asking Americans about the court.

Let’s compare her with other recent nominees at the end of their hearings (using Gallup polls to keep things consistent). Amy Coney Barrett, the last nominee, was approved by about half of Americans following her 2020 hearings. Support for Brett M. Kavanaugh was in the mid-40s after his contentious hearings. Neil M. Gorsuch garnered 45 percent support.
In 2010, Elena Kagan earned 46 percent support after her hearings. A year earlier, Sonia Sotomayor received a healthy 55 percent support. On earlier nominations: Samuel A. Alito Jr. got 54 percent, John G. Roberts Jr. was the most popular before Jackson at 60 percent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 53 percent, and Clarence Thomas received 58 percent.

So the only one who came close to Jackson’s popularity was Roberts. It’s reasonable to suggest Jackson might be the most popular nominee in history because, while we don’t have polling data on nominees for the nation’s first two centuries or so, until the lpast few decades, most nominations were pretty uncontroversial. That suggests many, if not most, Americans had no particular opinion about them one way or the other.

We’ll need multiple polls to make final judgments about how the public views Jackson. But for the moment, it appears that if Republicans were hoping to turn Americans against her, they failed.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, Republicans’ criticisms were weak and repulsive. When they weren’t poring over old sentences she handed down in an unsuccessful attempt to tar her as soft on child pornography, they were bleating about transgender athletes, critical race theory and any other culture-war flash point they could conjure up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/30/ketanji-brown-jackson-most-popular-supreme-court-nominee/

 

[MT15]

There were allegations by individuals regarding specific conduct as to Kavanaugh and Thomas. I'm sorry, but if someone says, "hey, that person raped me" it needs to be looked at during the nomination process. Rapist do not belong on the Supreme Court, so it is something that should be looked into. Wouldn't you agree?

Not only that but the allegations against Judge Jackson were largely made up. At the very least they were misleading and even worse, they were aimed at triggering a group of crazy people who will be now incentivized into threatening her and her family, which is already happening.

 

[FullMonte]

I've seen several people on the right who took issue with one of the questions/answers from the hearing, and I was wondering if someone here could explain to me what the problem is. She was asked (By Cruz, if I am remembering correctly) if she thought that non-citizens should be able to vote in our elections. She answered that the law currently says that only citizens can vote in elections.

As I understand it, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to rule on the legality and Constitutionality of a particular issue, regardless of their personal opinions on that issue. She was asked about her personal opinion on an issue, and she responded with the legality of the issue. Objectively, that is the correct answer that a Supreme Court Justice should give, isn't it?

 

[coldseat]

I've seen several people on the right who took issue with one of the questions/answers from the hearing, and I was wondering if someone here could explain to me what the problem is. She was asked (By Cruz, if I am remembering correctly) if she thought that non-citizens should be able to vote in our elections. She answered that the law currently says that only citizens can vote in elections.

As I understand it, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to rule on the legality and Constitutionality of a particular issue, regardless of their personal opinions on that issue. She was asked about her personal opinion on an issue, and she responded with the legality of the issue. Objectively, that is the correct answer that a Supreme Court Justice should give, isn't it?

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.