Jackson confirmation hearings
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Btw, her response to can you give me a definition for woman was a fail. The impression I got is she was trying to say as a judge she doesn’t define terms but judges opposing arguments concerning the definition of terms, as needed.
If so, that’s an interesting view of being a judge. I suppose it’s parallel to judging the laws that Congress defines or creates.
If so, that’s an interesting view of being a judge. I suppose it’s parallel to judging the laws that Congress defines or creates.
Did you ever consider she might not be telling the truth. People go before these confirmation hearings for cabinet and other positions and are not always truthful. Seems like nothing ever happens to them if they are not truthful anymore and that goes for both parties. I believe there are candidates more qualified of both genders and all colors then her. Actually go back and read about her and her rulings and make sure you get information from both sides.
Boof
www.google.com
Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook: the “boof” joke, explained
Kavanaugh has said it was a reference to flatulence. But the history of the word as a slang term suggests otherwise.
www.google.com
JFC man, people like you are beyond stupidBoof
Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbook: the “boof” joke, explained
Kavanaugh has said it was a reference to flatulence. But the history of the word as a slang term suggests otherwise.
It's like she figures there's a void in the Batshit crazy ranks of female Senators since Michelle Bachman retired. Evidently she figures that since they both have last names that begin with "B", and their names actually sound kind of similar she can just fill the void...She's certainly trying her damnedest...
Û
You are begging the question. Anti-Trans has nothing to do with this. The question is whether individual sex is subjective or objective. You apparently believe sex is a subjective consideration. If so, that affects a myriad of laws and social conditioners. I’ve come to believe sex is objective; period.
Speaking of political greatest hits, Jackson’s nomination is also a checklist item for the leftists and Democrats. I would like to have had someone ask her if a black female would or should look at the commerce clause or the 5th Amendment differently than a white male. Somebody got close to that when she answered about her sex and skin color being important as an inspiration or a role model. I guess that is okay, but aesthetics should not be a primary reason for SCOTUS nominees.
I hope somebody asks her if she agrees with Obama’s comment that a SCOTUS justices’ lived experience is important when deciding cases. I think a justice factoring in personal experience a highly improper basis for an appellate opinion.
No. She is disarmingly pleasant, and I would enjoy talking about the law with her over a beer and burger. But her refusal to define a women was a deal breaker for me. That signals bad news for the integrity of legal fundamentals in including the constitution.
I'll be honest, it was a bit of a head scratcher to me that she didn't just give the basic dictionary definition (which I just looked up): An adult female human being.
I get the ambiguity and politically charged reasoning behind the question - and maybe she could have even pointed that out - but saying "I'm not a biologist" seemed like a bad way to answer.
That said, I did think this tweet replying to that comment was kind of funny.
Did you get banned yet again Farva....and had to come up with another name? Impressive.
I was bullying Cavanagh on the bball board. Nothing to do with my activities here.
So we've confirmed they don't ban by IP address. It's by email addy?
Oh the possibilities
At the risk of giving free advice to the enemy, how would you define woman if you were a woke liberal SC justice?
It’s not easy. I followed (woman) “female human being” with (female) “of the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs or fruit.” I guess the question is, how to define man or woman in mental as opposed to physical terms.
yup, bad news for culture warriors. Lol. God forbid she wanted to stay neutral on such a ridiculous subject. But if that’s enough to trash your version of the US constitution, it was weak sauce to begin with.
It wasn't her best response, coming out of left field after what, 13 hours of testimony?
It sure didn't rise to "I like beer."
The response was bad enough. The refusal to address the question was worse. She seems taken by the world of “birthing people” and menstruating men. That might be okay for a member of Congress but not for a member of the judiciary.
That's just absolute bullshit. She just wasn't going to get involved in a semantic argument with the nutter who had just gotten through railing at her over Lia Thompson.
If you actually listened to her testimony, there is no way you could come away thinking she's anything but a highly qualified and extraordinarily capable jurist. Unless, of course, your partisan lens distorts your view.
Why is it bs? Voting for her (or against) is a partisan issue. She's a far lefty. Of course COH wouldn't want her on the S. Ct.
Have you read her history? And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't know much at all about the S. Ct. but I don't understand your point of not wanting a judge over political bent. Hell that's how judges are chosen
not really.
an abortion is a one instance thing and is over, and has no legal or logistical implications after the fact.
a marriage lasts as long as the marriage lasts, and there are many legal implications, as i noted above, that make it logistically impractical and legally impossible today to be married in some states and not others.
that said, there are many questions national politicians don't want to take an issue on either way, as either way they lose votes.
on such issues, the smart answer on a contentious question a national politician wants to dodge, is to just say it should be left to the states, and that absolves him of having to take a stance one way or another.
the legality of a marriage obviously isn't something that can be left to the states, for legal/logistical reasons.
But the job of the Senate is confirmation, not application of a political litmus test. At least it used to be. Yes, i am aware both sides have strayed far from their responsibilities.
I watched for a couple hours today. All the Republicans wanted to talk about was child porn. Guess that’s a good sign it’s all they can come up with.
just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
while the press covers big social cases before SCOTUS, many economic, corporate, and big govt cases, most never hear about.
like i said above, CRT, abortion, minority rights, personal crime, etc, won't factor in, no matter how much time they get in the dog and pony show diversion.
Wall St controls enough senate votes, that Wall St will make the call.
if Wall St thinks she will side with the consumer or citizen or the employee vs the corp, or small business vs big business, or against monopolies, or against big govt or the surveillance state, it will be thumbs down.
if it's thumbs up, then Wall St and big govt think she'll have their back, and not the citizenry's or consumer's or employee's or whistle blower's.
fun thread though, but what everybody thinks matters, is actually irrelevant.
Last edited:
Some stereotyping and inferences. For starters Biden picked her. He's come out farther left of center than we expected. It's not a stretch to think this pick is congruent. The progressives are pleased with her. She's a black woman. Her senior thesis was: "Hand of oppression: plea bargaining processes and the coercion of criminal defendants." She went to work as a PD. She worked at the sentencing commission where she undertook to reduce the severity of sentencing guidelines. She's pro unions and union bargaining power. There's other stuff. Nothing dispositive when taken alone, but collectively it sort of paints a picture. Maybe she'll be center left and I'm wrong painting her far left. Who knows what she'll turn out to be, but she's someone who will be on the S. Ct. for many decades. Predicting ideology is important if you are concerned with the direction of the country, left or right, for that matter.
The rule of four. What cases to take. Cases that impact the entire country, not just the litigants. Cases that have a significant constl impact. Cases that answer legal questions that affect the entire country. Cases where lower courts have interpreted the law differently - creating precedent. The choice is important. And admittedly, there isn't a massive body of work to determine ideology, so drawing inferences is about all you have to go by.
I never said she wasn’t qualified. In fact in a previous post I said she was very intelligent.
But her cutesyness with the sex question is well beneath what I want to see from the bench. If we can’t overcome all the gender bullshit with the courts, who will lead the way?
Courts routinely deal with equal protection issues, equal pay issues, sex discrimination issues, and soon gender dysphoria issues. Her dodging the question shows she has bought into the whole “birthing person” conversation. I don’t think that should be part of equal protection and discrimination issues. Her dodge was a nod to the partisan political left. There is no place for that from a justice and she should have forthrightly and squarely answered the question. Whether she chooses to answer in terms of XY or XX chromosomes or in some other way doesn’t really matter.
None of that sounds very far left to me. It all sounds normal left or even just normal law career stuff.
And it might be "normal" left." But it's certainly not normal law career stuff.
I don’t think left or right is as important at the SCOTUS level is as big a deal as people think it is. But it is very important for the handful of cases that make all the news.
Of course lots of people are PDs. Lawyers tend to be more liberal. Public Defenders tend to be more liberal when compared to all lawyers. Her senior thesis, her work on minimum sentencing guideless and what can be viewed as a draconian system for judges, and being a public defender are more liberal. None of that is a normal legal career. A normal legal career is going to work at a firm you hate, grinding it out billing hours for companies and insurance companies or doing contingency work for plaintiffs, buying some sweet bespoke suits, getting a cool ride, crying in the bathroom that you made a huge mistake, hopefully sleeping with a paralegal or two, heading out to happy hour to act fancy and get way too drunk, then home where you wake up at 3 am wondering if you missed a deadline or f*ucked something up. So you throw on a 1/4 zip with nothing on underneath and head to the office because you can't sleep until you know. You do that year after year after year until you have a midlife crisis and do something else, or have a stroke, or retire. All at a firm. That's a normal legal career
Last edited:
I disagree. It can be very important. It depends on the makeup of the court and what 4 decide to hear, and on and on. She could be on the court for 35 years.
I am only commenting on allowing ideology to impact selection/confirmation - to the extent it's even permissible. Many of her stances, particularly that I view as far left, I agree wholeheartedly with and I'm a conservative. I think the minimum guidelines are awful
