Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

 

[DaveXA]

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?

I thought she gave a good answer. I just don't get Republicans anymore I guess. I'm a fiscal conservative and maybe a conservative in broader domestic and foreign policy, but social libertarian. But I'll vote Democrat in a heartbeat if it means electing between Trump and his minions and a Democrat candidate.

I like Jackson and think she'll do very well as a Justice.

 

[V Chip]

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.

Technically you're correct.

The R current stupid isn't anywhere close to what the Ds did -- it's far, far worse.

("and other Republican nominees" lol -- yeah they really mistreated Gorsuch and ACB and Alito and John Roberts....)

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don’t know if I’d go so far as scrap them but they definitely need an overhaul

A bipartisan committee to vet and approve questions?
===============
Like many previous such proceedings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings produced more political grandstanding than new and useful information.


After long days of tendentious attacks from Republicans, several of whom treated Jackson less as a potential justice than as a foil for GOP talking points on crime, race and education, she emerged as pretty much the nominee everyone knew she was going in: basically decent, well-qualified, liberal and bound for a mostly party-line confirmation as the first Black female justice.


The only question left: How many more hearings, for how many more would-be justices, will the Senate hold before admitting that they’re worse than useless?

The Senate should abolish live testimony from Supreme Court nominees, in favor of alternatives that further its constitutional function of advice and consent, but have less potential for demeaning, cringeworthy political theater.


This is a radical notion, likely to meet with resistance not only from the Senate but also from a public accustomed to the idea that candidates for such a consequential lifetime position should have to go through a public “job interview.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/29/no-more-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings/

 

[DaveXA]

I don’t know if I’d go so far as scrap them but they definitely need an overhaul

A bipartisan committee to vet and approve questions?
===============
Like many previous such proceedings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings produced more political grandstanding than new and useful information.


After long days of tendentious attacks from Republicans, several of whom treated Jackson less as a potential justice than as a foil for GOP talking points on crime, race and education, she emerged as pretty much the nominee everyone knew she was going in: basically decent, well-qualified, liberal and bound for a mostly party-line confirmation as the first Black female justice.


The only question left: How many more hearings, for how many more would-be justices, will the Senate hold before admitting that they’re worse than useless?

The Senate should abolish live testimony from Supreme Court nominees, in favor of alternatives that further its constitutional function of advice and consent, but have less potential for demeaning, cringeworthy political theater.


This is a radical notion, likely to meet with resistance not only from the Senate but also from a public accustomed to the idea that candidates for such a consequential lifetime position should have to go through a public “job interview.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/29/no-more-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings/

That's a tough one. On the one hand, I like the idea of public hearings. But on the other hand, it's become a political side show. I tend to think the process should remain the same. I mean, Justices are going to have to deal with questions the entire time on the Bench, and this is just a warm-up for the nominees. I can see good arguments either way.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Only way to fix the federal courts is require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to approve nominations.

 

[DaveXA]

Only way to fix the federal courts is require a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to approve nominations.

I agree, but seems to me nominees will be hard to confirm, even moreso than is currently.

I suppose nominees who appeal to a broader coalition of Senators would have to be chosen, rather than questionable ones.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Right. Ideally it would funnel true moderates for nomination. As it stands now, the federal courts are just an extension of the legislative branch with disproportionate power.

 

[MT15]

Judge Jackson is a moderate in her record. Merrick Garland is a moderate. Going back to 2/3 vote with the current state of the Republican Party means no moderates would get confirmed. The only good thing it would do is prevent activist justices like our last three. So I guess there’s that.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Judge Jackson is a moderate in her record. Merrick Garland is a moderate. Going back to 2/3 vote with the current state of the Republican Party means no moderates would get confirmed. The only good thing it would do is prevent activist justices like our last three. So I guess there’s that.

They would have to confirm nominees in a bi-partisan manner. Or just watch as literally no one replaces retiring/dying judges. Extreme partisanship would not be sustainable if a 2/3rds vote were required.

 

[MT15]

True - but given the nihilism of some parts of the current R party and the open hoping for a “reset” to an authoritarian form of government, I wouldn’t want to count on them confirming moderates.

 

[coldseat]

Right. Ideally it would funnel true moderates for nomination. As it stands now, the federal courts are just an extension of the legislative branch with disproportionate power.

I don't really agree that the point of the SC nominating process should be to only appoint "true moderates".

 

[Taurus]

They would have to confirm nominees in a bi-partisan manner. Or just watch as literally no one replaces retiring/dying judges. Extreme partisanship would not be sustainable if a 2/3rds vote were required.

Republicans would be just fine with that. The destruction of government has been their goal for decades.

 

[MT15]

“At the start of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court hearings last week, Republicans made a solemn promise: They would not treat her as badly as Democrats had treated Brett M. Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings — a set of circumstances Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) called “one of the lowest moments in the history of this [Senate Judiciary] committee.”

The reviews are in. And not only do Americans support Jackson’s confirmation significantly more than they supported other recent nominees — they also view Republicans’ handling of it about as poorly as they view Democrats’ handling of Kavanaugh, if not worse.

A Quinnipiac University poll this week was the latest to show relatively strong support for Jackson’s confirmation: 51 percent supported it, while 30 percent opposed it. Support for her is higher than it was for the confirmations of Trump’s last two nominees, including Kavanaugh, whose confirmation Americans opposed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/01/americans-disapprove-gop-jackson/

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't really agree that the point of the SC nominating process should be to only appoint "true moderates".

I'm not sure you can really divine an intent or point to it. The Constitution merely calls for advice and consent of the Senate. Perhaps I am just imputing my ideal that the judiciary should at least strive to be independent. Yes, you will be hard pressed to find people without political beliefs, but there are no shortage of qualified attorneys/judges out there who would uphold the Constitution in a fairly neutral manner. They are just harder to ferret out because they typically do not seek accolades or political patronage.

 

[wardorican]

Tucker has the uncanny ability to make it so no matter how little you think of him, he makes you think even less
=============================


Fox News host Tucker Carlson wants to know: If Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson really represents Black women, then why doesn’t she think like a street rapper?

After the Senate finished its first day of questioning in Jackson’s confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Carlson complained on his show that the nominee’s views “really seem like those of every affluent white liberal I’ve ever met.”

“If you want a Black candidate – I’m serious, I think the country would get better representation from…,” the Fox News host trailed off before saying, “She’s just a carbon copy of everyone in the neighborhood I spent my life in,” referring to La Jolla in San Diego.

Then Carlson threw in an extra helping of racism when his guest, right-wing commentator Clay Travis, claimed that Democrats were angling for “cosmetic diversity” with Jackson’s nomination.

“If you picked a rap star off the street, that person’s views would more likely be closer to the views of the average American than the views of this woman, I would argue,” Carlson said.............

MSN

www.msn.com

What an idiot.

First off. I don't want any judge to be like anyone off the street. They're meant to be a whole lot better.

 

[wardorican]

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.

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.

 

[wardorican]

They would have to confirm nominees in a bi-partisan manner. Or just watch as literally no one replaces retiring/dying judges. Extreme partisanship would not be sustainable if a 2/3rds vote were required.

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

 

[MT15]

What an idiot.

First off. I don't want any judge to be like anyone off the street. They're meant to be a whole lot better.

It’s a totally racist argument. Like no whistle - it’s a locomotive wailing in the night.