Said Cory Booker, quoted in "Cory Booker demolishes GOP attempts to smear Ketanji Brown Jackson" by Jennifer Rubin (in WaPo).
I don't know about "demolishes" — or "smear" for that matter. But I agree with the Booker's implication. The question for the Senate is basic qualification. The President has the appointments power, and the Senate isn't in the position to ask who would it pick, if it had to single out somebody.
Booker ended on a high note, quoting a Maya Angelou poem: “You may try to write me down in history with your bitter twisted lies … but still, like dust, I rise.”
Were there bitter twisted lies about KBJ? All Rubin cites is the charge that she's "'soft' on crime and child pornography." That's a characterization of the facts. It might be overdone, but I don't see the lies. And I don't think a strong stance against crime and child pornography is bitter or twisted. I loathe that sort of hyperbole.
That's why I like Booker's "How qualified do you have to be?"!
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
I will never be a fan of the Must Always accept a Democrat Nominee/Must Always Reject a Republican Nominee rule invented by Democrats.
Says the man that voted against Amy Coney Barrett. This post should get your bullsh*t tag.
Please comment on Booker's racism here. He would not be doing the same for a non-black nominee
Lock of the Week: Maya Angelou is not getting up...
You can't raise the average IQ of the court every time but it's worth trying, is the feeling.
Being able to define "woman" is a minimum qualification.
and the Senate isn't in the position to ask who would it pick, if it had to single out somebody.
Unless.. Unless, it's a Democrat Senate and a Republican's nominee right?
I mean, RIGHT?
Who WAS the last republican nominee to receive a majority of democrat votes?
hint: it WASN'T Roberts, that was like 22-22
Ask Booker to review and comment on the Bork and Thomas nominations of the 1980s...then look at the voting patterns of his own party...
Hoisted on his own petard.
The Constitution leaves it up to each senator to decide whether a given nominee is a worthy addition to the court. It's not true that a senator is required to vote to confirm so long as the person meets another person's standard of "minimally qualified." In any event, it's clearly not a standard that those favoring the confirmation of KBJ have applied when a Republican president has nominated a conservative justice. Amy Coney Barrett received exactly zero Dem votes. Kavanaugh got 1. Gorsuch got 3. Let's please stop with the hypocritical hang-wringing over how unfair the Republicans in trying to deprive a president of his SCOTUS picks.
To believe in the Constitution of the United States, you need to believe in natural rights. To not believe in them, means all liberties exist at the Governments discretion, and we all know how BAD that will be. She doens't know if she is a woman. AND she goes light on pedophiles to return them back into the streets to do it again. She is a monster.
The qualification is simple - will the justice defend individual liberty by upholding constitutional limits on the government? If not, no other qualification matters. Gorsuch is the only justice that comes close to this qualification. Occasionally, so does Thomas but not always.
We constituted an extremely limited form of government and we’ve broken that constitution to our peril and indebtedness.
"How qualified do you have to be?"!
Better than good enough?
Just asking.
I guess AA does not read the comments to her many KBJ posts. Monster!
The advise and consent clause has always been used by Senators to add heft to their fights over nominations.
Supreme Court Justice approval by Senate has become public dirty laundry airing and nit picking of any comment ever.
I don't often agree with Booker, but this is one case I do agree. Let's say she's weak on crime in some places. Ok. Does that mean the Senate gets to deny the executive the nominee?
My take is no. Except for gross incompetence, the executive can nominate even modestly qualified individuals and should expect approval by the Senate.
I try to avoid articles with headlines that contain words like "destroys", "owns", "slams", or "wrecks". I don't want to reward that kind of sensationalism with clicks.
We went from "most qualified" to "barely need cross the minimum threshold" pretty quickly. Soft bigotry, low expectations?
How qualified do you have to be?
This should be the tagline for any affirmative action hire. Whoa...you say. Stop that right there! Am I calling KBJ an affirmative action hire. Well...she's got credentials to have her at the table. But this table was in a segregated restaurant. Only Black women allowed. So, yeah. I'd say this is most definitely an affirmative action hire. It's not KBJ's fault. They put her in this position with Biden's proclamation.
So, how qualified do you have to be? Who knows? She's probably there. But we won't know until she tries on her robe. It's the same for all of them. What's not the same is the accusation of rapes, hosting rape trains, while guzzling steady amounts of booze. Or the accusation of laying a pubic hair on a can of coke. Or the claim that Robert Bork would roll back civil rights law. Those are deemed OK because Conservatives! and we all know what they're like.
But, go ask that question now of an airline pilot. Or your doctor or surgeon. Or that policeman who stops you this week. Or your Vice President. Your Secretary of Energy. Your Secretary of Transportation. How qualified do you have to be? might just be the standard for the Democratic Party these days.
Jennifer Rubin, huh? I can only shake my head at the level of people working for WaPo. They are as a group, an embarrassment.
‘That's why I like Booker's "How qualified do you have to be?"!‘
At least as qualified as T-Bone.
"How qualified do you have to be?"
Qualified enough to know what a woman is?
Qualified enough to have a position on Natural Rights?
I know. Not a serious critique, but really, can we not expect a person to not be able to handle relatively simple gotchas?
That gives me TEARS OF RAGE!
From Matt Vespa at Townhall
"... the Illinois Democrat was appalled that Republicans brought up Judge Jackson’s sordid and disturbing legal history concerning sentences for child porn offenders. She was lenient, even when she could have doled out years of prison time, she handed down the lightest sentence possible. Some cases involved the sexual torture of young children.
Her soft stance on sexual predators is documented. It’s a fact. There’s a docket. There are the case files. There are the perpetrators themselves. The judicial record is ironclad. You know what wasn’t—the uncorroborated and fake sexual misconduct allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Durbin must have forgotten that circus because he said he was aghast that the Senate GOP would say “vile” things in front of Judge Jackson’s family. Dude, are you suffering from dementia, like Joe Biden."
By experience and ability, she's qualified. And I'm putting the aside the whole Black woman thing that got her the job.
The problem with KBJ are her radical views:
1. Refused to define a woman.
2. Doesn't believe in Natural Law.
3. Believes in CRT.
4. Soft on crime.
Booker is a clown.
How about:
- A willingness to apply the sentence as proscribe by law to child abuses/child porn adicts.
- An ability and willingness to define basic concepts, such as what a woman is.
- Support the Constitution and not call it illegitimate.
“How qualified do you have to be?”
If there we qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice I suppose they’d be listed in the constitution - but there don’t seem to be any. So anything goes. Unwritten rule seems to be Harvard or Yale law degree.
It used to be said that anyone could grow up to be president (or Vice President?). That seems more true than ever. Most political positions seem to have very few qualifications required.
The mystery with Booker is how his bright parents had such an idiot child.
Romney opposed KBJ's nomination to the DC Circuit. Then he learned about her pedophile sympathies. Now he supports her for the USSC. Hmmm
@ Professor Althouse
What do you think about criticism of KJB for writing, "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights" in response to a written question from Ted Cruz?
Cruz's question was, "Do you hold a position on whether individuals have natural rights, yes or no?"
"... the executive can nominate even modestly qualified individuals and should expect approval by the Senate."
The executive should expect nothing other than what the executive can negotiate with the separate and equal branch of government known as the legislative. The executive is not a king and represents no one. The legislative is not a king, and represents everyone.
The idea that the executive should expect anything other than calumny and opposition to the appointment made is part of the problem of our monarchical executive.
4 years... 32 trimesters... Booker brays truth through projection.
"The question for the Senate is basic qualification."
After Bork, "the question" for the senate is prog or anti-prog.
"the Senate isn't in the position to ask who would it pick"
But the Senate is in a position to do whatever it wants to do.
"That's why I like Booker's "How qualified do you have to be?"!"
So you like cynical opportunism, using convenient rhetoric unrelated to Dem practice.
It's always struck me as....strange...that the retired Con Law Perfesser passes over the "consent" part of "advice and consent".
Gorusch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett would like to have a word. He voted against all of them.
It would also be useful if a judge could identify a "woman," given that is an important legal distinction that flows through many of the country's laws. Furthermore, it would be nice if a judge on the Supreme Court would have an opinion on natural rights, given the entire Constitution is based on natural rights. I mean, this is fundamental basic stuff and she failed, badly. But according to Booker she is more qualified than the trio above.
Alas, Booker is a classic demagogue who can justify anything in flowery words. He can be quite convincing if you are susceptible to that sort of thing, or if you want to be fooled, but underneath is your standard unscrupulous politician who has no guiding principles beyond what is best for him right now. How qualified do you have to be be? I assure you that Booker's answer is very negotiable.
With everything we know about KBJ, how can any ethical person agree that she will uphold the OATH she will swear to if she is confirmed"
“I, _________, do solemnly swear* (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
*wink wink
Well when it's Jen Rubin at the Washington Post the answer to the question "How qualified to you have to be?" is --not very much.
Biden got backed into a corner by James Clyburn--and as a result of that, sort of bungled KBJ's nomination. Had he not been backed into a corner, much of the criticism of KBJ would have been ameliorated. Still I wanted to hear about the wild parties and swinging youthful sex that KBJ--like all other recent court nominees--engaged in. So there is that disappointment.
"Supreme Court Justice approval by Senate has become public dirty laundry airing and nit picking of any comment ever."
That didn't just happen out of nowhere. Somebody chose this as their preferential method of approval. Any ideas who?
"but still, like dust, I rise"
The usual practice is to let the dust settle before deciding on future action.
Once again, the left chooses dreck over quality. Angelou was always worthless. Now the left is choosing an AA-quality person who has a softness for child molesters yet who is unable to have an opinion on natural rights.
""How qualified do you have to be?""
You heave to believe in Natural Rights.
Period.
Anyone who does not believe in Natural Rights needs to get out of the United States of America and go be a serf somewhere else.
We do not want you here.
Things change so fast. I thought the Senate decided that qualifications were irrelevant in 1987 when they said someone who had served as Solicitor General, U.S. Attorney General (Acting), Law Professor, and Appellate Court Judge (not to mention USMC service, Order of the Coif and Phi Beta Kappa) shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court.
"That's why I like Booker's "How qualified do you have to be?"!"
I think it depends on if it's the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee. Doesn't history prove this?
Applying the law as written is a basic, fundamental qualification for a judge. So, whatever the precise standard might be, you have to be more qualified than Jackson.
When did "meets minimum standards" become good enough to become a justice on the Supreme Court?
The Constitution sets some qualifications for members of Congress, President, and Vice President, but not judges.
Former Senators have been justices, and might be again. They don’t need some rating from the ABA. Why not a general, physician, philosopher, or entrepreneur?
That would bring some diversity to SCOTUS.
They all get three or four clerks to do the scut work anyway.
That this woman, excuse me, person, is a nominee is an indictment of the Democrat Party. The Senate has the authority to confirm or decline, it is not required to confirm.
Sen. Tim Scott: "Ideology... not identity."
On Monday Republican Senator Tim Scott announced he will not vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
"The historic nature of Judge Jackson’s nomination reinforces the progress our country has made. However, ideology must be the determining factor—not identity—when considering such an important lifetime appointment," Scott released in a statement. "It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. From leaving the door open on court packing to her multiple overturned opinions, I cannot support a nominee with her record of judicial activism. I remain disappointed that President Biden missed the opportunity to unite the country with a mainstream nominee that could have received resounding bipartisan support. For all these reasons, I will be voting no on Judge Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court."
I'd have to check with Judge Bork
But for the last several decades, you have to have graduated from Yale law, or Harvard law, to be qualified.
You should be more qualified (and more committed to the principles on which our Republic rests) than a judge who:
1) betrayed in her oral testimony that she did not remember the reasoning in Dred Scott and also thought that Dred Scott had been overturned by a court case, rather than by the Civil War & the Thirteenth Amendment,
2) also in her oral testimony, refused to define "woman" on the grounds that she is not a biologist, and specifically could not say how she would know who qualifies as a woman for the purpose of filing a Title 3 lawsuit, and
3) in her written answers to written questions from the committee, made it clear that she understands the claim in the Declaration of Independence that human beings have natural rights, but also made it clear that she refuses to take a position on the issue.
I also find her greater sympathy for the consumers of pedophile porn than for the children who are tortured to create the porn disturbing, but that's another story.
The Constitution doesn't mention what criteria the Senate is to use in giving its advice and consent for Supreme Court nominees. It just says it has the power to do so. A person who can't or won't give a definition of what a woman is because she doesn't want to upset a small subset of the Democratic party base is likely to be quite partisan in her SC rulings. A person who believes child porn is mostly a free speech issue is unlikely to be able to see the potential harm in her rulings. And a person who doesn't believe in a founding principle of the Constitution is probably not going to be able to uphold that principle.
""How qualified do you have to be?""
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Booker is being disingenuous: Has he ever voted for a Republican-nomination for the Supreme Court? Does he think they were all unqualified?
A double standard is no standard at all: Republican nominations since Roberts have gotten in the single digits of votes from Democratic Senators, while Republicans have been much more generous:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 4 yea votes from Democratic Senators 42 nay
Sonia Sotomayor 9 Yea votes from Republican Senators 31 nay
Elena Kagan 5 Yea votes from Republican Senators 36 nay
Neil M. Gorsuch 3 Yea votes from Democratic Senators 45 nay
Brett M. Kavanaugh 1 Yea vote from Democratic Senators 47 nay
Amy Coney Barrett 0 Yea votes from Democratic Senators 46 nay
Republicans gave an average of 7 votes per nomination, Democrats have averaged 2.
Aren’t the mediocre entitled to a little representation?
As a bare minimum one would hope to hear a complete agreement with the phrase, "We are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As that is what makes the USA different from other countries, especially "democracies" as democrats like to call them. I would also like to hear an affirmation they understand we are a constitutional republic.
""How qualified do you have to be?"
Damning with faint praise. If that’s what her supporters are saying, then Rubin is quite mistaken about who is demolishing whom.
Hmmm...
I would vote against Jackson because she claimed to know nothing about the VMI case (US vs. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)) and Justice Ginsburg's opinion, which went into detail about inherent differences between women and men. The case was argued and decided while Jackson was a third year student at Harvard Law School. The idea that she knows nothing about the case is ridiculous.
She obviously lied about this. What else did she lie about?
Durbin is trash, but anyone who has been paying attention knows that.
Booker is making his own reputation for insincerity. I didn't say all that hagiographic stuff about Jackson, he did.
Let me beat Begley to it,
There are a lot of mediocre people in the US, they deserve representation on the court too.
Sen Roman Hruska.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
The question for the Senate is basic qualification.
If that's how we are going to play it, the "basic qualification" under the Constitution is that a person be alive. Period. And even that is not expressly stated.
On the other hand, the Constitution does expressly require "consent." And consent means more than just a rubber stamp. The Senate is NOT required to give its consent and it can withhold its consent for any damn reason it pleases.
Let's not push this idea that checks and balances does not really mean actually checking on occasion or balancing.
Any person who does not know what a "woman" is, or who says that she does not know when equal protection attaches to a human being, is DISQUALIFIED for the position regardless of whatever other merits she might possess.
Brown Jackson is disqualified for the Supreme Court because she either actually does not know these things, as she professed not to know, or because she is utterly dishonest in feigning a lack of knowledge.
Yeah, Cory Booker always seems to have a level-headed, non-partisan, no-nonsense take on things. Cory is a national treasure.
In a better world, sure. But the Democrats have forfeited all standing from which to make Rubin's or even Booker's (?) argument. No one was more "qualified" than Robert Bork; no one was as subject to random disparagement and lies as Brett Kavanaugh. If you can't take it, stop dishing it out. Don't start none, won't be none.
Annie C. said...
4/5/22, 1:12 PM
To Annie's comment, I'd add that I find her history of light sentencing most concerning -- far more than her reluctance to define "what is a woman" (although her response to that was quite inapt; she could have done better and still managed to avoid the scorn of her fans, and they would probably have glossed over it in any case.)
She imposed very light sentences for even the most outrageous child pornography convictions, and I believe I read that, in at least one case, sentenced far less time than the guidelines required. So, before she had any hint of possible Scotus appointment, she had a penchant for ignoring the written law, in favor of making up her own. ...when she thought she was queen of the courtroom, without consequence. We have had too much of that. We don't need more justices who favor a "living" Constitution.
I am [once again] reminded of a quote I read in a WSJ letter to the editor some decades ago: "Your honesty and your virtue are judged by how you behave when you think no one is looking: Peekaboo."
The words in the Constitution are 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...'
So, no, that's not just meeting some standard of bare qualification. The Senate is a co-equal partner in the selection and performs an independent evaluation of the fitness of the nominee for the office. And 'who the {Senate} would pick' is a red herring, as I am quite confident that if Brown Jackson were going down in flames it would quickly be turned into 'they can not name anyone better'. The choice they make is 'Yes' or 'No', and it is not up to them to find a nominee to whom they will Consent.
The objection to the treatment of Republican nominees like Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh is not they were closely questioned but that the lines of questioning their fitness for the office were based on *fraudulent testimony*. The objections to the Democrats claiming Justice Barrett would be influenced extra-legal beliefs (Catholicism) are based in their hypocrisy in professing their nominees like Brown Jackson are not.
Maya was a prostitute and a madam who manipulated young black girls into prostitution for her own ends. WHY do black people love her? Because white people put her on a pedestal?
I would say KBJ is a lot like Maya. They were both put into power by white people to use black people. No way would any politician dare touch her and her pro pedo ideas with a ten foot pole if she wasn’t black. Her blackness is used to hide her ideology from those who chose not to see.
At LEAST as qualified as Janice Rogers Brown, eighteen years ago.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/remembering-the-black-woman-biden-blocked-from-the-supreme-court/
KBJ best serves as a model for little girls considering puberty blockers. Oh wait, Maya Angelou quote? Didn't the Pope beatify her last year?
You don't have to be qualified at all.
They used to have politicians serve in the Supreme Court.
Speaking of qualified, consider Robert Bork:
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Acting United States Attorney General
35th Solicitor General of the United States
Professor of Law at Yale Law School
Education -- University of Chicago (BA, JD) (Editor of the University of
Chicago Law Review; Membership in Order of the Coif
and Phi Beta Kappa.
Military service -- United States Marine Corps (Korean War)
And speaking of smears consider Ted Kennedy:
"Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it. ...
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
KBJ may be quite qualified but certainly not as well qualified as was Bork. And Republican "smears" pale to those of Kennedy.
Readering: "I guess AA does not read the comments to her many KBJ posts. Monster!"
Interesting note: to this very day readering believes Kavanaugh led a rape gang.
Discuss.
By this standard, wasn't Harriet Miers good enough?
"How qualified do you have to be?"
Well the serious answer, as others pointed out, is that it doesn't matter how qualified you are: If Senators don't like your judicial philosophy, most now feel free to vote against you.
It would be unfair to Senator Booker to ask him about Judge Bork. Booker wasn't in the Senate then, he wasn't out of his teens. But he might want to ask President Biden about that one.
"Booker ended on a high note, quoting a Maya Angelou poem..."
See, there's the first problem right there.
More qualified that Cory F'n Booker. Excuse me, Spartacus.
"demolish" is so violent.
The left are so violent with their hatred.
Okay, second problem: How qualified do you have to be, Cory? Great question. You go first on Republican nominees, we'll follow your lead. I completely get the reasoning that someone needs to break this tit-for-tat, Mexican* standoff on nominees. Whatever other terrible things Republicans have done, they used to at least manage that. No longer. I blamed them for these things a decades ago, I don't anymore.
*Can we still say that? I denounce myself.
I don't understand the hypothetical.
Clearly some candidates should be excluded based on things other than qualifications, despite the controlling language.
If the Democrats put up an actual Klansman what graduated 1st in his class at Harvard undergrad and then 1st in his class at Yale Law School, should that nominee be voted down?
Personally, I prefer it when the Klansmen have poor academic credentials and legal reasoning, so they can't do as much damage.
And what was Booker's Position on Janice Rogers Brown? His party killed her nomination.
She is so freaking qualified that she cannot be criticized!
One person happy to see her on the court.
Man facing child porn charges, allegedly recorded more than 100 minors at Chicago, Niles YMCAs.
https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/fbi-seeks-information-after-over-100-potential-kids-filmed-in-ymca-locker-rooms/
Left or Right, what kind of person is moved by this tired old kabuki theater?
>>The question for the Senate is basic qualification
Says who? The Senate's constitutional role is to provide "Advice and Consent." Why can't that include "advice" that, hey, we think you made a bad choice and should try again? Not at all the same thing as saying hey, we get to make the choice.
And Christ, on reading the comments, I think I may be agreeing with Rendering.
Plus what others have said about senators making such claims versus the hypocrisy about prior nominations.
--gpm
Yes, there are many people in a nation of 330 million people who are qualified to sit on the nation's highest court. Senators have a power equal to the president's power to nominate, senators are not a rubber stamp for the president (else why bother asking for their advice and consent to the nomination?) A senator saying he does not agree with a nominee's political ideology and judicial philosophy is correct. That is the senator's advice. That he says he does not approve, that is the senator's consent, or lack of it, being sent to the president - more advice.
I look forward to KBJ "growing" as a Supreme Court Justice, until she is the new partner in the former Thomas/Scalia gang. I look forward to this as a near-zero possibility, but it could just happen, who knows. Would it not be fun to watch?!
I refuse to believe anyone can be so stupid as to fall for something like this from a dishonest bad faith actor like Booker?
Mikey,
The reality is that Senators are cowards who don't want any sort of responsibility where they might be held accountable. Instead they make up some crap about how "the president is entitled to his choices" as if they were subordinate to the WH.
She provably lied about using CRT.
If she can't define a woman without expert testimony, what other common words does she require an expert to assist her with? How can she understand the written word, let alone use the language to compose legal documents?
but still, like dust, I rise.”
===========
dust rises only if there is air movement to cause it and then it gets blown around.
how I wish poets and US Senators knew some basic natural facts
When I see a long period between updates to comments, I have this....suspicion...that our Blogmistress makes damn sure they don't get a quick posting, lest others pile on in agreement and the rubble starts to bounce for the rest of the day.
If KBJ can't define what a woman is, how can she understand what "sex" means when referred to in bazillions of statutes?
She is obviously LYING.
Roman Hruska was an idiot for saying mediocre people needed representation by a mediocre judge, but is fundamental to the future existence of the Republic that CRT radicals---- who openly sneer at the Constitution and seek to destroy it--- DO NOT.
The reality is that Senators are cowards who don't want any sort of responsibility where they might be held accountable. Instead they make up some crap about how "the president is entitled to his choices" as if they were subordinate to the WH.
In a period lasting a little over a year from January 1844 to February 1845, President Tyler nominated five men a total of nine times, and only one, Samuel Nelson, was confirmed.
Well it is fair to say she is probably smarter/more qualified than Sotomayor who is from all appearances dumb as a stump and incapable of understanding the different powers given to states vs the federal government.
Notice how Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, David Frum, David French are all Biden supporters now. And support liberal/left policies on almost everything. These were the same people who called themselves "Conservative" and CLAIMED to believe in it.
All a LIE. Lied to us for 20 years. Incredible. But their fans are taking it well.
Drago--obsessed with readering or obsessed with sex? Or both? Discuss.
Isn't the issue whether there is a better qualified Black Female for the Court? During the campaign, those are the credentials the President said mattered to him, and we elected him. Unless we can show there's a better qualified Black Female we need to shut up.
So..Senators shouldn't perform any oversight if downstream folks haven't.
The whole conversation about the scotus nomination process is merely hypocritical cover for the greed for power. Don’t delude yourself into being high minded about it. Of all thinks, I hate hypocrisy most. Because it is the root of all other evil.
Plus, what with Kagan and Sotomayor, that ship pretty much sailed. Might as well pile on with more unqualified women just because they're women. That said, I must say I'm disturbed by KBJ's judicial history with child pornographer sentencing.
"How can she understand the written word, let alone use the language to compose legal documents?"
Judge Jackson wrote at least 578 judicial decisions in her eight years as a District Court judge. i suspect if you read any the odds are you might agree with the way she composed a few.
By the way that's 578 more decisions than Barrett had ever written and about 550more than Thomas.
"All Rubin cites is the charge that she's "'soft' on crime and child pornography." That's a characterization of the facts."
what "facts" is that a characterization of?
Christopher B said...
The words in the Constitution are 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...'
=======
is this even good grammar in English? in so august document!
please diagram and explain
Althouse:
Thank you.
Jackson is less qualified than Robert Bork.
She is Obama.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा