Those are 2 different pieces ranking in the top 5 most-read opinion pieces in The Washington Post.
I'm going to read them so you don't have to. Really, I want to test my hypothesis. There's frustration that Republicans aren't presenting a bigger target. The desire is to accuse them of rejecting KBJ because of her race, but there's nothing blatant, so effort must be put into teasing out the racial insinuations. Of course, Biden was blatant about race in making his choice, but that's what makes it so frustrating that Republicans aren't jumping at the bait.
Now, I'll read.
1. "Republican excuses for rejecting Ketanji Brown Jackson are absurd" by the WaPo editorial board. Overheated headline aside, this piece just says that the Senate should always confirm the President's nominee as long as basic qualifications are met. I pretty much agree with that, but it's not surprising that Republicans are paying back the Democrats for opposing President Trump's well-qualified nominees. The WaPo editors briefly acknowledge this un-absurd reality. The last paragraph asserts that Republicans will look "unattractive... in the history books," because their "almost entirely White caucus" is "rejecting the first Black woman."
2. "The GOP won’t be honest about opposition to Judge Jackson" is a piece by Jennifer Rubin. She speculates "that the GOP base is so infused with white supremacy that any vote for a Black woman would simply be unacceptable to the MAGA crowd." Doesn't the "MAGA crowd" love Clarence Thomas? Rubin's last paragraph begins: "We should not be surprised that in service of making Democrats appear to be an existential threat to America, Republicans will say anything to justify their opposition — the more venomous the better." Yeah, but we also should not be not surprised when, in service of making Republicans appear to be
an existential threat to America, Democrats will say anything to
justify their opposition — the more venomous the better.
पोस्ट्स
११४ टिप्पण्या:
"Those are 2 different pieces ranking in the top 5 most-read opinion pieces in The Washington Post."
So now we know what Jeff Bezos thinks about the matter.
I'm still looking for any example of brilliance from Brown. Legal or even otherwise.
Legal brilliance example, see for example Epstein and Yoo on Scotus and Roe vs Wade, mask mandates, etc, from January 20. Just for what brilliance looks like.
Doesn't the Black Senator Tim Scott count?
The GOP is not voting for her because she is an extreme and radical liberal:
1. Doesn't know what a woman is.
2. Soft on child pornography.
3. An advocate for CRT.
4. Opposed to Natural Law.
The fact that KBJ is a Black woman is totally irrelevant.
And, BTW, check out the SNL skit about Sen. Marsha Blackburn and her question to KBJ. Not funny and really pathetic.
How can it be argued Republican opposition is to block the first black woman nominee when Biden has said he will appoint only a black women to replace Breyer?
Only if Biden goes back on his promise to do so would that strategy be successful.
Yeah. It's absurd to be against a woman who lets child rapists out of prison with a nothing sentence to go do it again and again. Progressive Utopia, here we come!!!
Last time I checked, Jennifer Rubin was claiming to be a "conservative". Bezos must have shown her something that changed her mind.
The last paragraph asserts that Republicans will look "unattractive... in the history books," because their "almost entirely White caucus" is "rejecting the first Black woman."
Uh, huh. Tell it to Janice Rogers Brown.
Its all so boring, its difficult to read about. Anytime you oppose any D nominee you get charged with racism, sexism, homophobia or antisemitism. Every Republican nominee that even the slightest bit conservatives gets hysterically charged with being unethical, a sexual harrasser, a racist, a high school rapist, whatever.
The only people who don't understand the two-standards being used or the dishonesty involved are the dopey "Moderates" and the RINOs.
They should just go back to having 1 day hearings. Stop with the useless drama.
She has straight out said that she has no position on the existence of "inherent rights." As a non-lawyer that indicates that she doesn't believe in them, which means that people have have the rights that the government deigns to give them. That is not an unusual position, but is it one that I do not think should be held by a justice on the US Supreme Court.
Of course, Biden was blatant about race in making his choice, but that's what makes it so frustrating that Republicans aren't jumping at the bait.
Biden's blatant bow to identity politics effectively immunized the GOP from the charge they were opposing Jackson because of her race. The claim of secretly racial opposition works best when there should be no other reason. If Jackson had been presented as one of the best qualified *Americans* for a seat on the USSC the charge would resonate but by presenting her as the best qualified *black woman* immediately shifted the focus away from race.
Problem is that the average liberal today looks clinically insane to anyone normal. So you want us to put someone clinically insane on the Supreme Court? But how could she be clinically insane when she looks just the same as all the other liberals? She's a normal liberal! Good point. What should we do about it?
The talk about her and pedophiles/etc is pretty over the top too, if you read the comments here.
Lots of civility bullshit on both sides.
Regarding Jen Rubin's piece, "Republicans will say anything to justify their opposition — the more venomous the better." while also being infused with white supremacy. What would be more venomous than blatant racial attacks? So, can Jen Rubin explain why Republicans aren't making those kinds of attacks? Why aren't they catering to this MAGA base with their rhetoric when catering to this supposed base is the reason they don't want to vote for KBJ*?
*Whatever else her qualifications, KBJ is a worthy acronym successor to RBG.
Hey, speaking of venomous... Jennifer Rubin.
How about this concept. Before we judge a canidate's judical philosophy, adherence and interpretation of the law and legal mind we determine if they have basic common sense, basic morality and can speak plainly without lying. So a married woman with children cannot define what a woman is? Really? B.S. she lied! In trying to be apolitical she was blatantly political pandering to LGBTQ-LMNOP crowd. Disqualified. Unfit. Period end of story. Soon you will hear Americans openly stating they no longer tolerate this nonsense and refusing to abide by the "rules".
This does not even take the first mentioned concept of evaluating her legal mind which is not up to par for the supreme court.
On the other hand it meets the newly imposed woke quota system. BTW execpt for the last part this has nothing to do with race.
Rubin is as dishonest a “Republican” as you are likely to ever see. By framing the reasons as “excuses” the WaPo is loading their language up right there in the headline. I’ve heard several excellent reasons to reject the judge, foremost among them her going soft on crimes against children, her dismissal of natural rights, and her silly refusal to provide a definition of “woman” within the context of judicial consideration.
I see no reason why Republicans or anybody else should feel obligated to rubber stamp a nominee who doesn't recognize natural rights doctrine. That's fundamental, and an absolute deal killer.
"Republicans will look "unattractive... in the history books," because their "almost entirely White caucus" is "rejecting the first Black woman.""
Just as Dems still look unattractive for rejecting the second black man, and also the most prominent Hispanic nominee before the wise Latina?
"the GOP base is so infused with white supremacy that any vote for a Black woman would simply be unacceptable to the MAGA crowd."
WTF? As Althouse noted, we white supremacists love Clarence T.
"in service of making Democrats appear to be an existential threat to America"
Well, if a nominee can't commit to "natural rights," that is a threat to the existence of a Republic based on that assumption.
The fact that progs have to spout such blatant nonsense is a tell on the weakness of their actual "arguments."
Blogger Mark said...
The talk about her and pedophiles/etc is pretty over the top too, if you read the comments here.
Lots of civility bullshit on both sides.
Lefty Mark has obviously no knowledge of what she has done and said about pedophilia.
investigative journalist Paul Sperry revealed Saturday that Jackson “heard horrifying details of ‘sadomasochistic’ torture of young kids — including ‘infants and toddlers’ — yet challenged the disturbing evidence presented by prosecutors and disregarded their prison recommendations to give the lightest possible punishments in each case.”
Not only that but “in some cases, she even apologized to some of the kiddie-porn perverts for having to follow the statutes, which she called ‘substantially flawed.’” Jackson repeatedly “made excuses for the sex fiends’ criminal behavior and cut them slack in defiance of investigators and prosecutors — and sometimes even probation officers serving her court — who argued for tougher sentences because the cases were particularly egregious or the defendants weren’t remorseful.” This contradicts Biden’s handlers’ claims that her light sentences for child pornographers were “mainstream” and within “normal range.”
The details are stomach-churning. “In July 2020,” Sperry reports, “Jackson gave the bare minimum sentence to a defendant convicted of distributing images and videos of infants being sexually abused, and who had boasted of molesting his 13-year-old cousin, even though she knew the defendant refused ‘to take full responsibility’ for his crimes, a transcript reveals.” The offender whom Jackson ensured got off lightly had posted a nude image of a two-year-old girl and a video of sex with a prepubescent girl. . .
There. That'll get you started.
She doesn't seem to know what a woman is. That right there is not a recommendation for a supreme court justice.
Blogger Mark said...
"The talk about her and pedophiles/etc is pretty over the top too, if you read the comments here."
Somthin' you wanna get off your chest, pal?
So far, Judge Jackson is making a better case against Judge Jackson than are the Republicans. Jennifer Rubin is a joke.
I agree with you that the president is entitled to his picks absent some serious reason to oppose, but the alternative view---that the Senate's advice and consent role is co-equal--is not frivolous. Much as I don't like the Republican's approach to the hearings, they are far better than the Democrats and the WaPo is not in a position to say "boo" about them. Hypocritical rag.
Why is this a binary choice?
Politicians may be venomous and derisive to the opposite parties political choices AND they may do so on solid grounds.
KBJ saying she does not have a position on natural rights is deeply concerning to me and borderline disqualifying, as much as any one issue can be. We are a nation and society built upon the concept of certain natural rights. Waiving away holding a position on that matter is so fundamental to justice that I can't wrap my head fully around it.
That traditional media is not engaging in such discussions while waving away some of the stupider attacks as just the usual politics is, at best, disingenous. More likely it's intended to prevent acknowledgement of legitimate concerns in an effort to force her through.
that the GOP base is so infused with white supremacy that any vote for a Black woman would simply be unacceptable to the MAGA crowd.
ANY vote? How about Janice Rogers Brown? I could list others, but i'll stop there
For me, it's not about pedophillia per se. It's about a judge routinely ignoring and over-ruling "Sentencing guidelines". Will she similarly over rule "settled law" on abortion? Right-to-Work laws? Constitutional Carry?
My understanding is Republican opposition to KBJ is due to her leniency for pedophiles. Maybe WaPo/Jen Rubin can explain how pedophilia is a racial issue amongst blacks? I wouldn’t make that assumption, but that seems the leap they want to make.
Whenever progressives say Republicans are white supremacists; my mind recalls the photo of Hillary Clinton exchanging cheek kisses with Sen. Byrd.
The DemCong make policy and nominations based upon race and sexual identification. The Republicans focus upon ideology. Big difference. Guess the Donks view Clarence Thomas as a race traitor.
Democrats can't wrap their tiny brains around the fact that the GOP can admire Clarence Thomas, a black man, and dislike Ketanji Brown Jackson, a black person [can't say "woman" since I'm not a biologist]. Democrats are consumed by identity politics, so they assume the GOP is as well. The GOP isn't, so the small intellects on the left are suffering from a collective brain malfunction.
They could replace Jennifer Rubin with a bot and the bot would be more believable as an actual human being.
Rubin's writing now comes across as a one of those one joke skits on SNL that was funny for 5 seconds, but now has lingered on for several dozen episodes and a feature length movie.
Prof A: your critique is always welcome but your talents are wasted on such easy targets. Fish, barrel, pump 12 gauge, no assembly required.
"I'm still looking for any example of brilliance from Brown."
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
It's just politics. Everything else is a full crack pipe for the partisan addiction to scandal and angst.
Ann Althouse said...
["I'm still looking for any example of brilliance from Brown."]
"Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted."
What then? Competence? King Solomon would beg to differ. Sometimes going beyond mere analysis to insight may result in the best solution without having to legislate from the bench.
Jupiter writes, "Last time I checked, Jennifer Rubin was claiming to be a 'conservative'."
Depends on what she seeks to conserve, doesn't it?
Has anyone else concluded that the Washington Post is how Jeff Bezos distracts leftist zealots from his hardcore capitalistic moves, much as Slate and MSNBC are how Bill Gates distracts leftist zealots too?
Gates was all for his Windows, Office, and Explorer monopolies, bullying competitors, running competitors out of business, and outsourcing labor to lower cost foreign countries (H1B Visas). But lefty Slate. But lefty MSNBC.
Bezos is all for low cost labor, monopolistic web services, smashing Parler when the Jan 6 planning occurred on Facebook, undercutting other video and audio vendors, etc. But lefty Washington Post.
Judge them not on what they say (in the press) but what they do (in their businesses and for their financial gains). Deflect and avoid. Fool some of the people all the time.
The Republicans were against Garland, and he is a whitey, so perhaps Reps and Demos have different attitudes about what a SCOTUS judge should think, and are allowed to vote as they see fit, independent of the individuals race.
Go ahead, Democrats. Confirm a justice who excuses pedophilia and child porn criminals. Who doesn't believe in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. Who won't, not can't define what a woman is. She won't answer that question because an honest answer would antagonize her neobarbarian supporters and a dishonest answer would antagonize moderate Republicans.
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
Brilliance, as it looks in my example, is what's wanted. It's an intuition about systems stabilities that the founders had, so that we keep the same system even if it changes under new but parallel circumstances. If you don't have that intuition, the fallback is being an originalist. Epstein has it though. He works off the same Roman law and common law that the founders did when something new comes up, and a large part of his work is explaining the founders in those terms.
If you're just a liberal, side effects wipe out the system. Stability is nowhere to be found.
It's like reacting to feelings. Long term stuff goes to hell.
“I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
Seems to me this is the basis for our existence as a country. No? Wouldn't a prospective Supreme Court Justice have to have an opinion, and hopefully but not necessarily a positive one, on this topic?
Seems pretty important. To everybody concerned. More important than the skin color a person was born with or whether they come with or without a vagina. Am I missing something here?
"I'm going to read them so you don't have to."
God bless you.
I wish the Republicans would just take on affirmative action fearlessly. They'll be slandered, but they will anyway. "This judge was explicitly chosen because of her gender and skin color. We've seen what that leads to, any time we hear our Vice President give a speech or press conference. We must confront the escalation of mediocrity due to racist political motives."
If she wants to side with pedophiles against the suggested penalties, she should aim for a legislative position.
Or become an essayist and side with Dorothy Rabinowitz at the WSJ. There are several good arguments on her side but they have no judicial point of application.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
“ …it's not surprising that Republicans are paying back the Democrats for opposing President Trump's well-qualified nominees”. Yes, but of course this has deeper roots. Democrats launched bitter fights against the nominations of Bork and Thomas. Republicans replied by voting for Ginsberg 41-3, and Breyer, 33-9. Democrats voted 22-22 on Roberts, 4-40 against Alito. Republicans then replied in kind, voting against Sotomayer 9-31 and Kagen 5-36. By the time Trump came in to office, voting against “qualified’ nominations on political grounds had become standard practice. Breaking this cycle now is going to be next door to impossible. The decisive development came when the left ignored the offered truce flag that came with the R votes for the Clinton nominees, and went right back to political voting in response to the W Bush nominations. If the Republicans vote for Jackson, will the Democrats will reciprocate in the future?
Ron Winkleheimer said...
She has straight out said that she has no position on the existence of "inherent rights." As a non-lawyer that indicates that she doesn't believe in them, which means that people have have the rights that the government deigns to give them. That is not an unusual position, but is it one that I do not think should be held by a justice on the US Supreme Court.
And because Ron summed it up so well, I don't need to add anything. Other commenters have also brought up the absurdity of appointing a judge who doesn't believe in natural rights to the Supreme Court of a nation who's founding documents form the nation based on those very same natural rights.
because leniency for child abuse is way cool.
Unlike drinking a beer in High School and raping everyone, Including Julie Swetnick. totally not cool, man.
is venomous = venal or venial?
She’s a blatant partisan democrat. That is enough to do anything to have her defeated. Period. The democrat propaganda media can shove it.
4. Opposed to Natural Law.
=========
if this component of Locke's philosophy what are her views on other aspects of that?
would have been better to have inquired into those too!
And there goes Rusty insinuating I am a pedophile.
On the same thread that people are complaining about being falsely called racists.
The hypocrisy here is thick today.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"I'm still looking for any example of brilliance from Brown."
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
I wish people would internalize this.
Brilliance gave us Madison v. Marbury and Roe v. Wade. We need judges that read words and stop getting all creative.
The constitution is interpretable by the average person.
It takes brilliant people to think they are smart enough to make it better.
We are shocked shocked that the collective democrat party media establishment are calling the GOP racist.
shocked.
From what I’ve read, she’s soft on kiddie diddlers AND child pornography.
We know Rubin and the rest of the msm and Democrats don’t have an issue with it, but what about parents and other folks with tighter ethics and morals?
the Senate should always confirm the President's nominee as long as basic qualifications are met
(1) The Senate confirmation process is not just a rubber stamp.
(2) There are "basic qualifications," and then there are disqualifications. Brown Jackson disqualified herself. And you all know the reasons why.
Absurd?
Look past her effing skin color and focus on her record of being soft on sex offenders and pedophiles.
The fact this monster is even being considered for SCOYUS is what's absurd.
Frankly, Jennifer Rubin is the essence of sanity compared to the isolationist, anti-globalist, Soviet apologist crowd that has taken over here.
And a greater mouth-foaming nutcase than Jen Rubin you will not meet.
I wonder if Mikhail Kayevich can tell the difference between the Marks commenting here?
Nope.
A lot of foaming at the mouth over a mainstream nominee. First nominee to appear before committee 1939. Wonder if practice makes it to 2039.
The talk about her and pedophiles/etc is pretty over the top too, if you read the comments here.
Really? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and look at her record. Well, unless you already have and support what she did.
Which wouldn't surprise me.
Static Ping said...
They could replace Jennifer Rubin with a bot and the bot would be more believable as an actual human being.
The bot would be likable as well.
Mark - The real Soviets are the collective left.
Putin is... Biden's poodle.
For the record, the 90% white WaPo editorial board is whiter than the GOP.
The Dems refuse to be honest about Judge Jackson, hiding her work on the sentencing commission from the committee. Foolish move, because even if opposition to Jackson is based on racism, it provides more than sufficient cover for a "no" vote.
What's really not surprising is that both articles close with asserting something that is "not surprising." I.e., it's just the Post telling its readers what they already believe and arguing from prejudice. What a racket.
Mark: "Frankly, Jennifer Rubin is the essence of sanity compared to the isolationist, anti-globalist, Soviet apologist crowd that has taken over here."
Focusing on America's interests first and foremost now = "soviet apologist".
Worse, there are those at Althouse blog who were literally, not figuratively, arguing for nuclear war against russia.
Sorry Mark, you and Team Perma-War/Escalation Is Fun And Exciting are free to do whatever you can to help the Azov battalion "do their thing", but I dont think we ought to be engaging in a direct war with the Russians.
Democrats can reject the Second Black Guy (Thomas) en masse, but Republicans must swear fealty to the First Black Womyn or something...
About a year ago I had an ephipany: the Democratic party is racist, with a racist platform. Sure, there are some, perhaps many, racist Republicans but the Democratic party is itself racist. I am an independent and perfer not to vote but would do the "fast thinking" pause when considering a Democrat. When did they go off the rails? My father was a proud FDR Democrat and I support the JFK Democrat ideals. Hell, maybe even Carter, Mondale, BClinton, in parts.
And their racism is causing a perceived increase in racism in the US over the past 20 or so years. Just stop it.
Jackson is hardly my idea of a Supreme Court Justice, but she is well-qualified and Republicans should approve her. Yet, Rubin is an idiot (and I don't use such an epithet lightly) to attribute the reluctance to racism. The real reason was more or less nailed by Peter Spieker at 12:38, and it should be obvious to the fair-minded and scient.
"The bot would be likable as well."
Beyond the Turing test.
The democrat party is racist AND fascist.
curious about usage : which nuance of 'excuse' = synonym/antonym for /reason/?
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
========
my understanding is physics of brilliance of course generates umbra and penumbra
is clever better than brilliance? creative within 'envelope'?
Mountains of Mourning - Ensign Lord Miles Vorkosigan - recent graduate deputizing for dad the Count
Mark said...
I wonder if Mikhail Kayevich can tell the difference between the Marks commenting here?
Nope.
That's pretty clever, Lefty Mark. I just call em as I see em.
Here's some reading material, Mark. A bit heavy going for you and Inga.
Democrats launched bitter fights against the nominations of Bork and Thomas. Republicans replied by voting for Ginsberg 41-3, and Breyer, 33-9. Democrats voted 22-22 on Roberts, 4-40 against Alito. Republicans then replied in kind, voting against Sotomayer 9-31 and Kagen 5-36. By the time Trump came in to office, voting against “qualified’ nominations on political grounds had become standard practice
Hey people? I've got a serious question for y'all ('cause i'm too lazy to look it up)
WHO was The Last Republican to receive a majority of democrat votes?
Looks like roberts came close (22-22), but no cigar. So we'd have to go back to Nixon (or Eisenhower (or Grant?))
The last democrat nominee to get a majority of republican votes looks like it was Breyer (with Nearly all: 33-9)
Sheldon Whitehouse is not a Republican. Are any sitting Republicans members of all white clubs like Sheldon is? How is Sheldon voting on Ketanji?
Ah, Jenn Rubin. I remember the online discussions in the aughts about the real meaning of "neo" in Neo-Cons. We should've focussed on the con. Between The Bulwark crowd and Rubin, a whole lot of practitioners of the long con.
Self-knowledge isn't very common in DC. Understanding of context is also rare. Washington DC is supposed to have "institutional memory" and continuity. The justification for keeping all the hangers-on around is that they have an understanding of history and an awareness the larger situation and what's involved. But partisanship and ideology come out on top all the time.
She has straight out said that she has no position on the existence of "inherent rights."
It must run in the family. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr's mother was a Jackson from the very same Boston family.
She seems to have had a pretty unremarkable career with respect to her judicial scholarship and accomplishments, and also a banal, methodical progression up through the system, fully supported by every imaginable Affirmative Action indulgence. Nobody has said one word about what 'sets her apart' intellectually, and that is telling. Compare her record to Amy Barret or Ruth Ginsberg in that regard.
Not being a legal expert, I'm unable to state whether or not she passes a minimum standard for SC Justice, but I think it's clear to everyone, that's the nature of the assessment. Republicans are smart to keep their mouth shut and let the Democrat goblins dig themselves a nice, unhinged hole. The votes will add up with typical regimentation, so it's no longer relevant to discuss whether she'll get in or not.
Rubin is completely unhinged. She has rejected everything she believed in for the first half of her life. Go figure.
"The hypocrisy here is thick today."
Instead of commenting on other people's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to present an argument on why being soft on child porn (which can't be produced without abusing children) distributors is not something worthy of criticism.
Natural rights is the deal breaker for me. Her position on natural rights qualifies her to serve on a communist court or a fascist court but not on an American court nevermind the United States Supreme Court. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. That is the only logical conclusion to "neutrality" on natural rights. KJB is not qualified to be an American jurist.
"I'm still looking for any example of brilliance from Brown. Legal or even otherwise."
Why would you look for or expect brilliance from any justices on the Supreme Court, (except as a statistical accidents)? The appointments are and have always been political appointments, and appointees must hew to (or not too greatly offend) the prevailing political flatus of the day. Those acceptable to a majority of Congress will be those mediocre (or devious) enough to be inoffensive to that greatly mediocre (or worse) body.
All she needs for the rest of the week is a simple crib sheet, as it were: a female is the baby with a dick being shoved into her anus, and a male is the guy shoving his dick into the infant's anus.
The legislators should be forced to watch the child porn she minimized.
They speak truth through projection. Americans do not, on principle, exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry). In fact, conservatives have opposed slavery and diversity [dogma] from before the incorporation of our nation with the "Delaration of Independence" charter, and Constitutional bylaws... One Nation, under God... #HateLovesAbortion
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
And its antecedent: demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight Fringe: "emanations from penumbras". h/t WaPo, if only in principle
The bot would be likable as well.
Especially if they replaced Rubin with a genuine bot, an endoparasitic fly lava that affects horses and cattle.
At least the insect is honest.
She’s a blatant partisan democrat.
Gorsuch and especially Kavanaugh are blatant partisan Republicans. Is that a reason to reject them?
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
In one short sentence, Althouse sums up a major problem with the U.S. Legal System.
Brilliance isn't needed or — in actual practice — wanted.
Brilliance is needed for a black letter reading of original purpose and intent. However, brilliance is an unqualified concept. In the worst case, we have judges that rule based on knowledge revealed to them with emanations from penumbras, notably with an appeal to emotion (e.g. empathy, diversity [dogma]). Start with the right principals, and the principles follow.
It is rich that a bunch of textualists and originalists are advocating finding "inherent rights" in the emanations and penumbras of the constitution.
Readering said...
A lot of foaming at the mouth over a mainstream nominee. First nominee to appear before committee 1939. Wonder if practice makes it to 2039.
It is as if these pieces of shit completely forgot the Kavanaugh hearings and how they acted.
Legal brilliance example, see for example Epstein and Yoo on Scotus and Roe vs Wade, mask mandates, etc, from January 20. Just for what brilliance looks like.
Yoo ignored the U.S. statutory and international definition of torture to green light Bush's torture program. He should be in jail, or at the very least a pariah.
Say, didn’t she rape some Cub Scouts?
11-11 in Committee.
"1. Doesn't know what a woman is."
Sure she does, but what is the relevance of her expressing her personal, non-judicial definition of "what is a woman?" In her duties as a judge, it only matters what the facts of a case are and how the law and precedent informs her judgement for any particular case. In other words, under the law, there likely may be more than one possible definition of "what a woman is." What do the questioners mean by their question? Why do they want to make it an issue? How do they define a woman? It was a question made entirely in bad faith.
"2. Soft on child pornography."
I doubt it, but I haven't really read too much about her judgements that lead to really speak about it. However, it is typical for anyone to the left of Attila the Hun to be called "soft on (fill in the blank)" by pandering politicians, and to twist or obscure reality to justify their accusations.
"3. An advocate for CRT."
So what? It is taught only at the college level.
"4. Opposed to Natural Law."
What is "Natural Law?" Define it, please. If you want to be really fundamental about it, "natural law" is that the big and strong and/or clever eat the small, weak and dull. Any other law is invented by human societies.
Democratic controlled committee 7-7 on Thomas. Then voted to send his nomination to floor without recommendation. Before Anita Hill stuff came out.
Democratic Senate confirmed Thomas. Votes both ways in both parties. Some Southern Democrats reluctant to vote against an African-American. Southern Republicans making a different calculus.
I am seeing more and more black people on social media waking up to the fact that the first black woman nominated by the Democrats is a pedophile supporter. This is NOT going down well with them. Even many who are hardcore Dem voters are pissed about this. They think, rightly, that the Dems should have been able to find a black female nominee who is not easy on pedophiles.
"Problem is that the average liberal today looks clinically insane to anyone normal."
How do you define "normal?"
Blogger Readering said...
“A lot of foaming at the mouth over a mainstream nominee. First nominee to appear before committee 1939. Wonder if practice makes it to 2039.”
Nothing mainstream about her. Soft on crime. Extremely soft on kiddie porn. Doesn’t believe in fundamental rights. And doesn’t know if she is a woman or not because she isn’t a biologist. About as far from the mainstream on the left, if you aren’t an out and proud Marxist.
Republicans refuse to pounce or seize, proving their racism is deep seated.
That was sarcasm. I think.
People on the right who weren't even alive for it know about the Judge Bork situation. And I think the Left dramatically underestimates just how much damage they suffered from the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation. The left misses out on a lot of data by the vice of a lot of nastiness being directed at people on the left who offering non-orthodox opinions. Before the Kavanaugh hearings in Tennessee, a fairly red state, the Republican Senate candidate was down by double digit points. During the midst of the hearing that shifted to a double digit lead. That is a huge swing. In contrast asking Judge Brown about why she sentenced certain defendants to a certain amount of punishment is going to seem germane to most people.
One name - would have been on the Supreme Court but for Joe Biden and his cronies and the feckless Bush (who was more interested in killing third world civilians than justice):
Janice Rogers Brown.
"the Senate should always confirm the President's nominee as long as basic qualifications are met."
I think that being able to define what a woman is is a basic qualification.
Wasn't Mark Twain asserting a truth when he declared: “Good judgement is the result of experience and experience the result of bad judgement.” Just so, can we forgive this nominee for past judicial missteps, so she might benefit from her past adjudicatory errors, which in turn could work to our future, community benefit.
On the other hand, might we oppose this nominee on the basis that the "Harvard Halo," which moves coddled candidates from cocoon to the head of the line of candidates, should be a disqualification. Such disqualification could open the S.Ct. decision-making participation to folks who might bring a valuable apprenticeship of real-world experience to the bench, as in William O. Douglas, a former field hand and cherry-picker.
A talented S.C. S.Ct. Justice had a picture on his credenza of a rough-hewn cabin. On inquiry, he said that it was his grandparents' home which he kept there to constantly remind him where he came from. One wonders if this sort of humility might also be a valuable qualification for candidacy to the U.S. S. Ct.
Bob Wilson.
Romney comes out for KBJ whom he did not vote for last time. Displeasure with his GOP colleagues?
Mark: "Frankly, Jennifer Rubin is the essence of sanity compared to the isolationist, anti-globalist, Soviet apologist crowd that has taken over here."
***********
Mark keeps making that stupid claim, but I don't recall him offering any examples of us
exemplifying being a (sic) "Soviet apologist".
Mark, can you up your game and give us some?
Murkowski repeating her support from last time with Collins. Graham sole defector.
Jackson is hardly my idea of a Supreme Court Justice, but she is well-qualified and Republicans should approve her.
********************
Baloney. She epitomizes "woke" CRT types, adherents of a doctrine that claims the US Constitution was and is nothing more than a means by whites to institutionalize and systematize racism.
How could she even BEGIN to take an oath swaring that “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Cruz or someone should ask her how, given her "woke" CRT beliefs, she can fairly judge an evil oppressor white person.
Can you tell us what her answer would be, Mike Petrik?
A lot of foaming at the mouth over a mainstream nominee.
I only found two significant errors in this statement:
1. No one is foaming at the mouth. She is a Democrat nominee and will be easily confirmed.
2. She is not mainstream. She is a leftist.
KBJ will be confirmed, but not with the grandeur that the leftists seem to think she deserves for her remarkable accomplishment of being a qualified Black woman. Excuse those of us who expose problems with her record. It is not like we are recreating the absurd drama that accompanies qualified Republican nominees.
The biggest issue I see with her is her refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural rights. That should be completely disqualifying for a judge on ANY court.
I rarely heard the term 'white supremacy' until a couple of years ago. Now it's as common as water. It always jars me to hear it. It's such a vile accusation to make. I suppose when the term stops jarring me, they'll have moved on to even worse incendiary language. Except I can't think of anything worse.
CRT is all about "white supremacy." After all, according to CRT, whites are dominant and the blacks are their victims. The only way that this can happen, according to the supporters of CRT, is if there is a culture of "white supremacy." Since said supporters truly believe this nonsense, and that they believe all blacks are victims, the supporters must enforce "white supremacy" so they can victimize blacks.
And prominent African Americans, like Chicago's mayor Lori Lightfoot are just high profile victims of CRT, else the mayor would be able to eliminate all of the city's murders and everyone, even the city's blacks, would be living the life of Riley with mead (not that Meade) flowing from all of the horns of plenty.
"I rarely heard the term 'white supremacy' until a couple of years ago."
Progressives wore out 'racist'. As you noted, once everybody's had enough of 'white supremacy', they'll move on to something else. There's always something else.
Great points, Maynard @6:38pm
Rubin says "Republicans will say anything to justify their opposition — the more venomous the better." "
This is known as "projection".
It is rich that a bunch of textualists and originalists are advocating finding "inherent rights" in the emanations and penumbras of the constitution.
It's in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States. The Constitution spells out how government is instituted to preserve those rights.
"almost entirely White caucus"
As opposed to the Democrats incredibly diverse caucus. lol...pathetic.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा