B-Man Posted April 5, 2022 Posted April 5, 2022 However, ideology must be the determining factor—not identity” Bears repeating for the terminally slow here. 1
716er Posted April 5, 2022 Posted April 5, 2022 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: ideology must be the determining factor That's why she will be confirmed. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/03/aba-testimony-at-hearing-for-judge-jackson/ Representatives of the Standing Committee testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the ABA’s evaluation of Jackson on March 24. The committee, which rated Jackson “Well Qualified,” its highest rating, was represented by its chair, retired Judge Ann Claire Williams of Chicago, and members D. Jean Veta of Washington, D.C., and Joseph M. Drayton of New York City, who were the Standing Committee’s lead evaluators. During the ABA testimony, Williams explained to the Senate committee that the ABA does not “recommend or endorse any nominee.” She also noted the importance of confidentiality in the process. For the evaluation of Jackson, the committee invited input from 1,990 judges and 865 lawyers and other professionals. Three independent reading groups made up of more than 50 law professors and legal experts studied Jackson’s writings.
Chef Jim Posted April 5, 2022 Posted April 5, 2022 48 minutes ago, 716er said: That's why she will be confirmed. But not why she was nominated correct? 1
ALF Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 It use to take 60 Senate votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice acceptable to both parties. That changed to at least 50 +VP under McConnell ordered to by Trump. So now we have extremes possible from left or right depending on party in power.
Doc Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 7 minutes ago, ALF said: It use to take 60 Senate votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice acceptable to both parties. That changed to at least 50 +VP under McConnell ordered to by Trump. So now we have extremes possible from left or right depending on party in power. Thank Filthy Harry.
ALF Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 15 minutes ago, Doc said: Thank Filthy Harry. Harry never lowered the SC confirmation vote that is fact 1
Doc Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 1 hour ago, ALF said: Harry never lowered the SC confirmation vote that is fact No he didn't, but he lowered the lower court vote, and that's a fact. Dems just never seem to think of the future ramifications of their decisions.
ALF Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 4 minutes ago, Doc said: No he didn't, but he lowered the lower court vote, and that's a fact. Dems just never seem to think of the future ramifications of their decisions. There was no need for future ramifications . Republicans could have gone back to 60 when in power for lower court and Exec branch appointments but Trump wanted to stay at majority . Fact is more important then opinion. The nuclear option was first invoked in November 2013, when a Senate Democratic majority led by Harry Reid used the procedure to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, other than nominations to the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#:~:text=The nuclear option was first,nominations to the Supreme Court.
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 6 minutes ago, ALF said: There was no need for future ramifications . Republicans could have gone back to 60 when in power for lower court and Exec branch appointments but Trump wanted to stay at majority . Fact is more important then opinion. The nuclear option was first invoked in November 2013, when a Senate Democratic majority led by Harry Reid used the procedure to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, other than nominations to the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#:~:text=The nuclear option was first,nominations to the Supreme Court. I'm just still wondering how you can hold confirmation hearings and vote through somebody for a court position that isn't vacant? From a procedure perspective, shouldn't they wait until there is an actually vacancy? I mean, if the slot doesn't need to be vacant at the time of the hearings then why not vote through 8 more Supreme Court justices-in-waiting and stack them up to fill the openings when the become available in maybe a year or two?
B-Man Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 How dare anyone ask a judge about his/her…rulings? Joe Biden lauds Ketanji Brown Jackson for triumphing over Senate GOP’s ‘verbal abuse [and] most vile baseless assertions and accusations’ https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/04/08/joe-biden-lauds-ketanji-brown-jackson-for-triumphing-over-senate-gops-verbal-abuse-and-most-vile-baseless-assertions-and-accusations-video/ Uh, Joe ?
SoCal Deek Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 (edited) Did Bush nominate a black woman some years ago? If true, I honestly don’t recall it. And again if true, where was all this historical moment rhetoric back then? Edited April 8, 2022 by SoCal Deek
B-Man Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Did Bush nominate a black woman some years ago? If true, I honestly don’t recall it. And again if true, where was all this historical moment rhetoric back then? He nominated a superbly qualified Black woman for the DC Circuit court. It was said at the time that she would then be nominated for the Supreme Court (just as Justice Jackson was this year) She was stubbornly opposed by Sen.(s) Biden, Durbin, Clinton, Schumer and even Sen. Obama Biden blocked the first Black woman from the Supreme Court By Marc A. Thiessen President Biden wants credit for nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. But here is the shameful irony: As a senator, Biden warned President George W. Bush that if he nominated the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, he would filibuster and kill her nomination. The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Brown was immediately hailed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. She was highly qualified, having served for seven years as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court — the first Black woman to do so. She was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, and grew up in rural Alabama during the dark days of segregation, when her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for Black customers. She rose from poverty and put herself through college and UCLA law school as a working single mother. She was a self-made African American legal star. But she was an outspoken conservative — so Biden set out to destroy her. Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.” Democrats argued that she was out of the legal mainstream, but Republicans responded that she had written more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court — and she was reelected with 76 percent of the vote, the highest percentage of all the justices on the ballot. When Democrats derailed her nomination, Bush renominated her in 2005. Brown was eventually confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43 — after Democrats released her and several other Bush nominees in exchange for Republican agreement not to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Biden voted a second time against her nomination. He never explained why, if Brown was so radical, Democrats let her through but killed 10 other Bush nominees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/
SoCal Deek Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: He nominated a superbly qualified Black woman for the DC Circuit court. It was said at the time that she would then be nominated for the Supreme Court (just as Justice Jackson was this year) She was stubbornly opposed by Sen.(s) Biden, Durbin, Clinton, Schumer and even Sen. Obama Biden blocked the first Black woman from the Supreme Court By Marc A. Thiessen President Biden wants credit for nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. But here is the shameful irony: As a senator, Biden warned President George W. Bush that if he nominated the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, he would filibuster and kill her nomination. The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Brown was immediately hailed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. She was highly qualified, having served for seven years as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court — the first Black woman to do so. She was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, and grew up in rural Alabama during the dark days of segregation, when her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for Black customers. She rose from poverty and put herself through college and UCLA law school as a working single mother. She was a self-made African American legal star. But she was an outspoken conservative — so Biden set out to destroy her. Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.” Democrats argued that she was out of the legal mainstream, but Republicans responded that she had written more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court — and she was reelected with 76 percent of the vote, the highest percentage of all the justices on the ballot. When Democrats derailed her nomination, Bush renominated her in 2005. Brown was eventually confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43 — after Democrats released her and several other Bush nominees in exchange for Republican agreement not to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Biden voted a second time against her nomination. He never explained why, if Brown was so radical, Democrats let her through but killed 10 other Bush nominees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/ Thanks! I didn’t recall the story. Once again, Republicans are literally horrible at the game of politics. Every single Republican member of the committee should have had her picture on the Dias in front of them during the recent confirmation hearings. It would’ve made everyone in the media have to explain to the public who that lady was/is. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 8, 2022 Posted April 8, 2022 6 hours ago, ALF said: There was no need for future ramifications . Republicans could have gone back to 60 when in power for lower court and Exec branch appointments but Trump wanted to stay at majority . Fact is more important then opinion. The nuclear option was first invoked in November 2013, when a Senate Democratic majority led by Harry Reid used the procedure to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, other than nominations to the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#:~:text=The nuclear option was first,nominations to the Supreme Court. The definition of a political hack- you should do the right thing but when I am in power it is whatever works. The Republicans should give up power that the Dems used and will use whenever possible?
Recommended Posts