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

123457»

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    tbergs said:
    i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...
    Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused.  Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…
    No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now. 
    The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.


    Roy Moore anyone?
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJNBPJNB Posts: 11,331
    tbergs said:
    i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...
    Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused.  Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…
    No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now. 
    The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.


    Bingo
    PJ
    2013 Worcester 1 & 2
    2016 Quebec, Toronto 2, Fenway 1&2, Wrigley 2
    2018 Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Seattle 2, Wrigley 2, Fenway 1&2 
    2021 Encore 1&2
    2022 Fresno, Sacramento, Vegas, Vienna, Prague, Amsterdam 1, Amsterdam 2, Quebec City, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, New York City

    EV
    2017 Firenze, Taormina 1 & 2
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,024
    PJNB said:
    tbergs said:
    i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...
    Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused.  Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…
    No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now. 
    The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.


    Bingo
    Yup. Hugh's right about Roy Moore, too. They just completely look the other way at countless actual examples from members of their own party of the very things they twist themselves into knots to get outraged over. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,124
    tbergs said:
    i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...
    Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused.  Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…
    No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now. 
    The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.


    the republican way!
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,822
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    static is being sarcastic brian
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    static is being sarcastic brian

    Oops, sorry static!
    Hugh always gets my sarcasm.  NP Bri hope all is as good as it can be.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,966
    tbergs said:
    i am sure if she had given the maximum in all cases some people would be upset for her heavy handed sentences...
    Not anyone who has skin in the game who was abused or has a loved one who was abused.  Anyone upset by a maximum sentence for a child abuser really needs to re-evaluate everything about one’s self…
    No one defends child abuse, but you'd think that was what was going on. Generalizations make it easy to say things like this. Also, apparently once they turn 18 it's okay to be abusive and assault them, right? I mean, these same people concerned about the next justice on the bench voted for and supported Trump, but conveniently they have an issue now. 
    The people who are grasping at anything minutely negative about KBJ are the same people who don't care about tfg "grabbing them by the pu$$y" or matt gaetz trafficking a 17 yr old, or gym jordan ignoring sexual assaults, or any of the QtRUmplican politicians who regularly break laws.


    Roy Moore anyone?


    How about Dennis Freaking Hastert?  Hey JB and Linda, big favor, is there a way to get the headline fonts any bigger? And expecting this to be addressed by you both, with a specific comparison to Judge Jackson, who we are assuming is not a pedophile ? Why is it ok for Republican voters to repeatedly support a party who protects child abusers? 

    Your party has REPEATEDLY protected sex offenders, let alone a judge who may or may not have handed down slighted less tough sentencing?




    Republicans rush to defend Dennis Hastert, plead court for leniency in alleged pedophile hush money case


    On Wednesday, former Republican U.S. House speaker Dennis Hastert will be sentenced for his part in an elaborate hush money scheme to cover up his years long molestation of teenage boys while he was a Illinois high school wrestling coach from 1965 until 1981. But if his fellow Republicans have their way -- he won't see a minute of prison time.

    According to federal prosecutors, Hastert “made payments to a man who was sexually abused at age 14 by Hastert when he was the boy’s wrestling coach. Prosecutors said the abuse also involved ‘other minors,’ and included touching their genitals or engaging in oral sex.” Court filings in Hastert's case highlighted “private one-on-one encounters in an empty locker room and a motel room with minors that violated the special trust between those young boys and their coach.”

    The Republican firebrand is charged with lying to FBI investigators about a tax-evading scheme to pay $3.5 million to keep at least one former student quiet about the abuse before falsely accusing the man of trying to extort him. Hastert pleaded guilty to illegally structuring $900,000 used as hush money to the one individual, a violation of banking laws. Prosecutors are now seeking the harshest possible penalty, asking that the 74-year-old Hastert be sentenced to six months in prison while his attorneys are asking for probation. A former wrestler who said Hastert abused him decades ago is expected to speak at Hastert's sentencing hearing on Wednesday.



    .

  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,024
    Oh my goodness...Dennis Hastert. The OG of Republican pedophiles. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,927
    static111 said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    static is being sarcastic brian
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    static111 said:
    benjs said:
    JB16057 said:

    I take issues with any judge that doesn't give the full sentencing to any child porn offender. I'm not going to call everyone a pro pedophile but that doesn't mean her record shouldn't be looked at. She's had 14 child porn cases in front of her. The 8 listed above were ones that she went lighter on. Going light on 8 of 14 doesn't have the best optics. Say what you want but then ask victims of these crimes how they feel.
    What did other Judges in the same position give for the same or similar crimes with similar sentencing recommendations? If we're talking about who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a comparison to recommendations without a comparison to peers and how they acted, we're missing an 'apple to apple' comparison.

    Next point - it's been explained numerous times that the sentencing guidelines (on which presumably sentencing recommendations are generated) are dated and flawed, particularly with pornographic content in the era of the internet. This adds more credence to needing to see what Jackson's peers have done on similar cases.

    Next - on giving the full sentencing, think about the impact on the USA's notoriously overcrowded prisons. 

    Finally, the comment about giving full sentencing to any category is a great reason for you not to be a judge, who by definition are meant to be reasonable and nuanced. To me, a fixed sentencing policy from a Judge to me, would be outrageous, unreasonable, and lacking the nuance the job requires.
    ...so you're soft on crime?

    Are you having trouble reading?

    static is being sarcastic brian

    Oops, sorry static!
    Hugh always gets my sarcasm.  NP Bri hope all is as good as it can be.

    All's good, thanks kindly for forgiving my misunderstanding!
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,832
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    good. now expand it, and add at least two indigenous judges. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,124
    Renfield said:
    history made.

    imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.

    my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,024
    Great news
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,359
    Renfield said:
    history made.

    imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.

    my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia.
    Probably depends on the timing (i.e., how long before the election) and the breakdown of the Senate. If they get a majority, can't Moscow Mitch just not allow it to happen? Isn't that what he did with Garland?
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,822
    OnWis97 said:
    Renfield said:
    history made.

    imagine how difficult the next one will be. especially if biden gets to appoint someone to replace a conservative.

    my bet is the gop will not allow it, like they did with scalia.
    Probably depends on the timing (i.e., how long before the election) and the breakdown of the Senate. If they get a majority, can't Moscow Mitch just not allow it to happen? Isn't that what he did with Garland?
    I was always confused why Obama didn't just install Garland anyway and say you didn't advise or consent me and the opportunity was there and take that case to the supreme court?
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,124
    mitch said it was too close to the election and he wanted the american people to decide on whether the nominee gets a hearing and a vote.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,927
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • RenfieldRenfield NYC NYPosts: 1,041
    brianlux said:
    Isn’t it!?! And before the next discussions of expansion, indigenous justices and the difficulty of the next one. I’m just going to revel in this moment...

    It’s been awhile - I hope you and the family are well.
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,359
    mitch said it was too close to the election and he wanted the american people to decide on whether the nominee gets a hearing and a vote.
    Yeah....and with far less time before the 2020 election, he made sure to get Kavanagh through. He makes it up as he goes. If the GOP had a majority in the Senate, that seat would probably* have stayed open for the next three years.

    *I suppose there's a chance he would not have done that if he thought it could jeopardize any GQP Senate seats this fall. But if they get the majority this fall, you can 100% bank on this: regardless of how many SCOTUS justices die or retire, those seats will stay empty until at least 2025.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 25,700
    good. now expand it, and add at least two indigenous judges. 
    ^^^
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,117
    letter. from an american by hcr

    April 7, 2022 (Thursday)

    Today, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to become Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    The Senate confirmed President Joe Biden’s nominee by a vote of 53 to 47, with three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in favor of confirmation. The three Republicans voting yes were Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Mitt Romney (R-UT).

    Jackson’s elevation will not change the legal philosophy of the court. She will replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who was one of the three justices still on the court who do not adhere to the concept of “originalism,” which argues that the court must largely defer to state power rather than use the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect civil rights within the states. Six of the current nine justices, including the three appointed by former president Donald Trump, favor originalism.

    It is likely that Justice Jackson will largely write dissents as her colleagues dismantle the legal frameworks that have shaped modern America. The ones currently on the table are the rights to abortion, marriage across racial lines, birth control, and gay marriage, but it is not only civil rights that are at risk. So are business regulation and protections for workers and consumers, and a decision last night suggests that the current Supreme Court will not defer to states when right-wing principles are at stake.

    By a 5 to 4 decision, the court last night limited the power of states to stop big development projects that state officials worry will hurt the state’s environment. It did so under the so-called “shadow docket,” a system, rarely used in the past but now a key part of the court’s decision-making process, in which the court hands down decisions on an emergency basis without briefings or written decisions, so we have no idea on what grounds they are making their ruling. The American Petroleum Institute, the Interstate National Gas Association of America, and the National Hydropower Association all applauded the decision.

    Jackson brings to the court a stellar record as well as experience as a public defender. She is the first justice with this experience since Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice, who left the court in 1991. Public defenders are a central part of our legal system, for if indeed everyone is equal before the law, it is crucial for everyone to have legal representation before the court. The Supreme Court itself recognized this principle in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), although two current justices have suggested they would overturn it if given the opportunity.

    Jackson’s diverse experience is vital to a Supreme Court that is a historical outlier in its uniformity of professional backgrounds. While she brings experience as a public defender to the court, there is no one on the court who has ever served in elective office. Historically, presidents have always sought to have at least a few justices who understand politics because they have been part of the political system and thus understand that what they are doing in their chamber is very real life to those of us on the outside. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice, was the last justice on the court who had held elected office; she had served in the Arizona state senate. She left the court in 2006.

    Justice Jackson, though, brings something brand new and vital to the U.S. Supreme Court. As Justice Marshall broke the Supreme Court’s color barrier, and Justice O’Connor broke the Supreme Court’s gender barrier, she is breaking her own barrier: She is the Supreme Court’s first Black female justice.

    Justice Jackson’s perspective on the law and its effect on those of us who live here is crucially important. Also important, though, is that her elevation to the highest court in the land demonstrates the principle, however poorly we might honor it on occasion, that we are all equal before the law.

    Today, Vice President Kamala Harris, the nation’s first Black vice president, presided over the Senate chamber for the momentous vote. Farnoush Amiri and Lisa Mascaro of the Associated Press described what came next. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus had come to witness history; Black female lawmakers sat together along the back walls. The visitor galleries filled with young people, including Black women and men. Most of the senators were at their desks, although two Republican senators—Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma—stayed in the cloakroom because they were not wearing ties, as Senate rules require.

    Harris instructed the clerk to call the roll.

    Voting moved quickly until it became clear that everyone had voted except Rand Paul (R-KY). As the Senate waited for him to show up, Harris gave Senators Rafael Warnock (D-GA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) each a piece of vice-presidential stationery and asked the only two Black Democrats in the Senate to write a letter to a young Black woman to remember this day in history.
     
    Then Paul cast his no vote from the cloakroom and the voting was over.

    Jackson had won confirmation to the Supreme Court. When the final tally was announced, the Democrats broke out into applause and cheers. Murkowski joined them, while Romney applauded from across the aisle. Many Republicans had already left the chamber, but those remaining walked out during the applause. Romney remained alone on the Republican side, clapping.

    The moment recalled another time of jubilation and hope, when lawmakers used their votes to declare all Americans equal before the law by passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. They ended the system of legal enslavement in the United States, a system that had divided Americans into different castes and given some people the power to rule the rest.

    The New York Times recorded the scene when the measure passed in January 1865: “Thereupon rose a general shout of applause. The members on the floor huzzaed in chorus with deafening and equally emphatic cheers of the throng in the galleries. The ladies in the dense assemblage waved their handkerchiefs, and again and again the applause was repeated, intermingled with clapping of hands and exclamations of ‘Hurrah for freedom,’ ‘Glory enough for one day,’ &c. The audience were wildly excited, and the friends of the measure were jubilant. Never was a scene of such a joyous character before witnessed in the House of Representatives….”

    Representative George W. Julian (R-IN) later remembered what it had been like to participate in that momentous day in 1865: “It seemed to me I had been born into a new life, and that the world was overflowing with beauty and joy, while I was inexpressibly thankful for the privilege of recording my name on so glorious a page of the nation’s history.”

    After Jackson’s confirmation, Vice President Harris said: “I’m overjoyed, deeply moved…. There’s so much about what’s happening in the world now that is presenting some of the worst of this moment and human behaviors. And then we have a moment like this.”

    Judge Jackson will be sworn in to her new role after Justice Breyer resigns in June. Until then, she will continue in her present position as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,966
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,117
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.

    how many americans can think constitutionally? and not selfishly as it relates to the constitution?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,640
    mickeyrat said:
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.

    how many americans can think constitutionally? and not selfishly as it relates to the constitution?
    How many ‘Muricans can think? Critically? Few and far between. Hell, 1 in 5 is illiterate.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,927
    Renfield said:
    brianlux said:
    Isn’t it!?! And before the next discussions of expansion, indigenous justices and the difficulty of the next one. I’m just going to revel in this moment...

    It’s been awhile - I hope you and the family are well.

    Truly!
    And yes, and indigenous Justice on the Supreme Court would be justice supreme!
    And thanks, Renfield, all is well here.  I hope the same for you and yours!
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,966
    mickeyrat said:
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.

    how many americans can think constitutionally? and not selfishly as it relates to the constitution?
    How many ‘Muricans can think? Critically? Few and far between. Hell, 1 in 5 is illiterate.


    Wasn’t referring directly to the constitution, just what the court is about to do and how that’s viewed as extreme to the majority of Americans 

    “ Based on oral arguments held last year, the court's conservatives seem poised, in a case from Mississippi, to undermine or even overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and, in a case from New York, expand the right to carry firearms in public.”

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/aggressively-conservative-supreme-court-plunges-into-us-culture-wars-2022-01-25/
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,117
    edited April 9
    mickeyrat said:
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.

    how many americans can think constitutionally? and not selfishly as it relates to the constitution?
    How many ‘Muricans can think? Critically? Few and far between. Hell, 1 in 5 is illiterate.


    Wasn’t referring directly to the constitution, just what the court is about to do and how that’s viewed as extreme to the majority of Americans 

    “ Based on oral arguments held last year, the court's conservatives seem poised, in a case from Mississippi, to undermine or even overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and, in a case from New York, expand the right to carry firearms in public.”

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/aggressively-conservative-supreme-court-plunges-into-us-culture-wars-2022-01-25/

    if roe is overturned that means the court should revisit the bullshit opinion which said corporations are people too. because its not explicitly stated in the constitution.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,966
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Biden: “And that’s one of the reasons I believed so strongly that we needed a Court that looks like America.”

    ok, great. How about one that thinks like America?  Need those voters to support your ideas, Joseph. Especially those within a few hundred miles of St. Louis and Atlanta.

    how many americans can think constitutionally? and not selfishly as it relates to the constitution?
    How many ‘Muricans can think? Critically? Few and far between. Hell, 1 in 5 is illiterate.


    Wasn’t referring directly to the constitution, just what the court is about to do and how that’s viewed as extreme to the majority of Americans 

    “ Based on oral arguments held last year, the court's conservatives seem poised, in a case from Mississippi, to undermine or even overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and, in a case from New York, expand the right to carry firearms in public.”

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/aggressively-conservative-supreme-court-plunges-into-us-culture-wars-2022-01-25/

    if roe is overturned that means the court should revisit the bullshit opinion which said corporations are people too. because its not explicitly stated in the constitution.....

    This court would only confirm citizens untitled.

    The immediate concern is they are two months away from allowing anyone walking the streets to carry firearms. Can’t wait for those Trump Parades in June. 
Sign In or Register to comment.