Patterico's Pontifications

4/7/2022

Historic Moment: Senate Confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson To Supreme Court

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:51 pm



[guest post by Dana]

NOTE: The comments section is still not fully functional. You can post comments but they will not show up as new ones in the toolbar to the right. However, the actual number of comments in parentheses below the post will increase with each comment when you refresh your screen, so use that as a guide for new comments posted. You will also be asked to enter your name/email addy every time you comment. Thank you for your patience as the glitches continue to be worked on.

Just now:

The Senate has voted 53 to 47 to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the 116th Supreme Court justice. When sworn in this summer, Jackson will be the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s high court.

All 50 Senate Democrats, including the two independents who caucus with them, voted for Jackson’s confirmation. They were joined by three Republicans: Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Harkening back to another era, Mitt Romney summed up his support for Brown Jackson by stating that he believes she is “a well qualified jurist”:

Congratulations to Ms. Brown Jackson.

–Dana

100 Responses to “Historic Moment: Senate Confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson To Supreme Court”

  1. It should be noted that Ms. Brown Jackson’s addition to the Court does not change its conservative-leaning majority.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. “Service to our nation” — what an outmoded concept. Service to our CAUSE is important now, the nation be damned! And our cause is to follow the Oracle of Mar-a-Lago!

    Or so it seems.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  3. Disgraceful display by Romney. Hopefully he and Murkowski are gone sooner than later.

    NJRob (0b89c2)

  4. And the Karma wheel spins a little faster. Some day it will fly apart unless this relentless hyper-partisanship can be put to rest.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  5. Murkowski is utterly invulnerable. Palin tried to get rid of her in primary, and her picked candidate won the primary but lost the general election to a Murkowski write-in campaign.

    So many people are too young to understand why this kind of moronic party-before-country crap is going to destroy us. Just because the Democrats are equally moronic doesn’t mean that everyone has to be. I guess some day you’ll know better, when you’re older and wiser.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  6. Better ‘historic moment’: Tiger Woods tees off at the 2022 Masters 14 months after near fatal car accident.

    Truly inspiring: ‘Follow The Sun.’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhR0IHGjt14

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  7. Kevin,

    Murkowski is good as gone. The electorate has changed thanks to the communist left taking over the Democrat party.

    NJRob (eb3655)

  8. How liberal would a nominee need to be for Romney to vote no?

    mikeybates (c22064)

  9. @2 the oracle and his deplorables got us gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett and a 6-3 conservative common sense majority

    super smart biden voters got us someone who needs a biologist to figure out which restroom to use

    JF (e1156d)

  10. How soon we forget. Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement, wrote the majority opinion in the “what is sex?” case.

    nk (1d9030)

  11. How soon we forget. Gorsuch, Scalia’s replacement to boot, wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.

    nk (1d9030)

  12. Ugh. Cooties!! Wicked Witch of the West smacks Joe w/t “the Kiss of Death”– Vaccinated Nancy tests positive for Covid.

    Pelosi-Biden smooch doesn’t constitute COVID-19 ‘close contact,’ Psaki maintains

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/pelosi-biden-smooch-doesnt-constitute-covid-19-close-contact-psaki-maintains?msclkid=48fd96aeb6cc11ecbaedade5bce30b83

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  13. What in he11 is next from you 81 million led by delecto?

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. Murkowski is good as gone.

    Alaska is very different. Lisa has already defeated the entire GOP once. But you may just maybe be able to elect one of those crazy Democrats, just like you did in Georgia (twice).

    Kevin M (38e250)

  15. How liberal would a nominee need to be for Romney to vote no?

    It’s not about that. It’s about advice and consent, not “getting who he wants”. DO you think you live on a planet where the Democrats will appoint a conservative?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  16. Supreme Court nominations are not supposed to be about policy. Judges are not supposed to SET policy. By making it about that, you have fallen into the Democrats’ trap.

    It’s supposed to be:

    1. Are they qualified?
    2. Are they honest?
    3. Do they respect the Law and the Constitution?

    Not “Are they of my Party?” You can point to Bork or Thomas or Kavanaugh, but just because the Democrats are assh0les does not mean we should be bigger assh0les. But it’s like people are most concerned about there being an Assh0le Gap, and being behind. So to speak.

