I doubt if much of any great interest can happen at the confirmation hearing. The President has made his choice, and the Senate's role is going to be predictable theater (unless it isn't). But the NYT play by play coverage made me think that things got somewhat lively when Ted Cruz got his go at her:
ADDED: It continues — with the discussion of the children's book "Anti-Racist Baby." Cruz was challenging her statement that "Critical Race Theory" is not taught in schools. The book isn't teaching theory. It's a product of theory. I think they all know that's the distinction, but watch if you want to see the exquisite struggle:
Posts
152 comments:
Most of Cruz's questions had nothing to do with her qualifications for the Supreme Court. His gotcha (as least he thought he was being clever) on what a private school teaches (which she is on the board of) was political grandstanding at its worst.
Did Judge Jackson call President Bush a war criminal in a pleading? That's what Sen. Coryn asked her.
She said she didn't recall.
If true, she should withdraw. Making an intemperate statement like that in a federal court pleading is something one would expect from a new graduate from now third-tier Creighton Law.
Bad, bad judgment.
So far I’m not impressed by the criticism of Jackson. If this is the best they can do, then the only reason to vote against her is to spite the Democrats.
Cruz's questions about her board position are no different than what the Dem's did to ACB about her board position at her school. Had nothing to do with her judicial qualifications. It was payback.
Strategically this is a bad fight for Republicans, and an unnecessary one. Let Biden have this meaningless pick and concentrate on making sure that a Republican gets to make the next couple of picks.
This is what Cruz threw a hissy fit at the Bozeman airport to get back to Washington to do?
Weak sauce, though truth told that is all Cruz normally cooks.
@Freder "Most of Cruz's questions had nothing to do with her qualifications for the Supreme Court. His gotcha (as least he thought he was being clever) on what a private school teaches (which she is on the board of) was political grandstanding at its worst." Not a bad description of the difference between Democrats and Republicans today. Pointing out vicious racist garbage is something Republicans do. Pretending they don't notice vicious racist garbage is what Democrats do. What Freder and Jackson do.
Let Biden have this meaningless pick and concentrate on making sure that a Republican gets to make the next couple of picks.
That's how we got the Warren Court. Rolling over is not good strategy. This woman is predictably leftist and racist but ignoring it is to surrender the field.
Strategically this is a bad fight for Republicans, and an unnecessary one. Let Biden have this meaningless pick and concentrate on making sure that a Republican gets to make the next couple of picks.
I disagree. The GOP is in a very strong position. The dems need every vote as well as GOP support to get her through. Meanwhile, the admin has no political capital and vulnerable dem senators don't want to vote on a contentious nomination in qn election year where they are already facing headwinds. If the GOP holds fast and hammers her on the child porn stuff and CRT, then they can embarrass the admin, force either a much more moderate replacement or serious concessions, and demoralize dems going into the midterms.
Did Judge Jackson call President Bush a war criminal in a pleading? That's what Sen. Coryn asked her.
And he was mistaken. Even if she did, and I am sure it would have been phrased and potentially or allegedly, George W. Bush (along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Yoo and others) undoubtedly committed war crimes by authorizing the torture of detainees, not just of suspected terrorists, but of legitimate uniformed combatants (not that it matters in the least when it comes to torture). There were other alleged war crimes that perhaps are more arguable, but how anyone could argue in good faith that the torture regime was not a war crime is beyond me.
How many Democrats voted for Gorsuch?
How many Democrats voted for Kavanaugh?
Blogger Gahrie said...
Strategically this is a bad fight for Republicans, and an unnecessary one. Let Biden have this meaningless pick and concentrate on making sure that a Republican gets to make the next couple of picks.
Great point.
Not fighting for conservative values is the best way to convince people to vote for you to fight for conservative values.
Blogger tim maguire said...
“So far I’m not impressed by the criticism of Jackson. If this is the best they can do, then the only reason to vote against her is to spite the Democrats.”
Given a near half century of the Democrats usual half-witted, malevolent behavior (Bork and then continued), I’m okay with that.
It works for me.
Can we get a ban on big Visual Aids?
Ted Cruz puts her on record. I don't have a problem with that. She handled it well.
He has every right to ask about these topics. All of a sudden the left assume these topics do not matter?
They do matter.
Dems raked ACB over the coals for being Catholic.
Dems raked Kavanaugh over the coals for, well, everything.
The R's didn't make the rules.
She keeps talking about 'If I have the honor of being the first black woman...'
Why does no republican ask her about Janice Rogers Brown?
Ask her, why did JRB not have the 'honor' when the republicans nominated her 17 years ago?
What about Miguel Estrada...why did he not have the honor of being the first Latino on the court?
Ask her why Biden, the president who is nominating her, promised to filibuster JRB if she were to be nominated.
Hammer the fact that the democrats played hardball and racist games all those years ago to deny spots to minorities purely so they wouldn't be looked upon favorably by minority voters.
But republicans are stupid. Republican senators even more so.
The party is a joke.
I just watched a youtube clip of Sheldon Whitehouse asking Kavanaugh about his yearbook, including terms for flatulence. Democrats have no leg to stand on when it comes to civility, and more importantly, relevance, in confirmation hearings. Whitehouse was a flat-out jerk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTZhmGMxyM
just tuned into The Five. They Senators preening Senators.
This morning I did see Graham tie her in knots trying to get her to recognize the difference between a criminal defendant, and an enemy combatant.
Actually think Republicans would ask any Democrat about CRT because it is the GOP bogeyman du jour. Will be forgotten about by end of decade.
"I am uncomfortable with subjecting her to special questions premised on her status as a black woman"
Live by the racist AA sword; die by the same sword.
Of course someone quickly posted online from the library catalog of the school Cruz's kids attend. Same Kendi book, multiple copies.
Nobody is going to ask her if she ever used the n-word?
Rogan is a Cruz constituent.
So she deserves the same treatment that Brett Kavenaugh and Amy Coney Barrett got?? Then they should pound on her, and accuse her of conspiracy theories to ruin her life.
"I am uncomfortable with subjecting her to special questions premised on her status as a black woman."
Well, that status was the basis for her selection, and it is the basis for the left's support for her. But of course the GOP should take the discomfort of nice white women seriously.
"She is the nominee, and the President's basis for singling her out says nothing about her worthiness of confirmation."
Why not? If he selected a candidate from a pool known or suspected not to include the most qualified people, that says a lot.
"But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others, not some special black woman questioning."
Well, she has repeatedly addressed "controversial" issues, including issues she cared about as a black woman. Totally reasonable for her, and fair game for questioners.
But of course, the overriding political issue is how to question any identity-political nomination without antagonizing the Althouses of America.
What they did to Kavanaugh happened. There are no rules now. Equality would be accusing Jackson of rape. Democrats have got know someone.
She had a chance to do a very good thing.
She could have used her time as a brilliant and accomplished African American woman in the spotlight to denounce the nonsense behind teaching young children to hate each other based on their skin color and to some degree push the pernicious dogma of the race hustlers out of the mainstream.
She didn't.
I never understood admiration for Ted Cruz. Did not see any evidence to alter.
Is there IQ requirement for members in Federalist Society?
Can I see Cruz LSAT score?
Dave Begley said...
Did Judge Jackson call President Bush a war criminal in a pleading? That's what Sen. Coryn asked her.
She said she didn't recall.
If true, she should withdraw. Making an intemperate statement like that in a federal court pleading is something one would expect from a new graduate from now third-tier Creighton Law.
Bad, bad judgment.
==========
Bad, bad judgment. >>> I hope you meant on Coryn attempt at smear on Jackson!
" But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others, not some special black woman questioning."
You don't think she should be given a special pass, as a remedy for past discrimination? Well, of course not, that's not the justification for affirmative action. The justification for affirmative action is that it will be "enriching" to the other SCOTUS members to have her around. So, yeah, the question of her fitness as a specimen of "Black womanhood" is relevant. What has she done to her hair? She doesn't look "Black" at all. Couldn't they find one that was frizzier?
I don't know her true position on CRT and these show hearings will unfortunately never reveal it. Lord knows, she will never give a straight answer to the question. But it's an important question. However, since this has become a core belief of the most influential wing of the Democratic party, I believe she does follow CRT and I believe that disqualifies her for the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, like many office holders, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". I don't believe that judges who think that the constitution of the United States is an inherently racist document can be trusted to support and defend it.
But she deserves exactly the same treatment as any Republican nominee who went soft on pedophiles and sex offenders.
Fixed.
My favorite exchange is where she praises Dick Cheney and George W. Bush where they used to be "war criminals" back when we weren't at war with Eastasia, which, of course we always have been.
Let's check her high school yearbook, eh Freder. Because that has everything to do with her qualifications, right?
Right?
The way the left treated Kavanaugh was a complete disgrace - and it was all lies too.
KTJ deserves the same treatment as Js. Kavanaugh and Barrett received? Really?
I'm not a lawyer, much less a legal scholar, but I'm disappointed that (as far as I know) Republicans did not follow up on the questioning along the lines "Is Roe v Wade settled law?" with questions along the lines of: Doesn't the logic of Roe v Wade require the court to permit states to regulate abortion after the age of fetal viability? And isn't that age now 24 weeks (or change the number to one you're comfortable with -- I'm not posting to argue about the age of viability -- except that it's almost certainly before the third trimester).
But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others
Wake me up when they trot out her high school yearbook.
Better yet, when a male subordinate claims that she made goo-goo eyes at him and said there was a pubic hair on her latte.
Terrorist sympathizer and pedophile sympathizer seem to be the brand they are giving her.
She’s a typical liberal. Predictable as a sports interview
"Ms. Jackson, are you openly rooting for the death of Justice Thomas, or are you just keeping your glee on the down-low?"
I have some constitutional law questions. What if she’s confirmed and Breyer doesn’t resign? Is she seated? Can it be challenged? And would that challenge go to SCOTUS, and could she vote on the case if seated?
I ask because I fear this could be the plan…
It emanated from the penumbra (i.e. Twilight Fringe) has diverse -- number and color -- precedents.
Critical Racists' Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), which denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas (e.g. too many People of Yellow... People of Asia... 1/2 Americans), and affirmative discrimination (e.g. "Jew privilege"). Separation of Cult, Corporation, Clinic, etc. and State.
Baby Lives Matter (BLM)... All Lives Matter. Lose your Pro-Choice "ethical" religion.
iowan2 said...
just tuned into The Five. They Senators preening Senators.
This morning I did see Graham tie her in knots trying to get her to recognize the difference between a criminal defendant, and an enemy combatant.
=========
I will try
criminal defendant >>>> committed injustice / obstructed justice [allegedly]
enemy combatant not POW >>>> obstructed war/invasion [simply asserted] / why is he not Prisoner Of War who are also combatant/ex
FYI - Graham is thrilled Ashli Babbitt was shot by Capitol Police with gun so admirably provided to them - are you too iowan2
At least she’s not loudly crying that she “loves beer and don’t you too!?”
Rake her over the coals. She can take it. It's the price of admission. I bet she doesn't even cry or say she likes beer.
People on MSNBC regularly called Bush and Rumsfeld war criminals. But I can’t imagine any lawyer making that written statement in federal court. This needs to be looked at closely. I don’t think Coryn or his staff would be mistaken about this.
If CRT is not part of the curriculum, why are people enraged that some states are banning it?
Ah well it was Biden who "tarred" the nomination so to speak. If Sotomayor can make assertions re "wise Latinas", I suppose the Rethuglicans can talk about an "affirmative action hire".
There are a lot of times when it would have been better if Joe had simply shut up. But nobody trusts him to keep his promises---witness the op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today which asserts that the Saudis and the various United Arab Emirate won't take Joe's phone calls. And I can understand why Clyburn told Joe to "go out and make that promise to nominate a black woman--get out there on stage and do it." That was the price of Clyburn's support, and the promise had to be made in public. It's probable that Clyburn had been burned before by Slow Joe reneging on a promise. Hence the demand for the public statement.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "This is what Cruz threw a hissy fit at the Bozeman airport to get back to Washington to do?
Weak sauce, though truth told that is all Cruz normally cooks."
Yes, a lefty wrote that.
Just now.
Without a shred of irony.
Because of course he did.
A nice discussion with Epstein and Yoo Video on SCOTUS abortion prediction and voting rights (from late January).
I see no signs of such analysis from today's "brilliant" nominee.
Epstein and Yoo mostly discuss structure, never feelings. As if that's the way to reason.
(Hoover Institution)
Althouse said...
The book isn't teaching theory. It's a product of theory.
Exactly, I've been calling such indoctrination CRC (Critical Race Catechism).
Quite frankly I am surprised the Usual Suspect lefties have time left in the day to comment on Althouse given how many babies, those that somehow survive the abortion baby-parts selling pipeline, have yet to be screened for racism.
I'm certain Russia Collusion Truther Blue-Anon Cultist Freder is on the job though....
Query: Have any sitting Justices besides Sotomayor (and now Jackson) ever tried a case?
Narayanan said...
I never understood admiration for Ted Cruz. Did not see any evidence to alter.
Is there IQ requirement for members in Federalist Society?
Can I see Cruz LSAT score?
**********************
How about this, instead:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dershowitz-yep-cruz-was-one-my-smartest-students-aaron-bandler
But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others,
So she should be accused of rape and of being a religious fanatic?
"she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others"
Thank you. So she deserves the same personal annihilation treatment Democrats gave Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. A big reason the Dems behave like vermin in these situations is that they believe the GOP will never respond in kind, that the leftist rules will never be applied to them. It's past time for Cruz & Co. to dissuade them of that notion.
How did you lose your fortune sir?
Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Substitute country for fortune.
"I don't know her true position on CRT and these show hearings will unfortunately never reveal it."
Well, she was asked point blank and answered.
"However, since this has become a core belief of the most influential wing of the Democratic party, I believe she does follow CRT and I believe that disqualifies her for the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, like many office holders, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". I don't believe that judges who think that the constitution of the United States is an inherently racist document can be trusted to support and defend it."
Oh so you do know her position!
I believe that the Republican caucus would never confirm or even allow a vote on a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democrat, if they had the power to prevent it, so therefore I believe that you share that position and CRT is a red herring.
Blogger Jim at said...
"But she deserves exactly the same treatment as any Republican nominee who went soft on pedophiles and sex offenders."
Well Gorsuch was filibustered but then the Republicans changed the rules and he got confirmed. I don't recall an especially brutal confirmation hearing.
Not fighting for conservative values is the best way to convince people to vote for you to fight for conservative values.
A wise general bows with the wind so he may later stand tall against the storms.
"I don't know her true position on CRT and these show hearings will unfortunately never reveal it."
Well, she was asked point blank and answered.
"However, since this has become a core belief of the most influential wing of the Democratic party, I believe she does follow CRT and I believe that disqualifies her for the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, like many office holders, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". I don't believe that judges who think that the constitution of the United States is an inherently racist document can be trusted to support and defend it."
Oh so you do know her position!
I believe that the Republican caucus would never confirm or even allow a vote on a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democrat, if they had the power to prevent it, so therefore I believe that you share that position and CRT is a red herring.
Blogger Jim at said...
"But she deserves exactly the same treatment as any Republican nominee who went soft on pedophiles and sex offenders."
Well Gorsuch was filibustered but then the Republicans changed the rules and he got confirmed. I don't recall an especially brutal confirmation hearing.
If she's not a bold faced liar, I thought she answered very well. I assume I don't agree on much with her, but I felt she was trying to avoid throwing critical race theory types under the bus, while saying it's something she doesn't agree with or focus on.
Wait a minute. One of the largest things she has going for her, according to Biden, is her blackness. Why in heck shouldn’t her blackness benefits be questioned?
If the GOP holds fast and hammers her on the child porn stuff and CRT, then they can embarrass the admin, force either a much more moderate replacement or serious concessions, and demoralize dems going into the midterms.
Where once again the Democrats will declare that: "Republicans want to put women back in the kitchen, gays back into the closet and Black people back into the fields." and any attacks on this nominee will be prominently featured. Her seat is meaningless: her vote will be a clone of the one it's replacing, and one that is relatively powerless. The losses outweigh the gains.
Why do the Democrats do it? Because it works. It's not fair, but I thought we were the side that argues that reality doesn't care about fairness?
black woman questioning
Expectations are much lower for a black woman. It's legitimate to find out which of the expected failings are present.
She could rise well above it by actually being brilliant, but apparently she is not brilliant. So the question remains, like for the Germans when Hitler won the election. "Well, that's done. How bad is he?"
I thought no one liked civility bullshit, democrats showed no restraint regarding Republicans, Durban the Dick and Mean Beiden lead the charge. The whirlwind should be inherited, regardless.
She LIED about the CRT book. She said her parents had it on their coffee table when she was growing up. That book wasn't published until 1992. She was 22 years old at that time. Liar. Christopher F. Rufo
@realchrisrufo
Mar 17
UPDATE: Jackson's math doesn't add up. She was born in 1970 and "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" wasn't published until 1992, when she was 22 years old and a student at Harvard--during the exact timeframe that Derrick Bell was engaging in his nationally-publicized protest.
In other words, her story that her parents had "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" --a key text of critical race theory--on their coffee table when Jackson was growing up is absolutely false. Jackson made up the story and is obscuring her connection to CRT. The Senate should ask why.
Day Two of Judge Ketanji Brown Hearings: Lies in Claiming She Doesn't Know CRT is Taught in the School Whose Board She Serves On, Lies About Why She Consistently Under-Sentences Child Pr0n Criminals
—Ace
She serves on the board of a Georgetown school. The school recommends books by Ibrahim X. Kendhi, including "Anti-Racist Baby," which claims that babies are born racist and must be taught "anti-racism" and must also be forced to confess their racism.
She lied and claimed that CRT is only "an academic theory taught in law school" and does not include books written by foundational "thinkers" in CRT like Ibrahim X. Kendhi.
Christopher F. Rufo
@realchrisrufo
Mar 17
UPDATE: Jackson's math doesn't add up. She was born in 1970 and "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" wasn't published until 1992, when she was 22 years old and a student at Harvard--during the exact timeframe that Derrick Bell was engaging in his nationally-publicized protest.
In other words, her story that her parents had "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" --a key text of critical race theory--on their coffee table when Jackson was growing up is absolutely false. Jackson made up the story and is obscuring her connection to CRT. The Senate should ask why.
her statement that "Critical Race Theory" is not taught in schools. The book isn't teaching theory. It's a product of theory.
Just to be clear.. If, instead of 'teaching' the 'theory' of white supremacy in schools;
we had books and materials that were 'a product' of That 'theory'.. It'd be COOL?
asking for a friend
What who-knew said.
"Equality" coexisting with "Equity" is an attempt to square the circle.
On page 19 of his book, "How to be an Antiracist", CRT High Priest Ibram X. Kendi wrote:
"[R]acial discrimination is not inherently racist. … The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
Does our Con Law professor emerita want to weigh in on how that contradictory (and pernicious) idea can coexist with the Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause?
Shouldn't Senators demand an answer from the nominee?
again, Just to be CLEAR...
asking what a private school teaches (which she is on the board of) was political grandstanding at its worst??
So, if a nominee was a board member, of a private school that taught white supremacy..
Asking about THAT, would be 'political grandstanding at its worst' ???
asking for that same (rhetorical) friend
If it were not for the idiotic poisonous lies tossed at Kavanaugh - digging into his high school years - he never would have brought up anything to do with his high school years.
But then Mueller-Maddow Russian collusion truther Inga doesn't recall the context.
Swetnick.
Saying this is a bad fight for the republicans is just democrat talking points.
Democrats have destroyed the nomination process. Republicans need to “play” just as hard and just as disgusting as the democrats. Anything else is rolling over and demoralizing the base.
Republicans have been illegally jailed, denied bail hearings, held in solitary confinement, accused of terrorism when questioning school boards, audited, called racist, sexist etc.etc. There should be no quarter EVER given to democrats. That is why McConnell must go.
Rabel 4:19
Good points.
But the left will never admit that CRT exists - all while they push it. More toxic racist poison from the left.
PM
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
How many Democrats voted for Gorsuch?
How many Democrats voted for Kavanaugh?
3/22/22, 3:55
EXACTLY RIGHT. Any Republican thinking about approving this nominee needs to be asked that question repeatedly. The answer is NONE. Republicans expect the same.
Pretty sure questioning this woman on CRT pushed-excuse me- taught… in the school of which she is a board member, has more to do w/her progressive ideology and not her skin color. That’s my take.
If she had been white- &male- the question was a very pointed one distinguishing a core belief system.
She never answered.
Or, rather: she lied.
Duties and Responsibilities
In most states, it is the local board that is charged with the responsibility to establish and maintain a basic organizational structure for the local school system, develop curriculum, meet federal and state mandates for public schools, appoint a superintendent and key members of the central office staff, adopt an annual budget, and create a climate that promotes educational excellence.
https://www.nysasa.org/index.php/news/6621-school-boards-have-broad-discretion-over-curriculum-book-selection
I do admit those links refer to public schools. I tried to dig a little deeper into how private schools’ boards work in the curriculum department, but my shovel hit ledge.
"In other words, her story that her parents had "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" --a key text of critical race theory--on their coffee table when Jackson was growing up is absolutely false. Jackson made up the story and is obscuring her connection to CRT. The Senate should ask why."
Judge, you've said this book is foundational to you to the point that it was on your coffee table growing up, but it didn't come out until you were 22. Why have you overstated the importance of this book for you?? WE DEMAND TO KNOW.
"President Biden nominated someone...who is extraordinarily talented, and who also happens to be a black woman—something we've never seen before." --Corey Booker
Hilarious!! It's something we're never seen before either!!
Somehow the quality of African-American leadership has gone downhill since the 60s. Thurgood Marshall had a brilliant career, which was recently erased from history when Chuck Schumer said there had been no African American on the Supreme Court until 1981. I'm working on a piece on civil rights in the aftermath of JFK's Inaugural Address. He made no explicit reference to civil rights in the speech at all. During the 1960 campaign he and Bobby did something to get MLK Jr. out of jail. After the inauguration a lot happened: Freedom Riders made news from May until fall 1961; in 1962 there was James Meredith needing troops to be admitted to the University of Mississippi; in 1963 more university admissions, sit-ins all over the South, Bobby's meeting with African-American leaders including James Baldwin; and finally JFK's announcement of civil rights legislation. The Freedom Riders were mainly about de-segregating transportation, and I came across the name of Sarah Keys, a Woman's Army Corps private, and her lawyer Dovey Johnson Roundtree. Abernathy, Jackson Sr., Muhammad Ali. John L. Lewis; at his funeral Obama said nothing had changed, implying Lewis's entire career was a failure. Zora Neale Hurston. Today's black mayors are unimpressive, except maybe Bottoms of Atlanta, and she gave up because she was attacked from the left.
What has she done to her hair? She doesn't look "Black" at all.
The white woman hair covers the chip on her shoulder.
Folks do realize that Janice Rogers was never nominated to USSC, and that she would not have passed muster with the elitists at FedSoc? And that she could have been nominated from Cal Sup Ct just as Kruger almost just was by Biden?
we're......should be.....we've
I think that Ted Cruz would probably win 99% of debates in which he had time to prepare against anyone, lawyer or not, in the USA. Under the circumstances she did pretty well. They both did well. One on one, he will pretty much mechanically dissect anyone. I voted for Cruz in the 2016 primary in the state I was living in at that time. I voted Libertarian in the General. Cruz does come across as smarmy at times but he was my horse in that 17 horse race. They Palinized him effectively. Now I live in his state and I get to vote for him for the Senate every once and a while.
She knows she's the affirmative action choice. Biden never said he was going to choose the best candidate, but that he was going to pick a black woman. Questions that relate to her "blackness" are mandatory. If she's uncomfortable with this, then she doesn't deserve the nomination. In fact, she should have refused it.
… leave no stone unturned…
AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks.
You forgot something, Lloyd.
If I may be so bold…
The greatness of the music. So much variety- and so much goodness. I’m mostly remembering the 70s- cause that’s when my memories start. I really miss the collaborative spirit.
No clue the depth of my DNA, Readering.
Of course she deserves "Black woman questioning", because if Biden had thousands and thousands of qualified Black women to choose from but chose her based on the stated claim that she's a Black woman, it's fair to probe deeper to see whether she has some edge to her "Blackness" or "Womanness" that caused him to choose her instead of any of those others.
Not saying I agree with this approach or think it's politically wise of the GOP but I'm not going to say it's completely inappropriate. Biden chose this field of play, and put her on it. She can deal.
"...I am uncomfortable with subjecting her to special questions premised on her status as a black woman."
I get your discomfort here.
However, the converse is (or should be) also true: she should not be exempt from questions about important issues of the day, regardless of her "status".
Critical race theory became a big issue in 2021 in part because the Biden administration conflated parents objecting to it at school board meetings with domestic terrorism. Judge Jackson is the first Supreme Court nominee during this time. It would be reasonable to ask these questions of any nominee. The current nominee just happens to be black, and Cruz's questions are not inherently "black woman" questions.
On the other hand, I'm not especially comfortable asking after the nominee's personal views on this subject absent a legal context.
I think Judge Jackson's answers to these questions were reasonable.
I do agree with commenters who think the Republicans have to tread carefully here for political reasons. Unfortunate, but we're not yet in Sandra Day O'Connor's ideal world of racial colorblindness expected by 2027.
AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks.
It's OK to be white.
Readering continues to change the subject 10-40% with every comment. I can't tell if it is a tactic or a lack of focus.
Do not take the bait on those. I have two of them who come to my site constantly, and they are virtually automatic at it and have learned how not to be pinned down
AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks.
You mean 76% of the population of the United States?
Where once again the Democrats will declare that: "Republicans want to put women back in the kitchen, gays back into the closet and Black people back into the fields." and any attacks on this nominee will be prominently featured. Her seat is meaningless: her vote will be a clone of the one it's replacing, and one that is relatively powerless. The losses outweigh the gains.
Why do the Democrats do it? Because it works. It's not fair, but I thought we were the side that argues that reality doesn't care about fairness?
Democrats are going to use that tactic regardless of what the GOP does. Letting her skate through will give no benefit to the GOP with "moderate" voters. On the other hand, letting her skate through will piss off the conservative base, and may lead to them sitting out the midterms.
Fighting, in contrast, signals to the base that the party is willing to take risks and be aggressive in pursuing its goals, and the GOP is in the best position in probably 50 years to actually hurt the Dems through this process. If they stand united against her nomination, it can't advance out of committee. Even if it did, the Dems need every single vote on their side, while a sustained campaign threatening to tar her as a racist bigot who supports child molesters may very well make a vote in her favor toxic for purple-state Dems.
Today's White leadership ain't that impressive either. Why don't white people have leaders like Eisenhower or FDR any more?
*
I don't love Ted Cruz, but he does seem to be unusually competent and intelligent for a politician. He also has a sense of humor. I can understand why his college roommate hates him. On the other hand, if you feel compelled to tell the world 30 years later how much you hate your college roommate, I have no love for you either.
*
Having had Bell's book on her parents' coffee table growing up doesn't seem like something Jackson would deliberately lie about. It's too easy to disprove. It also implies that she has more familiarity with CRT that she'd like to admit. I suspect it's just faulty memory.
Readering: "AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks."
AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks that oppose pedophilia which greatly upsets the left almost as much as opposing havesting baby parts for fun and profits.
FIFY
Can of Cheese for Hunter: "But then Mueller-Maddow Russian collusion truther Inga doesn't recall the context.
Swetnick."
We're talking about Inga who still, to this very day, passionately believes the hoax pee tape still exists, so nothing shoud surprise you about her comments.
Trump made the case for Russian collision when he gave Vlad the green light to invade Ukraine. String him up.
But [Jackson] deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others, not some special black woman questioning.
Nice sentiment, Althouse, but the selection and confirmation is political sausage-making -- sometimes not pleasant to watch but necessary nonetheless. This is especially true since Biden did not promise to nominate the most qualified and dispassionately fair person, but a black woman specifically. If being black and female is more important than being just, then questions pertaining to Jackson's racial and sexual prejudices are more than pertinent, they're absolutely vital.
Let's all be thankful that Jackson is a doctrinaire leftist. Her opposition will be too morally upright to recruit liars and lunatics to impune her reputation. She'll rise or fall on her the strength or weakness of her own words and deeds and not on the calumnies of freaks and perverts.
Iman said...Given a near half century of the Democrats usual half-witted, malevolent behavior (Bork and then continued), I’m okay with that.
As a general principle, I’m fine with spiting Democrats as an end in itself, but what about Jackson? What about the American people? There’s more here than just Reps vs. Dems.
Readering said...Actually think Republicans would ask any Democrat about CRT because it is the GOP bogeyman du jour. Will be forgotten about by end of decade.
Of course it will. Because it will have been swept aside long before then. Its former proponents will all deny ever having supported it. Why should people still be talking about a dead issue?
Is she lying?
Does it matter?
She's a loyal leftist and will be a cog in the leftwing machine. Nothing else matters.
Having had Bell's book on her parents' coffee table growing up doesn't seem like something Jackson would deliberately lie about. It's too easy to disprove. It also implies that she has more familiarity with CRT that she'd like to admit. I suspect it's just faulty memory.
When did she first make the claim about growing up with the book? My guess is that she hadn't read it at the time, but knew about it, and so made up the story about it sitting on her parents' coffee table. No one cared enough to check or call her out on it. Sort of like some of Obama's stories about his youth.
Danel12:
From what I saw she didn't answer the question. She said she didn't use it in her position as a judge. And no, I don't know her position. I believe she is likely to be a CRT advocate based on the current power structure of the Democratic party and unless and until she gives a very clear answer to the question, I will stick to my judgement that she is dodging the question because she knows a truthful answer will hurt her chances of confirmation. If events prove me wrong, I will change my mind.
"AA comments appears to be a forum for white folks."
White folks who think they were treated so unfairly.
Blogger Howard said...
Trump made the case for Russian collision when he gave Vlad the green light to invade Ukraine. String him up.
You spelled Biden wrong, Howard. Try harder or give up.
If Joe Biden had not explicitly stated that his nominee would be a black woman your comment, "But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others, not some special black woman questioning." would have merit. However, that's not what Biden did. Why did he project his intentions? Why not just nominate her?
WEll, Ted Cruz is being Ted Cruz. An ignorant, albeit educated, jerk. He is losing his stronghold on "conservative" ideas and is not going down without a fight. Poor Teddy, no one likes you, no one will vote for you.
Vicki from Pasadena
The Dems raked ACB over the fact that she admitted, in lectures and the press, that her Catholicism affected her choices. I am a Catholic and i am appalled that anyone who either is or isn't finds that to be acceptable. She has proven, since her time one the court that she cares more about Catholic doctrine than the Consitution. I for 1 find that appalling.
vicki from Pasadena
However, that's not what Biden did. Why did he project his intentions? Why not just nominate her?
========
so he could make foolish ass+u+meR's pounce on his mistake
Howard: "Trump made the case for Russian collision when he gave Vlad the green light to invade Ukraine. String him up."
I don't blame you for basically giving up and just mailing in the rather sad projection which you have made your trademark.
