The NYT reports today, as the confirmation hearings are about to begin.
A review of a substantial sample of Judge Jackson’s roughly 500 judicial opinions suggests that she would be about as liberal as the member of the court she hopes to replace, Justice Stephen G. Breyer. That would make her a reliable member of what would continue to be a three-member liberal minority on a court that is dominated by six conservative justices....
Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials. But they are often less illuminating than appeals court rulings that establish precedents and bind other judges.
In Judge Jackson’s eight months on the appeals court, she has issued just two majority opinions, and they have been crisp and forceful....
So, we're told she's "left-leaning" but only "about as liberal" as Justice Breyer.
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials.
Would never be said about a man.
Crisp, forceful, diligent and exceptionally thorough.
Suck ups.
Any word about her letting sex criminals off with light sentences?
The NYT is so, so dishonest.
I believe Jesuit-educated Senator Josh Hawley before I believe the NYT.
NYT, " Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, has raised questions about her sentencing of those accused of sex crimes involving children."
What about those cases, NYT? Were those decisions "diligent and exceptionally thorough?"
I see the NYT writer is Adam Liptak. What do we know about him?
"detailed, methodical and left-leaning."
they left "reversed off the list, at least as applied to her District court opinions.
From a conservative point of view, Jackson's appointment solidifies the right. Unlike Breyer and to a lesser extent Kagan, Jackson's writing lack substance and her personality won't swing any votes to the left-middle.
RE Adam Liptak. "He began covering the Supreme Court in 2008. He followed Linda Greenhouse, who had covered the Supreme Court for nearly 30 years."
I wonder if Linda Greenhouse still reads the Althouse blog. Liptak needs to read Althouse.
Liptak grew up in CT and earned his law degree from Yale University. Hunter Biden's alma mater. East coast liberal bias.
She's not woke! She didn't attend the mostly peaceful BLM protests. She didn't demand that statues of racists like Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln be removed from her university grounds. And she doesn't bristle at the use of the term "mother" because it is offensive. We all have to use the term "breeders" or "lactating women."
Ms. Jackson is normal!!!
Does that include the child porn cases she handled?
She won't answer questions on packing the court. Non-starter. Not SCOTUS material, period.
From Senator Hawley's website, " Judge Jackson went below the maximum, the minimum, and below what the government requested in every single case for which we can find records, except two. In those two the law required her to impose the sentence the government recommended."
Maybe the NYT could inform its readers about this. Looks to be very relevant.
Of course she is "left leaning" as she defended terrorists in Gitmo.
The NYT assures us her decisions are "diligent and exceptionally thorough" "crisp and forceful".
"we are told"
That sums up our press.
"Crisp and forceful."
I'm sorry, Uncle Kent, I lost my thesaurus.
Well, I guess if the NY Times believes her opinions are "diligent and exceptionally thorough" then that settles it. It's not like the NYT is known for simply parroting the Democrats' talking points...
Republicans should give her as many votes as Democrats gave to Trump's judges.
Republicans think Democrats are wrong about issues. Democrats think Republicans are evil and wish death upon them. Nothing new. I wonder how many Democrats read Thomas's book, "My Grandfather's Son?" Zero?
Yah but I have this letter in my drawer…
The Times says Judge Jackson's opinions "are often less illuminating than other appeals court rulings ..." Either the Judge lacks the skill to write illuminating opinions or she simply believes that writing "illuminating opinions" is a waste of time. In either case, that does not bode well for a Supreme Court Justice.
I don't see an upside for the Republicans in the Senate to attack Jackson's candidacy. The risk of being too soft will be disgust by the partisans who want revenge for Kavanaugh, and maybe that means less turnout in the next election. But other than that, being harsh on a black female will play poorly in the partisan press and energize the left and turn moderates and LIV's into dem voters. The battle for this seat was lost in the 2020 election. They don't have to voter for her, but they don't have to make a spectacle of it either. We already know the SCOTUS is a super-legislature, so might as well accept the fact and move on.
Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials. But they are often less illuminating than appeals court rulings that establish precedents and bind other judges.
Damning with faint praise.
"She's an A student but I can't remember anything she wrote or said."
The left's (Ruth Marcus and others) response to indications that Judge Jackson may draw scrutiny for her approach to child porn, and to "civil commitment" for those previously convicted of sex offenses against underage victims, is so very telling. It treats the inquiry as off-limits, as unjustifiable character attacks.
This is, of course, nonsense, and all the more so because both of those alleged views (that sentencing for possession of child porn can be overly harsh, and that civil commitment--continued incarceration after a criminal sentence is completed--raises profound due process concerns) are perfectly defensible.
But why meet the substance of the debate, when you can just paint those who raise the issue as monsters?
Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials. But they are often less illuminating than appeals court rulings that establish precedents and bind other judges.
I misread this. I thought the NYT was talking about the quality of her opinions. They were talking about her district court opinions, which of course tells us very little about what sort of appellate judge she would be.
Her record on the court of appeals is very slight, in other words. So maybe she's a great writer and appellate judge. We don't actually know because the record is really skimpy.
I think she should be treated with the same amount of respect as biden treated Justice Thomas at his hearing.
Fact: Any and all criticisms of Jackson's jurisprudence has been debunked. It's been checked. By fact checkers.
I wish some Senator had the courage to say nothing more than, "Judge Brown, I don't want to waste your time with a speech. I just want to ask one question. It's kind of personal. If you were a white man applying for a job and the interviewer said, "I won't hire you because you are white and male," would that bother you?"
So, we're told she's "left-leaning" but only "about as liberal" as Justice Breyer.
If you're an obvious leftist as a trial judge you might be an insane leftist as a Supreme Court Justice -- when nobody can oversee (or overrule) your work. And it's damned hard to fire you.
Merrick Garland, for instance, was said to be a "moderate" and the guy wants to investigate parents for terrorism at PTA meetings.
I was trying to go into this nomination with an open mind but the suggestion (in the NYT!) that her trial court rulings were political is hardly a comment that gives me confidence. Trial court judges should not be political at all. Kind of like Supreme Court Justices, of course. But it's a hell of a lot easier to be political at the Supreme Court level (William Brennan: "Five votes can do anything around here") than at the trial court level, where you can be overruled at any time.
So my first question would be, how often was she overruled as a trial judge? Rarely? Often? That would be interesting to know.
My follow-up question is whether this NYT reporter actually read all of these opinions, or most of them, or what. I haven't read any of them. It would take many days to give serious scrutiny to all that work. And then to glibly say that's she's a political moderate? Based on opinions of a trial court judge?
My assumption is that her trial court opinions are probably not political at all, and the NYT reporters are 1) not attorneys and 2) oblivious to what a "political" judicial opinions looks like.
The NYT is (obviously) trying to help her get confirmed. But it's not actually helpful to say she's a political judge. Where I come from, that's a damning criticism. Does the NYT not understand that judges are supposed to follow the law?
will this be precedent >>> confirmation without existent/exigent vacancy
exigent
ĕk′sə-jənt
adjective
Requiring immediate action; pressing: synonym: urgent.
Having or making urgent demands; demanding.
Exacting or requiring immediate aid or action; pressing; critical.
==========
is this overture to Pelican Briefing the disliked remaining
In Judge Jackson’s eight months on the appeals court, she has issued just two majority opinions,
In the DC Court of Appeals, what kind of batting average places you "outside the mainstream" of current legal orthodoxy?
Even the Supreme Court votes 9-0 on regular occasion.
Remember how Joe Biden treated Janice Rogers Brown, who would have been the first black woman to serve as a Supreme Court Justice and would have been so on the merits of her record and intellect as opposed to her race and sex?? So forgive me for laughing at the idiot Progressives who are crying about the way Jackson SHOULD be treated. Why should she be held above all others?? Because she is black?? Because she is a woman?? Because she is a Progressive?? What goes around, comes around, and Progressives are in for a RUDE awakening.
"Would never be said about a man."
Yes, it reminds me of calling a black person "articulate" (as Biden did with Obama).
"Jackson’s rulings have been detailed, methodical and left-leaning."
So were the Unibomber's writings.
Serious, for you law types;
Who was the last Justice, that leaned left, but was only moderately left, and why do you say?
ps. Robert Cook save time and don't bother telling us; that she like ALL people isn't a leftie
I agree with Wa St Blogger. Her confirmation will not make any difference on the Court. She's a liberal replacing a liberal. She will be confirmed regardless of what Republicans do. Just be gracious with her, ask some serious questions about her writing, and leave it at that.
This is not a mountain worth dying on.
I agree with Wa St Blogger. Her confirmation will not make any difference on the Court. She's a liberal replacing a liberal. She will be confirmed regardless of what Republicans do. Just be gracious with her, ask some serious questions about her writing, and leave it at that.
This is not a mountain worth dying on.
TaeJohnDo said...
I think she should be treated with the same amount of respect as biden treated Justice Thomas at his hearing.
3/21/22, 10:42 AM
I say treat her the way they treated Kavenaugh. Rioting in the halls and all (even though we all know THOSE protesters would be thrown in the Progressives DC Gulag for protesting against them)
She's an advocate for the 1619 Project and CRT. Does that make her a black supremacist? Probably. Too harsh? Too bad.
I see the "be nice, this is not the hill to die on" crowd has been roused from their slumber. They ran out of hills to fight on a long time ago.
Eight months on the appeals court, only two majority opinions - either there is very little going on at that court or she is well out of step with mainstream judicial thought, particularly given that the role of the appeals court is to "determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court." (As per USCourts.gov).
So yeah, lets put another blank slate in a position of high federal office solely because of their minority status, worked out great for the country (and in particular for race relations) the last time.
"Would never be said about a man."
Or about someone with any actual, bona fide credentials.
I am waiting for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to question her on her high school yearbook.
I am also wondering if she has any record of viewing pornography. The FBI should help us there.
Does her faith interfere with her judicial temperament and decision making?
The Republicans should vote against her and let it go at that. However they should make a stink about her in West Virginia, Arizona, Alaska, Maine and whatever state has a RINO senator. Here is looking at you Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and a couple of others.
Well Slow Joe went further--he called Obama "clean and articulate".
But getting back to what our host posted. I see a reference to 500 opinions--and then a reference to just two majority opinions since she went on the Appellate Court. Does that mean she dissented 498 times--or are those other 'Opinions" not appellate opinions? I dunno--some of them could be her opinions on a restaurant she ate at or a movie or play she saw. I can't tell from the clip as written.
Based upon my interactions with the current generation of lawyers in large law firms (the age cohort of KBJ), their inevitable rise to dominance within the legal profession will herald a whole new interpretation of "equal justice under law". And I fear their cleverness at cloaking their rampant foolishness in well footnoted professionalism will spark a counter-movement that will end judicial supremacy, and the rule of law as we have known it.
Après nous, le deluge.
Michael K... How Many you ask? As many as have seen "Gosnell", I'd wager. Likely something about live aborted babies squealing in the sink down the hall. Heh go figure.
being harsh on a black female will play poorly in the partisan press and energize the left and turn moderates and LIV's into dem voters
Not when it comes to sex offenders and pedophiles. She needs to be hammered on that non-stop.
Crisp and forceful! Less filling, too!
"Would never be said about a man."
Like a dog walking on its hind legs ....
Yes, it reminds me of calling a black person "articulate" (as Biden did with Obama).”
I think we have a consensus that Beiden is a sack of shit.
"Of course she is 'left leaning' as she defended terrorists in Gitmo."
One doesn't necessarily be "left leaning" to defend captives sent to Gitmo, but must simply care about justice and due process.
Most of those dragooned into Gitmo were simply seized by the military with little or no evidence of their guilt of any "terrorism," (does that "terrorism" count those who may have been fighting to defend their nation against an invading army?), or turned in for bounties by those seeking the bounty. This is why the vast majority of those in Gitmo have been released over the years, as there was no evidence to support their remaining there. Others who have been cleared for release remain languishing there. The Bush/Cheney regime purposely put these people in Gitmo as an attempted end run around due process required by our Constitution.
It seems axiomatic that those who bray the most raucously about "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!, the greatest and freest (sic) land in the world, etc.," are the most contemptuous of due process and fair treatment for those whom they have been told are (or whom they perceive as) "not worthy" of such protections. They stupidly decry those who defend due process for those "unworthies" are "lefists" (sic) or "unAmerican." They are actually traitors to the principles of the country they claim to "luuuuvvvv," while those they deem "unAmerican" are the greatest exemplars and defenders of America's principles and constitutional rights.
TaeJohnDo said...
I think she should be treated with the same amount of respect as biden treated Justice Thomas at his hearing.
===========
so why not invite Joe Biden into committee chambers during hearing and have go at it
Obama actually was articulate though.
So, we're told she's "left-leaning" but only "about as liberal" as Justice Breyer.
Since there has never once been a 5-4 ruling where Breyer was in the majority with Thomas and Alito, what that says is that she'd be an automatic vote for the Left on every political issue where it can make a difference
Robert Cook said...
It seems axiomatic that those who bray the most raucously about "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!, the greatest and freest (sic) land in the world, etc.," are the most contemptuous of due process and fair treatment for those whom they have been told are (or whom they perceive as) "not worthy" of such protections.
Oh, you mean like non-Democrat politician men accused of sexual harassment?
No, it would be your people, Cookie, who are opposed to due process
Wa St Blogger said...
I don't see an upside for the Republicans in the Senate to attack Jackson's candidacy.
Ooh, the leftie concern trolls are out in force!
The risk of being too soft will be disgust by the partisans who want revenge for Kavanaugh, and maybe that means less turnout in the next election. But other than that,
Other than losing elections because people won't come out and vote
I guess you consider that a feature, right?
being harsh on a black female will play poorly in the partisan press
Ooh, the Democrat hacks in the "press" will be mean to us if we ask hard questions of a black female!
I believe this is where teh phrase go fuck yourself becomes appropriate.
and energize the left and turn moderates and LIV's into dem voters.
Bzzt. Thank you for playing, now FOAD
No LIV is going to vote against a Republican for opposing a fan of terrorism and child pornography, which is what KJB
Making the point that she IS a fan of terrorism and child pornography will get LIVs to oppose the Democrats who voted to put such on evil person on the bench.
And there doesn't exist a Democrat voter who just wasn't going to vote in November, but had to because the Republicans opposed KJB, as opposed to teh "Don't Say Gay" law, or whatever other dishonest bullshit the Left pushes
The battle for this seat was lost in the 2020 election. They don't have to voter for her, but they don't have to make a spectacle of it either.
Oh, we absolutely MOST "make a spectacle of it", so we can get a bunch of the Democrats who vote for her, like Mark Kelly, voted out of office in November for voting for such a bad person
We already know the SCOTUS is a super-legislature, so might as well accept the fact and move on.the
Then that requires Republicans to do every single thing in their power to weaken the Democrats on that "super-legislature" as much as possible.
Which means forcing as many Democrat Senators as possible to have to defend terrorists and child pornographers.
You need better arguments, troll
lonejustice said...
I agree with Wa St Blogger.
Another Lefty troll self-identifies
Gorsuch was a conservative replacing a conservative. The Democrats burned the filibuster to teh ground to try to stop him.
No freebies
cubanbob said...
The Republicans should vote against her and let it go at that. However they should make a stink about her in West Virginia, Arizona, Alaska, Maine and whatever state has a RINO senator.
You can't do that unless you've first dragged her over the coals for all of her insane left-wing actions
Robert Cook said...
"Of course she is 'left leaning' as she defended terrorists in Gitmo."
One doesn't necessarily be "left leaning" to defend captives sent to Gitmo, but must simply care about justice and due process.
Sorry, but that story line went out the window when the Left started fighting to keep lawyers from representing the Trump Admin / people from the Trump Admin.
Either ALL defendants, even the ones you personally hate, are entitled to good representation, or else they aren't, and then we get to judge lawyers by the clients they take.
As the first half was nuked during the Trump Admin, by the Left, the second applies.
rhhardin said...
"Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials."
Would never be said about a man.
Sure they would, if he was a left wing gay man, black man, or any other kind o f"man" who isn't qualified for the position, and there's nothing actually good to say about him, other than that kind of BS.
About Kavanaugh people said "he write clean opinions that even a non-lawyer can understand", and it was true.
if they had something good to say about KJB's opinions, they would have said it.
So, KJB is clearly just another affirmative action hire, not a qualified candidate
It's Gell-Mann. You read the article with Collins and Stephens and see it is just them rooting for their own side. Then you turn the page to this article about Jackson and think Liptak is not doing the exact same thing.
What is it with the Left and child porn?
Who was the last Justice, that leaned left, but was only moderately left, and why do you say?
Breyer is said to be a moderate leftist. These terms are useless, in my opinion.
Breyer was the author of the judicial opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart that said an abortion doctor has a right to kill a baby in the middle of birth.
O'Connor also joined the opinion, and Souter. O'Connor is said to be a "moderate" Republican, and Souter is also supposed to be a moderate.
None of them are abortion moderates. The entire abortion debate is dominated by the most extreme points on the pregnancy spectrum, conception and birth.
You want to know what an abortion "moderate" sounds like? Me! I focus on brain activity -- because our death statutes make that point legally relevant and implicitly a homicide accusation. Brain activity starts at about the 8-week mark (6 weeks after conception). So while I would classify a zygote as a human being, and thus a person, it's not a homicide to destroy a zygote.
Birth is an important legal point because that's when you become a citizen of the United States. Democrats should be reminded early and often that they support the killing of innocent non-citizens, like a baby who is on the verge of being born.
Anyway, the claim that Jackson, or Breyer, is "moderate" is completely useless and unhelpful. These names are given out by people who think it's right to kill babies in the middle of birth. Being a moderate baby-killer is like being a moderate slave-owner or a moderate Nazi. It's not a helpful adjective.
glacial erratic said...
What is it with the Left and child porn?
The basic idea of Leftism can be summed up as “Whatever is, is wrong, and must be destroyed.” That includes the moral standards of the existing society.
Child pornography is revolting to normal people. Therefore, it MUST be defended.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा