Ketanji Brown Jackson nominated to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court
Comments
-
A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.HughFreakingDillon said: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.
Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,www.myspace.com0 -
I think it’s also true. And the they will justify why they should or shouldn’t vote to confirm. But this is probably the new norm.HughFreakingDillon said: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.0 -
Plus--if a President's party does not control the senate, he or she, will be forced to put up a more moderate justice because they will need bipartisan support regardless.
So we'll never see 70-90 votes to confirm anymore, but we will have to see some bipartisan support depending on the situation.
www.myspace.com0 -
I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot!The Juggler said:A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.
Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
It has always been like this. Of course it has been made a thousand times worse by what the Republicans did in 2016, however.HughFreakingDillon said:I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot!Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lolThe Juggler said:It has always been like this.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
the supreme claus of canadaBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
How does it not make sense? If you are a Republican and your party controls the senate....why would you not nominate anyone other than someone, who you think, supports your views on the constitution? Same thing the other way around. It makes total sense.HughFreakingDillon said:doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lol
And if your party does not control the senate, then you are forced to nominate someone more moderate because you will need votes from the other side of the aisle to confirm.
This is the way things are supposed to work and have right up until Mitch McConnell did not even grant Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016....essentially hijacking the Supreme Court and further dividing our country.Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
-
I mean it doesn't make sense in principle. justice isn't supposed to be political or partisan. interpreting the law shouldn't come down to your own personally held beliefs, but we all know that, in my cases, that's exactly how it's done. of course, all humans are fallible, but at that height, objectivity is paramount. the fact that it's expected that SCJ's would or should rule with "their team" is absurd to anyone else in the world.The Juggler said:How does it not make sense? If you are a Republican and your party controls the senate....why would you not nominate anyone other than someone, who you think, supports your views on the constitution? Same thing the other way around. It makes total sense.
And if your party does not control the senate, then you are forced to nominate someone more moderate because you will need votes from the other side of the aisle to confirm.
This is the way things are supposed to work and have right up until Mitch McConnell did not even grant Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016....essentially hijacking the Supreme Court and further dividing our country.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
It should come down to your own interpretation of the constitution and people interpret laws differently. So, in that respect, if you are someone who thinks Roe V Wade is settled law and you don't think the government should be getting involved in such a personal choice, I'd think you'd want to nominate someone who shares those beliefs.HughFreakingDillon said:I mean it doesn't make sense in principle. justice isn't supposed to be political or partisan. interpreting the law shouldn't come down to your own personally held beliefs, but we all know that, in my cases, that's exactly how it's done. of course, all humans are fallible, but at that height, objectivity is paramount. the fact that it's expected that SCJ's would or should rule with "their team" is absurd to anyone else in the world.
I don't have any problems with allowing a President to nominate whoever he/she feels comfortable nominating. I do think these justices should have term limits and it's probably worth looking at expanding the amount of them as well.
I also feel disgusted thinking about how Mcconnel hijacked a seat for a bullshit reason and that there's nothing the other side can do about it. How the Democrats did not use that as a rallying cry in 2016 is political malpractice.Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
Yes, but interpretation of law shouldn't involve your own personally held beliefs.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
Yeah so asking someone to define female is a stupid and pointless question. lol. We agree.HughFreakingDillon said:Yes, but interpretation of law shouldn't involve your own personally held beliefs.www.myspace.com0 -
100%The Juggler said:Yeah so asking someone to define female is a stupid and pointless question. lol. We agree.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Surprise, surprise, Lindsey Flimsy Flip Flop Faloozy never fails to entertain.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/lindsey-graham-ketanji-brown-jackson/index.html
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
no suprise by the committee vote....Ketanji Brown Jackson Joe Biden Stephen Breyer U.S. Supreme Court Race and ethnicity Susan Collins Congress JudiciarySenate panel deadlocks on Jackson; confirmation on trackBy MARY CLARE JALONICK and KEVIN FREKING13 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked, 11-11, Monday on whether to send Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor. But President Joe Biden’s nominee was still on track to be confirmed this week as the first Black woman on the high court.
The committee’s tie vote was expected. There is an even party split on the panel, and all of the Republicans are opposing Jackson's nomination to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. But it was still a blow to Democrats who had hoped for robust bipartisan support. It was the first time the committee has deadlocked on a Supreme Court nomination in three decades.
In order to move forward, Democrats planned a vote to “discharge” Jackson’s nomination from committee Monday evening and then a series of procedural steps in coming days to wind it through the 50-50 Senate. With the support of at least one Republican, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Jackson is on a glidepath toward confirmation by the end of the week.
“Judge Jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the Supreme Court,” Biden tweeted Monday. “She deserves to be confirmed as the next justice.”
After more than 30 hours of hearings and interrogation from Republicans over her record, Jackson is on the brink of making history as the third Black justice and only the sixth woman in the court’s more than 200-year history. Democrats cite her deep experience in her nine years on the federal bench and the chance for her to become the first former public defender on the court.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at Monday’s meeting that Jackson has “the highest level of skill, integrity, civility and grace.”
“This committee’s action today in nothing less than making history,” Durbin said. “I’m honored to be a part of it. I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson’s nomination.”
The committee’s top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he was opposing Jackson’s nomination because “she and I have fundamental, different views on the role of judges and the role that they should play in our system of government.”
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins says she'll vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, giving Democrats at least one GOP vote and all but assuring Jackson will become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. (March 30)The committee hadn’t deadlocked since 1991, when Biden was chairman and a motion to send the nomination of current Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with a “favorable” recommendation failed on a 7-7 vote. The committee then voted to send the nomination to the floor without a recommendation, meaning it could still be brought up for a vote.
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the committee, said last week that a panel tie vote on Jackson would be “a truly unfortunate signal of the continued descent into dysfunction of our confirmation process,”
So far, Democrats know they will have at least one GOP vote in the full Senate — Collins, who announced last week that she would support the nominee. Collins said that though they may not always agree, Jackson “possesses the experience, qualifications and integrity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.”
It’s unclear whether any other Republicans will join her. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky set the tone for the party last week when he said he “cannot and will not” support Jackson, citing GOP concerns raised in the hearing about her sentencing record and her backing from liberal advocacy groups.
Republicans on the Judiciary panel continued their push Monday to paint Jackson as soft on crime, defending their repeated questions about her sentencing on sex crimes.
“Questions are not attacks,” said Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, one of several GOP senators on the panel who hammered the point in the hearings two weeks ago.
Jackson pushed back on the GOP narrative, declaring that “nothing could be further from the truth.” Democrats said she was in line with other judges in her decisions. And on Monday they criticized their GOP counterparts' questioning.
“You could try and create a straw man here, but it does not hold,” said New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.
The questioning was filled with “absurdities of disrespect,” said Booker, who also is Black, and he said he will “rejoice” when she is confirmed.
Derrick Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, expressed disappointment with the tie, even as he noted that Jackson had cleared an important hurdle. He said “history will be watching" during the full Senate vote later this week.
“It’s a stain on the committee that this vote was not unanimous but instead was a tied vote along party lines," Johnson said.
Collins and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were the only three to vote for Jackson when the Senate confirmed her as an appeals court judge last year. Graham said Thursday he won’t support her this time around; Murkowski said she was still deciding.
continues.....
_____________________________________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 '140 -
Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!www.myspace.com0
-
Goddamn Gooffing Google!!! Has the vote happened yet? Has she been confirmed?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
also the fact that barrett had never tried a case...The Juggler said: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."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
_____________________________________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 '140
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help