    The Democrats are going to appoint someone who thinks like they do. Get over it. The best path would have been to question her carefully, then vote to approve unless something REAL, not this made up bullstuff, came to hand. Because next time it’s a GOP candidate there, the crap will be returned.

    I sear, if these two parties were airlines, they”d be out there sabotaging each other’s planes so that the air crash body count of the other guys would be worse.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  17. The electorate has changed thanks to the communist left taking over the Democrat party.

    You know those people who hollered “racist” so indiscriminately the word lost its meaning?

    Look in the mirror. You’re The Boy Who Cried Commie.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  18. To be fair, they admit to being “socialists”, which is what the Communists called themselves. Of “Progressives” in which “progress” is that leading to socialism. Quite accurately “fellow travelers.”

    Kevin M (38e250)

  19. Actually, for the most part, the Communists were very puritanical. Which makes sense, since the Puritans were communists.

    nk (1d9030)

  20. When you think about it, socialism has never worked because the people who need it cannot even make themselves work.

    nk (1d9030)

  21. Jackson confirmation is — probably — historic in another way. A quick search found that she is 5’11″”, so she is probably the shortest justice, ever.

    And here’s a trick question: Which justice has black children? Amy Coney Barrett, by adoption from Haiti. (Jackson’s two daughters are of mixed race, since her husband is white.)

    (Chief Justice Roberts also has two adopted children.)

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  22. Correction: 5’1″, or 61 inches, tall.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  23. Because next time it’s a GOP candidate there, the crap will be returned.

    I’ve never quite understood this line of argument. After the Bork and Thomas episodes, Republicans dutifully followed your advice when almost all of them voted for Ginsburg and Breyer. Was this deference reciprocated under Bush? Not as I recall. It was only when Republicans began to behave as the Democrats do with respect to judicial nominees (in 2016-17) that we have seen improvement in the courts.

    mikeybates (c22064)

  24. If Trump had not screwed up the Senate run-off elections in Georgia, Mitch McConnell would probably be Senate Majority Leader now, and have far more control over judicial nominations.

    (I’ve often thought that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run for president as a Republican, because he thought Trump would damage the Republican Party.)

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  25. “You’re The Boy Who Cried Commie.”

    That ship has sailed, long ago. Anyone who starts shouting “commie” I immediately tune out. If you disagree, you need to at least judge by the same standards.

    So, unless you are an anarcho-capitalist (e.g., you want no state at all, might makes right, slavery is fine, etc.), you also support socialized spending, so you’re a commie, too.

    john (cd2753)

  26. @Mikey@22 Roberts got 78 votes, so yes it was reciprocated under Bush.

    Nic (896fdf)

  27. @17. You know better, Kevin.

    First, who’s “they?” Who besides Bernie and The Squad admits to being a Socialist? (I don’t even know about The Squad, but I’ll assume they do.) Biden? Pelosi? Schumer? No, no and no. So that’s, what, one out of fifty and a handful out of 200.

    Second, the Communists calling themselves socialist doesn’t make them so unless you also think the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

    Third, even if Communists are socialist, that doesn’t make Socialists communist.

    The Democrats svck hard, and we should call them out for it. But they’re not Communists. They just aren’t. Because words have meanings. So maybe don’t undermine an important argument with farfetched hyperbole.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  28. Alaska is very different. Lisa has already defeated the entire GOP once. But you may just maybe be able to elect one of those crazy Democrats, just like you did in Georgia (twice).

    Kevin M (38e250) — 4/7/2022 @ 5:42 pm

    Well, yeah, the Murkowskis are to Alaska what the Lujans are to New Mexico. Considering Palin kicked Lisa’s daddy out of the governor’s seat, drama was inevitable.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  29. Supreme Court nominations are not supposed to be about policy. Judges are not supposed to SET policy. By making it about that, you have fallen into the Democrats’ trap.

    That ship already sailed long ago. One can debate the actual watershed, whether it was Brown vs. Board of Education, Miranda vs. Arizona, Roe vs Wade, Bush vs. Gore, NFIB vs. Sebelius, Columbia vs. Heller, whatever–but the fact of the matter is that the Court is now seen as a policy-making body, irrespective of what’s actually in the Constitution.

    Sure, Republicans shouldn’t have to act as hyper-partisan as Democrats do when judicial appointments come up. But that’s not the point. The Democrats DO act like that, and for the GOP to not reciprocate is political and cultural suicide.

    Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  30. So, unless you are an anarcho-capitalist (e.g., you want no state at all, might makes right, slavery is fine, etc.), you also support socialized spending, so you’re a commie, too.

    john (cd2753) — 4/7/2022 @ 7:04 pm

    That just takes Marx’s historic determinism at face value–that socialism is the necessary step before the inevitable triumph of communism. That philosophy is simply a rehash of Christian apocalyptism wrapped in a secular, economic package.

    Social welfare programs date back to the ancient world (Peter Lampe, “Social welfare in the Greco-Roman world as a background for Early Christian practice,” Acta Theologica, Volume 36, Supp. 23, 2016); Rousseau, Engels, and Marx were hardly the first to come up with the concept and claiming anyone who isn’t an anarcho-capitalist is a communist is just intellectually lazy, the same as Marcuse claiming that any society that wasn’t moving towards socialism was moving towards fascism.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  31. Is water wet? Bet she wouldn’t answer that either. Pegging a bureaucrat getting a lifetime gig as historic reveals just how low our standards have become as to what we catalogue as ‘historic.’ A nominee hesitant to state a simple definition of what a woman is a benchmark unto itself; a tell revealing that individual has no business on the SCOTUS. But hey, that’s common sense so why bother. This is why ‘folks’ storm the castle.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  32. @Mikey@22 Roberts got 78 votes, so yes it was reciprocated under Bush.

    Only 78? How many did Alito get? How many did Miguel Estrada get?

    mikeybates (c22064)

  33. “but just because the Democrats are assh0les does not mean we should be bigger assh0les.”

    And this is why they will win. Cowardice, cloaked in high thought.

    Matador (0284e8)

  34. @mikey@31 you said it didn’t happen under Bush, it did. All of Bush’s picks didn’t get that level of bipartisan votes, but Roberts did. It may not match what your perception has been, but that’s what happened.

    Nic (896fdf)

  35. @Mikey@22 Roberts got 78 votes, so yes it was reciprocated under Bush.

    Nah, the Dems who voted for Roberts knew what they were getting. And it pleased them.

    Matador (0284e8)

  36. They couldn’t have been more please if it was Milton the Monster himself.

    Matador (0284e8)

  37. Cowardice, cloaked in high thought.

    Matador (0284e8) — 4/7/2022 @ 9:17 pm

    You misspelled “principles.” Understandable, since you clearly don’t have any…but I still thought I’d note it.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  38. No, Demolition Man, I was quite clear. It is COWARDICE, the neoncon French, Boot kind that you lap up with vigor. Ceremony, process, the stuff of COWARDS. It’s why all the men left this blog years ago.

    Matador (0284e8)

  39. And, Demi Moore, I would add that PRINCIPLES, need not be cloaked. Only COWARDICE would seek cover.

    Matador (0284e8)

  40. It’s why all the men left this blog years ago.

    Matador (0284e8) — 4/7/2022 @ 10:05 pm

    Congratulations on this very subtle self-own.

    BTW, I am blocking you after this, consigning you to the nether realm along with DS-CSA and the rest of the alt-right dips around here. Feel free to waste pixels to your heart’s content.

    See ya never!

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  41. BLOCKING!

    Say no more, say no more. You attack me as having no principles and then BLOCK because you don’t like my reply.

    About what I would expect from a C O W A R D.

    A badge of HONOR.

    Matador (0284e8)

  42. Run, Run, Run AWAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

    Matador (0284e8)

  43. Ah, refreshing to refresh the page…and see already an empty comment from Matador.

    I mean, from what I saw, they were empty before. But now their soul stands revealed, stripped of its language.

    Wave that cape, dear Matador. This bull can’t see you no mo…

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  44. Oh, goodness! TWO empty comments. My cup runneth over!

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  45. Correction: 5’1″, or 61 inches, tall.

    At only four feet five inches tall, Justice Alfred Moore was the shortest justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court. Born into a well-known family in 1755, Moore was the son of a North Carolina colonial judge.

    https://www.oyez.org/justices/alfred_moore

    Kevin M (38e250)

  46. Cuz you’re a coward.

    Matador (0284e8)

  47. A weak and feckless coward.

    Matador (0284e8)

  48. Was this deference reciprocated under Bush?

    So, let me get this straight. Your opponents act like jerks on live TV, so you do it too? Explain how acting like a jerk advances the cause?

    Do you think that Jackson was not going to get the seat? That Biden would turn around and nominate a conservative? Or a white person, or whatever your issue is?

    Should they have found some guy to say that Jackson slept around at college, or carried Mao’s Little Red Book?

    Personally, I’m embarrassed by the full-court press on this nominee. It basically means that any nominee, no matter how qualified, is going to get this same crap, signifying nothing.

    And you call yourself a patriot. Not hardly.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  49. Four empty comments already?! Wow. Six more and my punchcard is already full.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  50. (I’ve often thought that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run for president as a Republican, because he thought Trump would damage the Republican Party.)

    I’ve been saying that since late 2015. I think that every morning Bill gets up and sometime before breakfast falls down laughing.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  51. And this is why they will win. Cowardice, cloaked in high thought.

    No, because we have more bloody minded fools who think acting out is patriotic.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  52. I feel like buying a bunch of frogs, naming them all Pepe and giving them to my cat.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  53. I have said this before and I’ll say it again. The day Trump dies, I will hold a party.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  54. So, let me get this straight. Your opponents act like jerks on live TV, so you do it too? Explain how acting like a jerk advances the cause?

    Because their acting like a jerk on TV, coupled with the support of those who show it, makes it TRUTH to the two thirds of the country that don’t have a clue.

    Good God man, if your best friend was beating the dung out of a in-act pedophile, would you testify against him because… principles?

    THIS IS WHY WE LOSE. NEVILLE, Britain is calling.

    Matador (0284e8)

  55. Nah, the Dems who voted for Roberts knew what they were getting. And it pleased them.

    How did they know if the Republicans didn’t? Gang signs? Pheromones?

    You attack me as having no principles and then BLOCK because you don’t like my reply.

    What principle is he violating by exercising his freedom of association?

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  56. Just in case you missed it in all the kefluffe over pederasts…

    Jackson rejected the concept of a “living Constitution,” dismissed the applicability of foreign law and distanced herself from retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whom she clerked for and will replace. Asked whose philosophy has been most influential on the court over the past 100 years, Jackson named Antonin Scalia and cited his “originalist approach.” As she noted in written answers to questions from senators, “The meaning of the Constitution itself is fixed and does not change or evolve.” …

    Jackson didn’t need to stake out this ground. She could have been confirmed to the high court with only Democratic support. But her comments reflect a recognition among liberals that they need to speak the language of conservatives on the court if they are to achieve more of their desired outcomes during the coming years in the legal wilderness. As Justice Elena Kagan quipped during her 2010 hearing, “We’re all originalists now.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/07/justice-jackson-power-originalism/

    It should be intere3sting to see if she meant it. To hear any of this from a Democrat nominee says that the Federalist Society is winning.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  57. I didn’t ask for his association. He/She/It/Whatever (insert your pronoun here) interjected in a reply to my repsone to another commenter’s input.

    He/She/It/whatever grandstanded. Then ran. There was a time when this board would have overwhelmingly put He/She/It/Whatever (don’t want to offend any thenthibilities), on He/She/It’s/Whatever’s ass.

    Those days are long gone. Because a Cretin tweeted mean tweets.

    Matador (0284e8)

  58. I have said this before and I’ll say it again. The day Trump dies, I will hold a party.
    Kevin M (38e250) — 4/7/2022 @ 10:50 pm””

    I’ll be glad he’s no longer the standard bearer for preserving the nation as founded, but I will not “hold a party”.

    You, on the other hand, I got Pappy.

    Matador (0284e8)

  59. What principle is he violating by exercising his freedom of association?

    lurker (cd7cd4) — 4/7/2022 @ 10:52 pm

    I appreciate it, lurker, but don’t bother. There’s no reasoning with people like Matador. He just wants to grandstand and namecall and pretend he has wit. Let him blow himself out. Better yet, follow my lead and block him.

    Frankly, I am enjoying — more than I should — the thought that he can see my comments, and I can’t see his. That must be so enraging…

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  60. I appreciate it, lurker, but don’t bother.

    Thanks, but there’s been a plot twist. If I read him correctly, unless we put you in your place like real men would have done in the Before Times, he’s going to steal our crops and mate with our women.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  61. Lurker,

    With YOUR women? Not with Demi Moore’s Johnson.

    Matador (0284e8)

  62. The “Before Times”.

    Yes. Before the pearl clutchers, before the cowards. Back when the fare was Thomas Woods and Sock Poppet Friday and LA Times shredding and something other than defending the process and troughfeeding at all costs. Back when you could acknowledge that Trump was a pig but still better than the alternative and at least get a hearing.

    But then, the pro-life toe licker got offended to the point that she would push a KNOWN supporter of babykilling over an alleged baby killer that publicly stood with the pro-life movement, even it was solely for political gain. And then the host got offended, and he pledged to vote for Biden and then “Cringe at the policy nightmare that follows”. CRINGE, MFer, CRINGE! You gotta have a zillion crows feet by now.

    Baby, it’s all right now. Baby it’s all right now…

    Matador (0284e8)

  63. Good God man, if your best friend was beating the dung out of a in-act pedophile, would you testify against him because… principles?

    Good God, man, if your enemy was an in-act pedophile, would you go find a kid of your own to bugger?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  64. I love the young’uns, who think that the system will allow the kinds of changes they demand. So they huff and they puff and they get effing nothing. Or worse than nothing. And eventually they get the cluebat enough times that they work for gradual change.

    What is really absolutely terrifying is they STILL don’t know that Trump snatched nothing but defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump was a setback, but despite his constant own-goals and self-destructive acts, the Right is still winning. No thanks to him and his.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  65. Back when you could acknowledge that Trump was a pig but still better than the alternative and at least get a hearing.

    If you’re implying anyone was ever banned just for expressing a preference for Trump, that’s a lie.

    Now expressing a preference for Trump while also spreading lies; expressing a preference for Trump while also leveling vulgar insults at the host, guest blogger or other commenters; expressing a preference for Trump while otherwise being a socially maladjusted a-hole… sure, any of those may have gotten you banned. But so would any of them without the Trump preference.

    It’s called having principled standards, something for which you’ve expressed contempt. Don’t confuse it for partisan intolerance.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  66. Solving wordle in two is nice, but spotting the troll in one is better. Don’t feed the troll.

    felipe (484255)

  67. Thank you for all your work, Dana. I appreciate it.

    felipe (484255)

  68. Thanks for returning, Matador. Couldn’t agree more, this place used to be a barrel of laughs, now its a schiff show. I dearly miss the sock-puppets Friday. The biden flock puppets are a disgrace to America.

    mg (8cbc69)

  69. Good morning, mg!

    I remember sock0puppet Fridays, and was, also, sad to see it go. Comedy, especially insult comedy, is a valuable tool in gauging the health of free-speech. When the dentist probes your gums, a painful reaction is a sign of hidden rot due to infection.

    Likewise, Smith’s reaction to a comic insult directed at his wife is an indication of a social rot due to an infection of the soul, hidden, but now uncovered. And Smith is not alone.

    Comedians can be seen as canaries in a coal mine. Mr. Rock was not the first to sign that something is amiss in the mine, just the most visible. Yakov Smirnoff once quipped:

    People are surprised that I am a Russian comedian! we have comedians in Russia – they’re all dead…

    felipe (484255)

  70. And a wonderful morning to you, felipe.

    Delecto republicans play by the traditional rule book that Democrats used as toilet paper years ago.

    mg (8cbc69)

  71. “and for the GOP to not reciprocate is political and cultural suicide”

    No, reciprocating just means nothing ever changes and the toxicity simply grows. Jackson was qualified, appears intelligent enough, and has mainstream judicial philosophical positions. She will lean Left. She’s not radical. She’s not extreme. She’s not incompetent. She’s not unfit temperamentally. She’s replacing a liberal on an already decidely conservative Court. On what grounds are the GOP supposed to reject her? It’s this intellectual incoherence and the inability to see the long game results of dragging our politics into the gutter that is so off putting. Political suicide is hyperbole. At some point we have to acknowledge our Democrat neighbors and stop pretending that we can move forward without building consensus.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  72. If immorality can be measured in dollars, just look at US debt.

    mg (8cbc69)

  73. …he’s going to steal our crops and mate with our women.

    lurker (cd7cd4) — 4/7/2022 @ 11:35 pm

    Good heavens, what for? I don’t think he would know what to do with the crops, and I know he couldn’t handle the women…

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  74. It’s an election year, with a new Congress next year, and the pro-pediculosis RINOs, from MTG to Hawley to Cruz, were putting on a show for their fringes, if not for votes and money, at least for money. Did you know, and this is gospel truth, that the committees and positions therein that our dedicated elected servants are appointed to depends on the amount of money they raise for the Party? No pay, no play. It’s true, look it up.

    nk (1d9030)

  75. It’s something they brought over from their country clubs where on top of their six-figure membership dues they have to pay greens fees and pool fees and tennis court fees and gym fees and locker rental ….

    nk (1d9030)

  76. She seems appropriately qualified from a legal standpoint and there’s nothing about her behavior that makes he seem unfit for the SC. She should have been confirmed.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  77. @53, you lose elections because a plurality of lawful voters preference the other guy. You lose culture wars because more people then not disagree with your preferences.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  78. So, let me get this straight. Your opponents act like jerks on live TV, so you do it too? Explain how acting like a jerk advances the cause?

    Well, look at what happened during the Bork episode. The Republicans thought that not fighting back was adequate. It didn’t work and the consequences were enormous. Compare that to the Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings.

    And as for judges saying they are “originalists,” Justice Kagan said the same thing. It doesn’t appear to affect her voting, especially not in big cases.

    mikeybates (c22064)

  79. nk (1d9030) — 4/8/2022 @ 5:19 am

    Yessir, that’s true and for the same reasons; to keep the wrong sort out.

    felipe at a different terminal (084d77)

  80. When they say “originalists” they mean that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons in use in 1789, to wit black powder flintlocks and, since Eli Whitney did not introduce mass production with interchangeable parts until 1798, individually-made black powder flintlocks. The only question would be whether the Ferguson rifle was in such wide use that breechloaders would be allowed or only muzzleloaders.

    nk (1d9030)

  81. Personally, I agree with Judge Jackson’s confirmation, but I have always bristled at “first black woman”. Rage and gender are merely social constructs and the labels “black” and “woman” force Judge Jackson into anachronistic, oppressive, patriarchal, racist stereotypes.

    nk (1d9030)

  82. @73: You made me look up a word.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  83. Personally, I agree with Judge Jackson’s confirmation, but I have always bristled at “first black woman”

    Yes, especially since they never fell all over themselves with the firstness of Colin Powell or Condi Rice. When Nikki Haley is elected the first woman president, they’ll find some reason to discredit that too.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  84. When they say “originalists” they mean that the Second Amendment only applies to weapons in use in 1789

    Could you point that argument out to me in Heller? I may have missed it. The worst I saw was Stevens citing Cruikshank to buttress his State’s Rights argument.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  85. Well it’s understood that it’s first black person….with appropriate ideological views.

    Yeah it’s unfortunate that Jackson gets saddled with Biden’s “promise” of appointing a black woman.

    @76, Jackson does not have Bork’s extensive legal writing paper trail. Someone like Lawrence Tribe (in the day) would be someone more equivalent. Tribe’s paper trail would undoubtedly get him in trouble today…and why we don’t see him on the Court. All candidates these days almost have to have a degree of stealth about them. Deep thinkers and prolific writers need not apply. To minimize mischief by the Court, Congress must assert itself and actually resolve issues. We need to insist on behavior that makes Congress functional again…making it more toxic takes us in the wrong direction. Let’s call out bad Democrat behavior, not mimic it.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  86. It was an abstract illustration of the meaning of “originalist” to some ineffable “they”, not any particular ones except possibly Kagan and Jackson by implication since they were mentioned, Kevin.

    nk (1d9030)

  87. We need to insist on behavior that makes Congress functional again…making it more toxic takes us in the wrong direction.

    I think that, as more and more “legislation” comes in the form of agency regulations, Congress has less to do. Idle hands. Overturning Chadha might get their spirits up.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  88. I think that the most important case in this next term will be the various crowd-sourced enforcement laws that are coming out. California is about to pass an anti-gun law based on the TX anti-abortion law. It would probably make operating a gun store in California impossible due to all the drive-by lawfare.

    It totally frosts me that this kind of judicial destabilization was developed by soi-disant conservatives.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  89. Bork didn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court. He supported government censorship policies that were clearly outside the mainstream.

    In his controversial 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Judge Robert H. Bork argued that we must adopt extensive censorship of violent and sexually explicit media in order to combat social pathologies such as crime, welfare dependency, and illegitimacy.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (cbadfd)

  90. This is, I think, the first Supreme Court vacancy where the nominee could not take office immediately after being confirmed.

    In the future, could a president nominate someone for a seat to be vacated later?

    Samuel Finkelman (bfe3de)

  91. #44 Kevin – Thanks for the correction.

    #49 Kevin – I don’t recall when I had that Clinton suspicion, but it probably was in 2015.

    Jim Miller (406a93)

  92. They pretend this indicates some new possibility, but someone like KBJ could have been nominated and conformed to the Supreme Court 50 or even more years ago if anyone was interested enough.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/25/supreme-court-justice-black-woman-constance-baker-motley-ketanji-brown-jackson-00011636

    ….Constance Baker Motley — the first African American woman appointed to the federal bench — was touted for the Supreme Court as early as the 1960s. She was eminently qualified. The National Women’s Political Caucus called her “an obvious choice,” given her accomplishments and her prominent role in the struggle for human rights.

    Samuel Finkelman (bfe3de)

  93. At least NJRob let Romney and Murkowski off the hook with “disgraceful” and “communist” and not calling them “pro-pedophile”. There is hope.

    Rip Murdock (cbadfd)

  94. Bork didn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court. He supported government censorship policies that were clearly outside the mainstream.

    Obscenity is not constitutionally protected speech. How much it should be regulated is a policy judgment. I thought judges don’t make policy judgments? Is your view that Senators should vote for or against a judge based on their expected policy judgments? I guess that means that Romney et al expect on balance to agree with Jackson’s policy judgments.

    mikeybates (c22064)

  95. Joe Biden is a box-checking racist. End of story.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  96. “Bork didn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court.”

    Bork brought a ton of intellectual firepower to the nomination, with an unapologetic leaning toward judicial restraint….after an era when the Left made a lot of strides using judicial activism. But Bork’s personality didn’t come across particularly well during the hearings, and it didn’t help how some mischaracterized or exaggerated the impact of his judicial philosophy.

    Ted Kennedy was especially scurrilous: “Robert Bork’s America…a land in which women would be forced into back‐​alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”

    The Left clearly believed that Scalia-Bork would be a wrecking ball that they couldn’t afford, especially since Bork would be replacing a judicial moderate. Fast forwarding to today…the situation seems different. Kevin is right. Is the idea that Biden can’t appoint someone with a left-of-center judicial philosophy? Even with a 50/50 split in the Senate? Why? The fact that everything demands a nuclear attack is unsustainable

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  97. “Obscenity is not constitutionally protected speech.”

    It wasn’t just obscenity.

    Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic. Moreover, within that category of speech we ordinarily call political, there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government or the violation of any law.

    Davethulhu (9bf01b)

  98. It wasn’t just obscenity.

    Justice Alito believes that tort actions (for IIED, etc.) can be used to recover damages for ‘political’ speech (see his dissent in the Snyder case). So if he taken that position at his confirmation hearing, he should have been rejected?

    Did Jackson make clear her view of the scope of the 2nd Amendment? I gather it is a fairly restrictive view. Is that not sufficient ground to oppose her? Or is the 1st Amendment more important than the 2nd?

    mikeybates (c22064)

  99. “Justice Alito believes that tort actions (for IIED, etc.) can be used to recover damages for ‘political’ speech (see his dissent in the Snyder case). So if he taken that position at his confirmation hearing, he should have been rejected?”

    His opinion on Doe v. Groody should have disqualified him.

    “Or is the 1st Amendment more important than the 2nd?”

    Yes.

    Davethulhu (9bf01b)

  100. Bork was defeated by ju jutsu. The over the top Pat Buchanan School of Jurisprudence rhetoric was the only thing that had made him a darling of the Born Again Right and a candidate for the Supreme Court in the first place. Then it was turned against him.

    nk (1d9030)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1792 secs.