This was predictable. She's on Harvard's Board of Overseers, and her vote wasn't going to change the outcome of the case, given the 6 conservatives already on the Court.
२३ मार्च, २०२२
"Supreme Court nominee Jackson says she would recuse herself from Harvard affirmative action case."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
She should stand up for conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view. Coleridge, in his op-ed days.
…a big NFW I recuse if she mattered…
Is Breyer retiring when KBJ gets confirmed? Or is he retiring at the end of the term?
Nomination-Confirmation-Appointment.
KBJ can be confirmed, but she can’t be appointed until Breyer retires.
Supreme court nominee Jackson can't say if she would deceive others about recusing herself from Harvard affirmative action case, she's not a lieologist.
She was picked because shes a woman, yet cant define what that means.
Maybe they should have asked, "are you a bleeder"?
Supreme court nominee Jackson says she will recuse herself in any future cases involving airborne swine or other mammals, she's not a flyologist.
Supreme court nominee Jackson says she would recuse herself from any cases involving dudes, studs, or hunks, she's not a guyologist.
Supreme court nominee Jackson says she would recuse herself from any Ohio State University cases, she's not a buckeyeologist.
How does Biden know he nominated a women for the Court? He's not a biologist.
She said her plan is to recuse…. There’s wiggle room.
Okay, I have not watched even a full hour, but in the clips I've seen, she's not been a good witness for herself. She seems very uncomfortable. She was bright enough to rise to the top of her class and won a Supreme Court clerkship. She should ignore her handlers - she's got at least 49 Dem vote and Susan Collins. She'll probably get Romney and Murkowski - she should be frank and honest.
her vote wasn't going to change the outcome of the case, given the 6 conservatives already on the Court.
No, her vote wouldn't change the outcome because the only effect she could have would be to take a 4-4 tie to a 5-4 majority
But a 4-4 tie already supporters her side
It's not like, after all, anyone thinks she'd rule according to the Constitution, rather than according to her personal preferences
I wonder if after being subjected to the woke arguments of the left side of the Supreme Court she will "grow" into a more conservative justice? Would that not be a future to enjoy?
She's on Harvard's Board of Overseers,
===========
how is she allowed to continue on the board after she became Judge/Justice?
or is that job like Michelle Obama and some IL/Chicago Hospital
...her vote wasn't going to change the outcome of the case, given the 6 conservatives already on the Court.
Hahahahaha!
Wait, you're serious?
Roberts has been "growing in office" so who the heck knows how he's going to vote. It depends on what best serves the prestige of the court, which is an interesting euphemism for who has the most effective blackmail. We have already established that Gorusch is so smart that he can be convinced to support the most ridiculous of judicial gymnastics that baffle the ordinary man. Kavanaugh and Barrett are certainly conservative, but not exactly rock the boat conservatives so who knows if they would be willing to be the deciding vote.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh is the protege of Kennedy, the justice who kept Affirmative Action in place with the rock solid genius argument "maybe later?" And Thomas is in the freaking hospital!!!
C'mon!
Did KBJ ever explain the three month child porn sentence?
You never know. Last affirmative action case, widely expected to end it, especially with Kagan recused by her USSG stint, ended up with Court upholding aa at UTexas. Scalia died in interim and Kennedy surprised everyone with his majority opinion.
I thought she would do better in the hearings than she has.
What should concern a good liberal-leaning feminist is that the brain trust on the left side of the Court will now be manned by Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson.
Kagan can hold her own, but beyond her there is no Ginsberg anymore, or even a Breyer.
She'll get enough votes and will be seated but Biden has done a great deal of long term damage to the liberal cause.
Václav Patrik Šulik said...
Okay, I have not watched even a full hour, but in the clips I've seen, she's not been a good witness for herself. She seems very uncomfortable.
Yes. The question is "is this because she's just not that bright (unlike ACB, for example)?
Or is that she's a dishonest partisan hack who's repeatedly lying?
Or shoudl we "embrace the healing power of 'and' here"?
She was bright enough to rise to the top of her class
She was? Proof of this?
and won a Supreme Court clerkship. She should ignore her handlers - she's got at least 49 Dem vote and Susan Collins. She'll probably get Romney and Murkowski - she should be frank and honest.
She doesn't have Collins, Romney, or Murkowski until she makes it to 50
There's 3+ Democrat Senators up for re-election in November who don't want to go into the election having voted for a pedophile supporting racist baby killer.
There's 3+ Republican Senate seats that Democrats would like to try to win in November. Being the Party of pedophile supporting racist baby killers doesn't help them achieve that goal
So she'll continue to lie. And may well continue to be an idiot, too
Mitt Romney and the RINO sisters will vote for a Leftwing Democrat who refuses to say what a woman is and is soft on People into illegal child porn.
And nothing will happen to them. BTW, Lisa Murkey voted AGAINST ACB, and if she voted for Kavanaugh its only because Manchin and Collins had already given her cover.
Supreme court nominee Jackson says she would recuse herself from any cases involving pumpernickel, challah, or swedish 'wasa', she's not a ryeologist.
Will she also recuse herself from cases that involve knowing what a woman is? Will she decline to join arguments that abortion is a constitutional right as a way for women to do morality?
“ how is she allowed to continue on the board after she became Judge/Justice?”
Her term is ending
She should stand up for conflicts of interest.
Good point. Jackson, Scorpion, Sheba, Sub-Zero... Prove your mettle. Forge your character. Vote!
rcocean said...
Mitt Romney and the RINO sisters will vote for a Leftwing Democrat who refuses to say what a woman is and is soft on People into illegal child porn.
Perhaps, once she gets 50 votes from the Democrats.
But none will vote for her, or announce for her, before she has those 50 votes
BTW, Lisa Murkey voted AGAINST ACB, and if she voted for Kavanaugh its only because Manchin and Collins had already given her cover.
Wow, can you ever get anything right?
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote against Barrett after expressing objections to moving a Supreme Court nomination before an election after Republicans blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland ahead of the 2016 election. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has also expressed the same concerns as Collins and voted against a procedural motion to advance Barrett's nomination on Sunday, but she voted for the nominee Monday after saying she would not hold her process objections against Barrett.
Murkey did NOT vote for Kavanaugh
She announced against him. Then, after Collins and Manchin announced they were voting for him, but a GOP Senator was going to have to leave his daughter's wedding early to make it back for the vote, she announced she was going to abstain, so he didn't need to come back
Murkey is up for re-election this year. The current betting is that she will not get the GOP nomination.
Collins got a pass for voting against ACB because
1: It was an election year and she's from a Democrat State
2: It didn't matter, ACB still won 52 - 48
Was reminded about Kavanaugh's angry and accusatory, defensive, angry confirmation hearings today and contrasted that with this one and ACB.
The female double standard is still in place as the last two have shown ... nothing but smiles and deference from the women sitting in conference, so unlike how len are allowed to act
" The governor added this district saying it was required by the Voting Rights Act"
No, the governor added this district saying that it wasn't clear that the VRA required it, but he was going to be safe.
And the court said that something that is so against the underlying nature of con law as racial gerrymandering cannot be done with such casual scrutiny.
Mark said...
Was reminded about Kavanaugh's angry and accusatory, defensive, angry confirmation hearings today and contrasted that with this one and ACB.
The female double standard is still in place as the last two have shown ... nothing but smiles and deference from the women sitting in conference, so unlike how len are allowed to act
You are such a worthless sack of shit.
Kavanaugh was falsely accused of attempted rape by an obviously lying piece of shit, who was backed up by more lying piece of shit Democrats.
Neither of the female nominees have faced that level of evil, douchebag
Rabel said...
I thought she would do better in the hearings than she has.
I recognize I'm probably getting a biased impression but that was my take as well. "I'm not a biologist" doesn't come close to the snarky brilliance of "above my pay grade."
Most everybody agrees that her predictable left-leaning vote replacing Breyer's won't make any difference to the Harvard case. It's a nice gesture and would look magnanimous if she was cruising to confirmation but taken altogether it looks like an effort to change the topic.
6 Conservatives? Try perhaps 4-5 conservatives, John Roberts and 3 liberals.
If Kavanaugh and ACB were to join the libs with Roberts, Jackson's vote could be very important.
If Kavanaugh and ACB were to join the libs with Roberts, Jackson's vote could be very important.
Nope.
The only way the SCOTUS vote matters in the this case is if at least 5 members vote to finally end the racist practices being currently used.
Since she isn't going to be one of those 5, her vote literally wouldn't matter, since 4 - 4 is the exact same as 5 -4 to uphold the current precedent
I haven't followed the hearings, and don't know whether she also addressed the companion case by the same plaintiff-entity (Students for Fair Admissions) against Univ of North Carolina. SCOTUS granted cert in that case as well as the Harvard case, and they will both be argued together. Indeed, plaintiffs asked for (and got) permission from SCOTUS to submit a combined brief on the merits addressing both cases. Presumably, if she is confirmed, she will recuse in the UNC case as well. But I don't see any technical reason why she would have to.
RD that's an interesting question. Yesterday, the Court heard argument together in 2 cases interpreting a federal state providing for third party discovery in international arbitration. One involved private commercial arbitration, the other investor-state arbitration. Outcomes could be same or different. (The US intervened to argue based on foreign policy concerns for same outcome--no discovery for either.) Same here with aa at private and public institutions. Outcomes could be same or different. But presumably if aa falls at private Harvard it will also fall at state UNC. I expect US to intervene to argue for same outcome--uphold aa. Contrary to its position under prior administration.
Statute.
What’s to keep a President from nominating several prospective justices, getting them confirmed, and just leaving them stacked up until vacancies occur? If KBJ can be confirmed before Breyer actually creates a vacancy, then other nominees can be confirmed before anyone announces a plan to step down. So if a President has a Senate majority, but figures to lose it in mid-term elections, why not get a couple of extra justices confirmed? Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate can un-consent to a confirmed nominee.
Nominations expire at end of the session. Have to start over next session.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा