"... has them bracing for tense moments during Judge [Ketanji Brown] Jackson’s hearings. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has argued that Republicans aim some of their harshest fire at 'assertive women of color' to suggest they are 'soft on crime.' Democrats contend that these attacks are tied to a central element of Republicans’ midterm campaign strategy, which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement.... Republicans deny that they are trying to bar an entire category of potential judges. [Senator Tom] Cotton said he did not believe that criminal defense work was disqualifying, but that it was only appropriate to judge nominees by the cases they had accepted.... As for Judge Jackson, Mr. Cotton pressed her during her appeals court hearing last year on her work for terror detainees whom she was appointed to represent, though she continued to challenge Bush-era detention polices after she entered private practice."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
३७ टिप्पण्या:
Democrats have more diverse... number, not color... and color propaganda outlets.
Bracing for the pounce. Preparing the battle space.
Her criminal defense record doesn't matter, but what she thinks matters.
It's likely to be disqualifying, just on the odds, but you'd get to it other than through who she's defended.
Careful Times. You are trying to step around the central plank Democratic Party, that plank being Democrats are soft on crime because black people commit most of em…
Be careful you don’t actually say what they intend to promote…
If she'd represented a Trump appointee or a January 6 defendant, these same senators would be calling for her bar license.
If she'd represented a Trump appointee or a January 6 defendant, these same senators would be calling for her bar license.
"have vilified Biden’s judicial nominees who have represented criminal suspects"
By accusing them of rape in high school?
Now Republicans have vilified! That’s much worse than pouncing, and severely worse than seizing…
After the crap they pulled on Kavanaugh, et. al., the Dems really need to shut up. Completely. Permanently. (They won't, of course.)
"Democrats contend that these attacks are tied to a central element of Republicans’ midterm campaign strategy, which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement."
Oh, C'mon, Man! Nobody is going to believe that the people who appointed Merrick Garland to run the DOJ, which refuses to defend Federal Marshalls being sued for trying to enforce the law and defend federal property during the Democrat-owned and Democrat-operated riots that destroyed downtown Portland in 2020 could possibly be unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement! That dog just won't hunt!
As per usual NYT "reporting" it is a "Republicans Pounce" theme.
“Democrats contend that these attacks are tied to a central element of Republicans’ midterm campaign strategy, which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement.... “
Duh! It’s kowtowing to AntiFA and BLM. It’s actually quite funny that they are now discovering that Defund The Police was a major vote loser for them. Soros funded DAs in Dem controlled cities around the country refused to send criminals, and esp violent criminals, to jail, or even prison, and like magic, crime exploded.what did they think would happen? They didn’t, of course. For them, rhetoric and narratives are reality - except, of course, they aren’t.
"assertive women of color"
Senator Durbin, do you really mean "loud-mouthed black females?"
"which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement"
Gee, Senator, where would anyone get that sort of crazy idea?
I'm shocked, shocked to find politics in this establishment.
On the bright side it's unlikely Republicans will call Brown a gang-rapist.
Democrat lawyers flocked to defend terrorists in Gitmo. She is one.
"which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement"
No need for portraying. They said it, were proud of it and their voters said, yes, give us more. Even Kameltoe threatened violence up til and after the election. No word parsing necessary.
This isnt hard stuff.
Democrats contend that these attacks are tied to a central element of Republicans’ midterm campaign strategy, which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement....
Wow! It's a real fucking mystery as to where the Republicans could get an idea like that. Just a mystery.
Okay, not all Democrats were Defunders-of-the-Police, soft on crime, let the lefty rioters run, well, riot, and not enforce the law at their whimsy sort of squishes. But, every politician who did the above was a Democrat.
It's just kinda tough to argue with those facts...
The fact of the matter is that certain anti-American radical activists become lawyers and use that to further their radical goals. Its good to keep them off the bench.
"Democrats contend that these attacks are tied to a central element of Republicans’ midterm campaign strategy, which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement..."
Oh yeah, totally unfair…
The thing for Republican to do is let the Democrats ask the nominee all those soft-ball questions about "Why did you decide to become a lawyer?". "Oh to help the underpriveleged", "To protect the poor victims of an unfair society", "To help build a more equitable society", etc. Then, if the nominee has devoted a lot of effort to what appear to reasonable people to be "other goals", then ask your "gotcha" questions. Otherwise, put those questions back in the briefing book.
Ah the return of the long-standing attorney privilege “every defendant deserves competent counsel,” a principle that was in witness protection when Trump needed good lawyers. Our elite are so fickle with fundamental rights. Goddamnright they should be questioned now.
Durbin is a notorious cheap-shot artist--he loves to smear his opponents.
I would like one question to her to be: would you have served as a defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse if the opportunity presented itself? If no, why?
Didn't John Adams defend the Boston Massacre guys?
Democrat lawyers flocked to defend terrorists in Gitmo. She is one.
That in itself is not disqualifying. Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense - we all know that. Me, I'm inclined to think that standing on that particular principle is a mark of proper American legal character.
And maybe the best defensive strategy for Gitmo detainees was to try to convince a jury that American society itself is illegitimate.
What I'd consider disqualifying is if she actually believes that. I haven't looked into her at all, so I can't hold an opinion.
I caught a few clips of the questioning of several judicial nominees--by Republican Senators. Some of the nominees had a deer in the headlights look. Senator Cruz actually asked one of the nominees whether she had prepared for the hearing. He was going over some earlier law review articles the candidate had written. I thought the questioning was harsh but fair.
She is a democrat, vote her down.
Jacson was a public defender for 2 years. She worked for the US sentencing commission longer.
One of the turning points of civilization was when we changed from clan law to judicial law. In civil society we gave up the right of vengeance to the state, because we were assured that the state would take vengeance for us in a just way, knowing that vengeance was the best way to deter and make us safe.
We now don't live under the rule of law, we live under the rule of politics. Politics diverts outcomes based on voting power. So the new breed DA's don't prosecute where it is not in their own interest. Supreme Court Justices rule in their group political interest. That is fact. So the only way to be safe is to win politically. The political is the personal.
Beasts of England said...
Now Republicans have vilified! That’s much worse than pouncing, and severely worse than seizing…
"Turn the Demonizer up to Eleven!!!"
So, under the new rule that everyone deserves competent counsel, does this mean that the harassment of President Trump's lawyers will now be condemned by all right-thinking people? Or does the new rule only apply to the left?
Yesterday's Democrats:
"Trump is literally worse than Hitler! He peed on a bed full of hookers in Russia! He's a Russian agent! Republicans are Nazis! Chimpy McBushHitler is a moron who hates black people! Kavanaugh is a gang rapist! Romney wants to put black people in chains! Dick Cheney is Satan! All cops are bastards!"
Today's Democrats: "Hey Republicans... watch your tone."
"It’s actually quite funny that they are now discovering that Defund The Police was a major vote loser for them."
You do have to wonder how they thought this was going to work out in the endgame. I suppose they thought they were pandering to their base. It did not occur to them that all those ditzy suburban white women who were eager to score brownie points by supporting the oppressed might see things a little differently when the oppressed came to smash the windows in the trendy little cafes they used to have brunch in.
Is this Republicans' "seizing" or "pouncing"? I have such a hard time keeping up.
I just read the remainder of the comments and realized it is not "seizing" or "pouncing" at all! Instead, it is the dreaded "vilifying". Truly, the end of "our democracy".
I despise these people! I don't know which is worse, the ignorant and racist democrats, who are doing their best to destroy our country, or their media mouthpieces who provide cover for them on each and every issue on each and every day! Those celebrity media personnel who grin and giggle over the thought of the blue-collar peons starving in the cold in their dark homes while paying $4 to $5 a gallon for gas make me sick. Meanwhile, they celebrate those such as John Kerry flying his private jet around the world as he lectures us useless eaters is about as sick as can be!
I don't think a defense lawyer should be judged by his clients, but I'm quite sure that any Supreme Court nominee of any gender or color would be asked by the opposing party about defending accused terrorists at Guantanamo.
All Democrats will have to worry about "soft on crime" charges this year. I think it's likely that San Francisco voters will recall their left-wing (white male) DA in June.
IN W.W.I the germans belatedly bitterly regretted using poison gas because the allies responded in kind and their losses were horrific.
The democrats have made their bed and now ruefully don't want to sleep in it. Too fucking bad. I want to know why this SC nominee has a soft spot for pedophiles. Is that how she gets her kicks? I think it's a reasonable question to ask.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा