Ketanji Brown Jackson nominated to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court

gimmesometruth27

static111 said:

6-3 majority...so you are telling me the supreme court justices aren't actually impartial? /s

no. i am not telling you that.

but i own a bridge that i can sell you for cheap.

gimmesometruth27

speaking of the supreme court, what do you all think about thomas and his wife?

in a normal, normal time, a supreme court justice might be called upon to resign in a situation like this. a chief justice could maybe lean on someone to resign.

but we are not in normal times. and thomas will probably stay on and continue to erode the credibility of the highest court in the land.

JB16057

gimmesometruth27 said:

speaking of the supreme court, what do you all think about thomas and his wife?

in a normal, normal time, a supreme court justice might be called upon to resign in a situation like this. a chief justice could maybe lean on someone to resign.

but we are not in normal times. and thomas will probably stay on and continue to erode the credibility of the highest court in the land.

She should know better but obviously didn't. At the same time, she is not him and it isn't fair to punish Thomas for his wife's actions.

gimmesometruth27

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

speaking of the supreme court, what do you all think about thomas and his wife?

in a normal, normal time, a supreme court justice might be called upon to resign in a situation like this. a chief justice could maybe lean on someone to resign.

but we are not in normal times. and thomas will probably stay on and continue to erode the credibility of the highest court in the land.

She should know better but obviously didn't. At the same time, she is not him and it isn't fair to punish Thomas for his wife's actions.

but he ruled in favor of things that she was affiliated with.

he is the only dissent in the 8-0 decision to release trump related records to the jan 6 commission. he dissented to protect her. is that not a huge conflict of interest? 

and if he is willing to vote that way, what is keeping him from doing the same in other cases?

gimmesometruth27

if it was sotomayor the gop would be screaming bloody murder to resign right now.

JB16057

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

speaking of the supreme court, what do you all think about thomas and his wife?

in a normal, normal time, a supreme court justice might be called upon to resign in a situation like this. a chief justice could maybe lean on someone to resign.

but we are not in normal times. and thomas will probably stay on and continue to erode the credibility of the highest court in the land.

She should know better but obviously didn't. At the same time, she is not him and it isn't fair to punish Thomas for his wife's actions.

but he ruled in favor of things that she was affiliated with.

he is the only dissent in the 8-0 decision to release trump related records to the jan 6 commission. he dissented to protect her. is that not a huge conflict of interest? 

and if he is willing to vote that way, what is keeping him from doing the same in other cases?

The GOP screams bloody murder over anything and everything.

I understand the concern but I trust that the judge doesn't listen to his wife on how he should rule his cases. If there is solid proof that he did do this, kick him to the curb and replace him with a democrat. I just think it would be hard to prove.

The Juggler

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

speaking of the supreme court, what do you all think about thomas and his wife?

in a normal, normal time, a supreme court justice might be called upon to resign in a situation like this. a chief justice could maybe lean on someone to resign.

but we are not in normal times. and thomas will probably stay on and continue to erode the credibility of the highest court in the land.

She should know better but obviously didn't. At the same time, she is not him and it isn't fair to punish Thomas for his wife's actions.

but he ruled in favor of things that she was affiliated with.

he is the only dissent in the 8-0 decision to release trump related records to the jan 6 commission. he dissented to protect her. is that not a huge conflict of interest? 

and if he is willing to vote that way, what is keeping him from doing the same in other cases?

The GOP screams bloody murder over anything and everything.

I understand the concern but I trust that the judge doesn't listen to his wife on how he should rule his cases. If there is solid proof that he did do this, kick him to the curb and replace him with a democrat. I just think it would be hard to prove.

Him being the only one to dissent on that records case tells you all you need to know....well, if you really care to know, that is. 

The Juggler

gimmesometruth27 said:

if it was sotomayor the gop would be screaming bloody murder to resign right now.

Yeah. He honestly should resign. They should look into impeaching if he doesn't. It is a shame they don't really have ways of being held accountable. His wife was literally planning to overthrow the incoming government with the current administration and then he is magically the only justice who dissents? Gee, you don't think he had any inclination that his wife's text messages were in those docs? 

Shockingly, Fox News mentioned this zero times yesterday, while blabbing about the president's son's laptop countless times. 

Gern Blansten

gimmesometruth27 said:

if it was sotomayor the gop would be screaming bloody murder to resign right now.

oh fuck yes they would

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if it was sotomayor the gop would be screaming bloody murder to resign right now.

oh fuck yes they would

“They’d burn it to the ground and salt the earth.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CbiPaceOapw/?utm_medium=copy_link

brianlux

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

josevolution

I’ve been married for 30 years I’m pretty sure I’d know if my wife was planning on helping and coordinating ways to overthrow a president! There’s zero chance Thomas didn’t know about his wife’s dealings! 

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of the Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of the Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

Senate rules can complicate timing enough to impair the Google machine

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of the Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

Senate rules can complicate timing enough to impair the Google machine

I read somewhere that if we all asked Google the same question, most of us would get different suggestions for which link to hit.  I think my Google matrix was set up by some cruel programmer who said, "I think I'll fuck with this guy's head and set his up so his Google so that searches make little sense."

No wonder I lean toward being a bit Luddite!

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of thge Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

this ap article doesnt give a date as such. just says mid april. so watch for schumers statements on when it comes to the floor.

https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-judiciary-race-and-ethnicity-0a073c5bf366bdc2e101becdae602bc3

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of thge Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

this ap article doesnt give a date as such. just says mid april. so watch for schumers statements on when it comes to the floor.

https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-judiciary-race-and-ethnicity-0a073c5bf366bdc2e101becdae602bc3

I thought they vote out of committee on Monday and Chuck will schedule a floor vote ASAP, by the follow Monday 

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

I don't know what if more f'd up, my connection to Google or my old brain, but either way, I cannot seem to find the answer to this simple question:  When does the voting to confirm or reject Judge Jackson? 

Thanks and no need to remind me that I am this:

think I read April 4th? week from monday.

Thanks M.  Strange that my Googling can't come up with a date. 

If you are right, that leaves a week for the few of thge Senators on the fence to go either way.  Sure hope she gets in.

this ap article doesnt give a date as such. just says mid april. so watch for schumers statements on when it comes to the floor.

https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-judiciary-race-and-ethnicity-0a073c5bf366bdc2e101becdae602bc3

Will do, thanks!

Hobbes

Collins will vote to confirm.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1509149792185856006?s=20&t=iljKLiPkTU0DQirdpXuF1w

Lerxst1992

Good news

mickeyrat

Hobbes said:

Collins will vote to confirm.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1509149792185856006?s=20&t=iljKLiPkTU0DQirdpXuF1w

sudpect Murkowski will follow suit. potrntially Sasse given his commentary on the fuckwit senators on that panel from his party. unless romney has said no already, could see him as well.

The Juggler

Yeah I never had a doubt she'd get confirmed. Hopefully a few others, at least, follow suit. 

HughFreakingDillon

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

No this is different than that. Barrett was a staunch conservative replacing a staunch liberal and her confirmation was rushed through in a matter of weeks before Trump lost the election.

This is a liberal replacing another liberal 3 years outside of the next presidential election. These are the types of confirmations that typically garner more bipartisan support. 

Ledbetterman10

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

No this is different than that. Barrett was a staunch conservative replacing a staunch liberal and her confirmation was rushed through in a matter of weeks before Trump lost the election.

This is a liberal replacing another liberal 3 years outside of the next presidential election. These are the types of confirmations that typically garner more bipartisan support. 

I think those days are over and every Supreme Court nominee vote from here on out is going to (mostly) go down party lines. 

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

No this is different than that. Barrett was a staunch conservative replacing a staunch liberal and her confirmation was rushed through in a matter of weeks before Trump lost the election.

This is a liberal replacing another liberal 3 years outside of the next presidential election. These are the types of confirmations that typically garner more bipartisan support. 

I think those days are over and every Supreme Court nominee vote from here on out is going to (mostly) go down party lines. 

Well there are going to be some Republicans voting to confirm this time for the reasons I laid out. You can more understand them doing that under these circumstances than Democrats doing that in the Comey Barret example. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 

Lerxst1992

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 

No this is different than that. Barrett was a staunch conservative replacing a staunch liberal and her confirmation was rushed through in a matter of weeks before Trump lost the election.

This is a liberal replacing another liberal 3 years outside of the next presidential election. These are the types of confirmations that typically garner more bipartisan support. 

I think those days are over and every Supreme Court nominee vote from here on out is going to (mostly) go down party lines. 

LB10 I believe you are not accounting for the importance of belt buckles re ACB