Beasts of England said...
I have some constitutional law questions. What if she’s confirmed and Breyer doesn’t resign? Is she seated? Can it be challenged? And would that challenge go to SCOTUS, and could she vote on the case if seated?
I ask because I fear this could be the plan…
===========
you izzz !!! Beastly !!!
nice, dramatic turn of events === how Marbury happened!
"Of course she deserves "Black woman questioning", because if Biden had thousands and thousands of qualified Black women to choose from but chose her based on the stated claim that she's a Black woman, it's fair to probe deeper to see whether she has some edge to her "Blackness" or "Womanness" that caused him to choose her instead of any of those others."
I'm sorry what? So it was her edge in blackness and womanness that got her selected, not her edge as a jurist? (And what anyway are those edges you're talking about??)
"If being black and female is more important than being just, then questions pertaining to Jackson's racial and sexual prejudices are more than pertinent, they're absolutely vital."
I'm unclear why you think Biden was choosing between a black female nominee and a just nominee.
The amount of absolute fetishization of race and sex you both display with these statements is crazy -- you seem to have no way to look beyond it or see anything other than it.
It's because Joe Biden started it by announcing he would select a black woman, you may be thinking. Or, that it's the Democrats make everything about race and sex, and you're calling out the absurdity.
I don't know what your motivation is. But these two statements are racist and sexist.
Lefty trolls seem to be energized by SCOTUS hearings.
To each his own. I will not watch a second of the hearings when a Democrat nominee is being questioned. There is no drama, no pubes on coke cans, no HS yearbook boofing, no questioning of religious faith, no porn movie rentals, etc.
How boring!
victoria: "WEll, Ted Cruz is being Ted Cruz. An ignorant, albeit educated, jerk. He is losing his stronghold on "conservative" ideas and is not going down without a fight. Poor Teddy, no one likes you, no one will vote for you."
LOL
Yes, victoria actually wrote this "analysis" and then, inexplicably, thought it would be a good idea to post it.
Dunning-Kruger on steroids.
Critical Racists' Theory makes it about racism. Diversity [dogma] makes it about color judgments and class-based bigotry, including racism, sexism, ageism. Separation of Cult and State has either an equal or "=" application.
"I'm sorry what? So it was her edge in blackness and womanness that got her selected, not her edge as a jurist?"
Biden declared at the outset that he would pick a woman of color. That would suggest her blackness and womanness were the qualities that got her on the short list. She may well be a fine jurist, but Biden made it about color and gender before the selection began. That's not her fault of course, but there we are.
So Joe said he'd pick a black female VP. His choice believes Ukraine is IN Nato already. Hows that working out?
Fool me once.....
The amount of absolute fetishization of race and sex you both display with these statements is crazy
This is the problem with announcing that only black women would be considered. See also Clarence Thomas' objection that anything he achieved was assumed to be due to affirmative action (and even AA didn't necessarily exclude all other candidates, even those more qualified).
Readering thinks anyone who doesn't start a comment "As a [gay/Lesbian/bisexual/{40+ other possibilities}][Black/Hispanic/Asian/Native American][man/woman/other]" must be white, utterly unaware that most people on the right think their positions should rest on facts and arguments and logic rather than some kind of pseudo-authority derived from an accident of birth, and therefore don't bother to mention their ethnic or gender background or sexual interests.
White folks who think they were treated so unfairly.
Yeah! Fuck them, who do they think they are? Let's making them wear yellow stars on their clothing!
Republicans on the Committee should start with the premise that their questioning will not change the opinions or votes or other senators. To them, it's all politics and the reason this woman was nominated is because of melatonin, not being the best. So, Republicans should play to the broader public in their questioning along the lines of the following:
1. I apologize for President Biden labeling you as an affirmative action nominee. We Republicans treat every individual as an individual, not as just a placeholder for a race/gender position. So, I will question you with the respect you deserve as an individual just like I would someone who is not black and a woman. Are you OK with that? Then wait for an answer.
2. Are you embarrassed that your Democrat handlers think so little of your intelligence that they refuse to release your LSAT scores. If not, why not?
3. Are you uncomfortable that your Democrat handlers won't release your public record as a member of the sentencing group? Are you ashamed of your record? if not, will you ask now to have those records released? If not, why not?
4. You say Roe is established law. Are the following established law under Roe: (1) killing a born baby because of sudden remorse (which a Maryland law would enable), (2) killing a baby born healthy after a botched abortion, (3) aborting a baby up until the last moment before it is born naturally, (4) aborting a healthy baby after the point of viability, i.e., the baby would live if born then, (5) aborting a baby when it can feel pain? If she refuses to answer because she may rule one such issues, then ask her to admit that many Americans find abortion to be an atrocious crime akin to what she thought about keeping prisoners in GITMO? If not why, why not?
5. You don't remember if the school to which you sent your children for education and on the board your serve teaches CRT, I'm afraid you don't meet the minimum requirements for memory at your age to be on the USSC and your memory will only get worse as you age, as we see in President Biden. Can you explain how many other things from your public record you don't remember? Or is it just those things that could prove and obstacle to your approval to the Court?
My point is to show Americans how she is lying her way through confirmation as a way to move forward the arc of history toward Constitutional conservatism as we see with Hispanics, who will save America from Marxism. Help convert more to voting Republican in 2022 and 2024.
She has lead her life as a “special black woman”. Her politics, her chosen fellow travelers and her prejudices reflect that. Therefore she should have to answer to the public why they should choose her over someone who isn’t as blatantly prejudice as she is. The “president” can go have a nap. If you think the president should have more power than what the people want you don’t understand the constitution either.
Cruz is using Jackson as a prop to rail against critical race theory.
I hate critical race theory. But this is circus-level stuff.
If there's no evidence that Jackson supports CRT, why would you assume she does? Black skin, female gender, Ivy League Democrat. Maybe she loves CRT. But you don't know it. To scour through her record and find one polite mention of Nikole Hannah-Jones and then spend your time asking her questions about it is embarrassing. It reminds me of idiot Senators reading from high school yearbooks. It's a bad sign when they start bringing out the props.
Cruz has argued before the Supreme Court. Presumably he could question Jackson at the highest level of jurisprudence. And we get this embarrassing attempt to link her with Nikole Hannah-Jones.
OK, I just saw a clip where she was unable to define what a woman was. Forget everything I wrote earlier, this woman must be kept off of the court.
ALSO: Even though Biden selected her only because she fell within the pool of possible candidates by being a black woman, I am uncomfortable with subjecting her to special questions premised on her status as a black woman.
I'm sure you are
That doesn't make the questions any less legitimate.
She is the beneficiary of racism and sexism. She SHOULD be called on it, and made to feel bad about it.
Criticize him if you like. But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others, not some special black woman questioning.
She deserves the special "beneficiary of an illegitimate process" questioning, because that's what she is.
Freder Frederson said...
Most of Cruz's questions had nothing to do with her qualifications for the Supreme Court. His gotcha (as least he thought he was being clever) on what a private school teaches (which she is on the board of) was political grandstanding at its worst.
Bullshit Freder.
His questioning is abotu what kind of human being she is, which determines what kind of judge she is.
And the kind of human being she is is "racist pig", because you have to be a racist pig to be a CRT supporter / defender / user.
And since all you leftist drones just love to point out that "CRT is only part of law school", that makes support / opposition to CRT a legal issue, which is to say something entirely appropriate to ask a judge about.
Which makes you wrong both coming and going
Well Gorsuch was filibustered but then the Republicans changed the rules and he got confirmed. I don't recall an especially brutal confirmation hearing.
And that has, exactly, what to do with being soft on pedophiles and sex offenders?
"Poor Teddy, no one likes you, no one will vote for you."
Vicki from Pasadena
Well, you certainly won't. And I'm pretty sure he's staying awake at night wondering how he lost the dimbulb vote from California.
Thanks for the civics lesson.
So, lets treat her like the Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh. NOBODY gets to object to ANYTHING the Republicans ask her. And I think today would be a good day for a 19 year old guy to claim she molested him when he was 12. But he cannot remember when or where.
Rollo said...
Having had Bell's book on her parents' coffee table growing up doesn't seem like something Jackson would deliberately lie about. It's too easy to disprove. It also implies that she has more familiarity with CRT that she'd like to admit. I suspect it's just faulty memory.
Steve Hayward posted the relevant section of the pro-CRT lecture Jackson gave at the University of Michigan Law School. (There's no links in his posting so I'm wondering if he ran across it in the original.)
... Professor Derrick Bell, who was a civil rights lawyer and the first tenured African-American professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life that he entitled “Faces At the Bottom of the Well.” My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up...
Note the bolded passages. It is hard to square claiming to have looked at a book cover as a child immediately after citing the date of the appearance of the book twenty-odd years after you were born as merely 'faulty memory'.
”This morning I did see Graham tie her in knots trying to get her to recognize the difference between a criminal defendant, and an enemy combatant.”
What is the difference?
St. Croix--You are correct that Cruz is using her as a prop to rail against CRT.
That is the point. CRT is wildly unpopular--witness our resident lefties running away from it on this thread.
"it's so unfair that they question her about it when she says that she doesn't really know anything about it."
Or the alleged "conservatives" who worry that questioning her about it is "a bad look."
What crap. Politics ain't beanbag.
Cruz gave her every opportunity to say that CRT is a bad idea, especially in the context of teaching young children, and she dodged.
Make the Dems own it or denounce it. Remind parents what it is and who supports it.
Has any Dem senator tried to rehab Jackson on this--"you don't support or tolerate this pernicious doctrine, right?"
Alinsky them. That's the point.
I'm not inclined to support her nomination for constitutional reasons. I opposed Kavanaugh on the same grounds. In both cases, both nominees are entirely too accepting of government control in issues that the government has no power to be involved per the constitution. Of course, the areas of creeping authoritarianism are different for Kavanaugh and Brown Jackson but the underlying issue remains -- they don't believe in the limited role of government in their pet issues of concern even if they agree with areas of constitutional restraint on government actions they oppose.
Cruz's examination of Brown Jackson gets to an area where she potentially views it acceptable to violate constitutional rights in the pursuit of the government correcting perceived historical social justice issues. CRT is not an "equal rights" philosophy - it's a "reordering through brute force" philosophy. If Brown Jackson accepts the premises of CRT, that is concerning for a SCOTUS Justice nominee.
I am glad she properly labeled President Bush a war criminal. Kavanaugh helped Bush use the brute force of government to violate constitutional rights and human rights enshrined at Geneva. But I don't think the cure for authoritarianism is different or competing authoritarianism. The cure for authoritarianism is liberty through the constitutional restraint of government. Gorsuch is the only justice who's been close to consistent in applying this restraint regardless of political affinity.
Vicki - turns bout nobody likes Biden or Kamala. so - stick that in your hivemind.
Did Kavanaugh get "white male" questioning?
Did Barrett get "Catholic schoolgirl" questioning?
political grandstanding at its worst.
Or best. If the opposition party can make the majority look bad, they have succeeded.
Neither I, Cruz, nor you (being careful not to speak for Althouse) seem to have any doubt regarding the pro-CRT beliefs of Jackson. That's why Biden picked her. If that's their platform, it seems fair to hold them up to ridicule to those who think CRT is ridiculous.
And it seems telling that she's willing to betray her beliefs because she knows they're found widely ridiculous, but once she's on the court, it won't matter what she said in the hearing.
"Blogger Howard said...
Trump made the case for Russian collision when he gave Vlad the green light to invade Ukraine. String him up."
"Comments may need to pass through moderation. Comments should respond to material raised in the post."
Why the actual fuck do you even bother with this charade of moderation if you're not going to make even the slightest effort to enforce your published own rules, Ann?
"But she deserves exactly the same treatment that would have been given to any of those others,"
You mean like Kavanaugh and Barrett? Republicans would never stoop to that level but anything in her professional capacities (lawyer, judge, school board member) is fair game.
"Kavanaugh helped Bush use the brute force of government to violate constitutional rights and human rights enshrined at Geneva. "
The detainees allegedly tortured did not have constitutional protection. They were irregulars, captured overseas, and kept overseas. The constitution does not apply.
The captured individuals were not regulars in uniform or part of a regularly constituted army of a nation that had signed on to the convention. They did not meet the requirements of treatment as POWs, and therefore, Geneva did not apply either.
The procedures used (most notably waterboarding) are not torture. They don't meet the definition of torture in the conventions nor in international law up to the point those definitions were changed post hoc to call the procedures "torture".
The only thing that made those procedures "torture" or the actions taken "war crimes" were a bunch of anti-American NGOs declaring it as such, and main stream media and corrupt American lawyers repeating those phrases till many dimwits thought it was true.
Still seems like a bizarre case of faulty memory or perception or language ability or defective intelligence. Such a lapse might make one question a judge's abilities, but is it necessarily a deliberate lie? It seems more like something to wonder about than condemn her for.
Maybe it's an example of the self-mythologizing that's become so common in the age of Biden. I'd want to know if it's a one-off or part of a pattern. Anyway, if this is a serious issue it means there aren't any serious issues.
charade of moderation
I'm thinking we don't see the censored postings, but if we did, we'd understand the process.
Are you embarrassed that your Democrat handlers think so little of your intelligence that they refuse to release your LSAT scores. If not, why not?
Only she could make her test scores public, not her "handlers." Nobody willingly releases their test scores. Demanding to see someone's test scores doesn't work and backfires when race is involved.
"And that has, exactly, what to do with being soft on pedophiles and sex offenders?"
You were wondering what the reaction would be to a Republican-nominated justice who holds similar perspectives on sentencing guidelines for pedophiles and sex offenders.
Why the actual fuck do you even bother with this charade of moderation if you're not going to make even the slightest effort to enforce your published own rules, Ann?
Moderation, editorial control, perhaps, rarely. Staggering distribution to mitigate sympathetic rhythms and rhymes, increase and improve independent contributions, probably.
She deserves the same treatment that has been meted out to Trump's nominees. What she's getting is far gentler.
And Cruz is right; she's weaseling, like she did with her inane answer to the define a woman question.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?”
“Senator, I don't know,” Jackson replied.
“Are you aware of the fact that anesthesia is provided to the unborn child at that time period if there's an operation to save the baby's life, because they can, in fact, feel pain? Are you aware that?” Graham asked.
“I am not aware of that,” Jackson responded.
serious question:
is being a MORON (or, at least, Pretending to be a Moron) required for the position?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?”
“Senator, I don't know,” Jackson replied.
“Are you aware of the fact that anesthesia is provided to the unborn child at that time period if there's an operation to save the baby's life, because they can, in fact, feel pain? Are you aware that?” Graham asked.
“I am not aware of that,” Jackson responded.
Thank you for asking that, Senator Graham, you rock. I'm impressed and kind of amazed that he's pushing her on this.
Anybody trying to stimulate awareness and thought about what we're doing to the unborn is a rock star in my book.
I wish he'd ask the jurisprudential question of how you read the word "person" in the equal protection clause. She can't really duck that question and I'd like to see some argument over this.
Saint Croix said...
Cruz is using Jackson as a prop to rail against critical race theory.
I hate critical race theory. But this is circus-level stuff.
If there's no evidence that Jackson supports CRT, why would you assume she does?
Because as others here have pointed out, there's a great deal of evidence, taken from her own words (such as when she promoted the use of CRT in sentencing decisions) that she DOES support CRT.
No "assuming" needed
Critter said...
A bunch of nice questions.
Hopefully some will get used
Here's the question she needs to be asked.
"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court defined an unborn baby as a non-person, as sub-human, as property. This baby was put outside the law. Apparently the Constitution does not see her and does not recognize her humanity. This upsets me. This upsets millions of Americans.
I've always thought that a person was a live human being. I thought that everybody who is in the class homo sapiens is a person and has rights. It's always very dangerous and ugly when the government defines a set of human beings as non-persons. We did that with slavery, as a class of non-citizens from Africa were defined as non-persons. We saw it in Nazi Germany, as the Jews were defined as non-persons. And we saw it in Roe v. Wade, as unborn babies, from conception all the way until birth, were defined as non-persons.
This is highly controversial. I don't know if you know this, but in Roe v. Wade Justice Blackmun cites the Dred Scott opinion in part of his discussion of why unborn babies do not qualify as people. He also said they were not counted in the census, which is similar to how slaves were counted in the census, as less-than-human. To me this is a deeply offensive discussion. Every human being is a person. We fought, bled and died to put the equal protection clause into the Constitution. And to have a bunch of Ivy Leaguers go into a room and pretend like they don't know that human beings are people drives me up the wall.
I know you can't discuss abortion cases. I know abortion is going to be on your docket for the next few decades, probably. I know that Roe v. Wade is super-controversial, and you don't want to discuss that. I respect that. I'm not going to ask you about Roe v. Wade, or abortion rules, or the abortion cases. I just have one question for you, and this is an important question.
Do you think the Supreme Court, or the Congress, or the President has the authority to define some human beings as non-people?"
This close enough for you Saint Croix?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/03/23/senator-kennedy-stumped-bidens-supreme-court-nominee-with-one-question-n2604912
KENNEDY: When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?
JACKSON: Well Senator, I believe that the Supreme Court — actually, I actually don’t know the answer to that question, I’m sorry
I'm curious:
Did anyone here watch ACB's confirmation hearings?
Did she have anything like as many "I'm sorry, Senator, I don't know that famous case and opinion by a Justice I really claim to respect, so I can't answer your question" and / or "actually, I actually don’t know the answer to that question, I’m sorry" answers as KBJ does?
If the issue that KBJ is just an idiot compared to ACB? Or is it that KBJ is a lying sack of fertilizer, and ACB isn't?
This close enough for you Saint Croix?
Appreciate the link.
Interesting to me that she's not saying "I can't discuss this." That's the typical dodge, that judges can't make promises or statements about cases that are likely to come before the court. She doesn't do that in the clips I've seen. Instead she answers the question, and says, "I don't know."
So it's not a yes or a no, it's just ignorance.
For what's it worth, she strikes me as a nice person, at least in the clips I've seen. Also she's very nervous. I'm not getting a vibe that she's lying, either. She has no idea when equal protection attaches. (Scalia used to say that too, so she's not the only one to say that). You have to drive it home and make the nominee say that babies are people or non-people. Scalia's thoughts in this area were really bad, actually, I rip him one in my book.
The Republicans should ask her about babies in the middle of birth. Are they people? Is their a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion? I don't think she's been prepped very well. Probably hasn't read the Carhart opinions. I'm always shocked when I run across attorneys who have no knowledge of abortion rules and laws. Roe v. Wade is only the judicial opinion that every single American has heard about.
If she's willing to answer questions about Roe, ask her questions about Roe. Right now she's going the Bork route of answering all the questions. Which is strange because she has no paper trail and her big answer is "I don't know."
Post a Comment