I don't think being a practitioner or legal theorist or philosopher are mutually exclusive. She was likely called upon to consider the importance of inalienable rights during her career and will be called upon to consider those on SCOTUS.
Jackson confirmation hearings
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Her rulings should be based on the law and the Constitution, not the Declaration.
are we still pretending that most of the important cases SCOTUS rules on, even have strong Constitutional basing?
oh good, i love make believe.
that said, good thing the press and senate can't ask her anything of actual relevance and require an answer for confirmation.
like should party members be able to overrule the vote, if the vote doesn't go their way.
her thoughts on govt and corporate spying on the citizenry.
monopolies and anti trust.
who owns and has final control over one's body, you or the govt?
right to work laws,
the right to sue individuals over things that have no relevance or anything to do with you.
or anything else of huge importance to the country.
this notion of not being able to pin nominees down on the relevant questions of the day, because they may need to rule on them at some point in time, is the biggest crock of total sht i ever heard.
Partisanship began with McConnell?
You are ahistorical idiot.
Do you do think IU should let Purdue win half the games?
Do you think FDR tried to expand the court non-partisanly?
You think Bork was unqualified?
Every Supreme Court appointment process is partisan. You either have majority control or you appoint someone who is centrist enough to get consensus.
Biden pandered and nominated a black female who would call you a racist misogynist if you disagreed with either term, but who wont acknowledge that a female and a male are bioligically different. Science denial. Probably will allow teaching of “flat earth” and “creation science” too.
Your refusal to acknowledge male/female is partisan science denial too. And if Trump was for it, you’d be against. You're that shallow.
Bingo
Senate Confirms Ketanji Brown Jackson As First Black Woman Justice On Supreme Court
The Senate voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court on Thursday, clearing the way for her to become the first Black woman to serve on the high court. The vote was 53-47, reflecting the increasing partisan divisions over recent confirmations of nominees to the bench. Three...
All Democratic nominees on the court are now women. This is not good. Do we want to turn the highest court in the land into some kind of hormone filled, menopausal freak show? There is no room for emotions in the law.
ACB is a different story. She has had years on Catholic repression to learn that emotions are a non-starter. Plus she has like 15 kids and a full life. At least KBJ has kids and isn’t some angry spinster with a dried up snatch like the other two.
ACB is a different story. She has had years on Catholic repression to learn that emotions are a non-starter. Plus she has like 15 kids and a full life. At least KBJ has kids and isn’t some angry spinster with a dried up snatch like the other two.
Last edited:
Judge Kavanaugh says hi. I’ve never seen such a hormone filled emotional tirade in any of the hearings. Can just imagine if any of the women had responded that way.
Yes, I like child porn. So what ! Sue me. Like a little porn with my wine every night.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
COH is looking for any reason he can to justify his non-support for a nominee from a Democrat President. He (along with Grassley) thought he could be all highfalutin' by narrowing in on the "sacred" language and highest ideals found in the Declaration, completely ignoring the fact that the Court is bound by the Constitution, not the Declaration. Petty gotcha question indeed. She didn't take the bait. Good for her.
"You think Bork was unqualified?"
I think he was controversial to the point that 6 GOP Senators voted against him, and afterwards Strom Thurmond urged Reagan to nominate someone "less controversial"...
I wonder how old you were in 1987? I was 32, but even I didn't have that firm a grasp of the relevant issues at that point in time. A lot of people felt like Bork's actions as Solicitor General were borderline illegal, given that he followed Nixon's orders to fire Cox ,an order both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had already refused and resigned in protest over. Bork claimed that he intended to resign but that both Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged him to stay on "for the good of the DOJ", but I'm not sure that was ever conclusively proven one way or another...
I think a lot of people (those who weren't mesmerized by his championing of "original intent" gone amuck), just felt Bork was too extreme. Like I mentioned he got 6 GOP NO votes. But unlike Garland, Bork got a full hearing and vote. In fact a lot of people point to his own answers for what turned public opinion against him, and resulted in the most lopsided defeat for a potential SCOTUS nominee in history 58-42...
Republicans have continued to engage in revisionist history over Bork, but his writings were controversial prior to Reagan nominating him.
"By the time President Reagan nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, Bork had spent five years as a federal appeals court judge and had in both his judicial and academic roles amassed a long paper trail of controversial legal writings.
He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment.
He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.
He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.
And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too."
Last edited:
We are talking about a group, that has ascended to a seat on the highest court, with awesome credentials, who still can't remember to check if the seat is down or not, after 50+ years of setting to pee practice. Every eff'd up dim court ruling should be called the wet cheeks ruling. Another Elementary level screw up.
Sadly I think KBJ is the least bad of the lot. The other two are straight freak shows, and why are they so fat? Watch your diet and go for a walk.
Honestly, it was like making a two foot putt. Weeks of manufactured drama just to get us where everyone knew we'd be.
Well done on catching him on his sophistry. Typical for him, when you caught him he didn’t deny it. Instead he tried to deflect by asking you what is self-evident?
His success as a trial lawyer must have been inversely proportional to the ability of the opposing attorneys to catch him in his sophistry. Not a good look for trial lawyers.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Latest posts
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: NewGuyToTheBoard
-
Clemson sharpshooter Alex Hemenway planning to visit Indiana- Latest: WhyisIUBBcursed
-
