SCOTUS

[runrussellrun]

Despite her overwhelmingly excellent qualifications, she is likely to be opposed by 46 or more Senators. Looks like Collins may be only "likely" GOP vote, though Murkowski is probably a yes. Graham is grousing...

How vigorously the GOP/Fox et al oppose her is the only question...

She should be 97+ vote yes, and would have been in less partisan days.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd give her a respectful hearing and then give her a very strong majority thumbs up. But too many have their heads up their...

From Newsweek: However, the Republican National Committee called Jackson "a radical, left-wing activist," accusing her of advocating for terrorists.


ok

... Graham is a little old lady. Upset because he didn't get to pick the candidate.

... agree it would be smart for the republicons to vote for her big time. But they won't. Gotta keep their base small, manageable size.

Nice remark. Many would consider this comment to be "homophobic".

[runrussellrun]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

[MDlaxfan76]

Despite her overwhelmingly excellent qualifications, she is likely to be opposed by 46 or more Senators. Looks like Collins may be only "likely" GOP vote, though Murkowski is probably a yes. Graham is grousing...

How vigorously the GOP/Fox et al oppose her is the only question...

She should be 97+ vote yes, and would have been in less partisan days.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd give her a respectful hearing and then give her a very strong majority thumbs up. But too many have their heads up their...

From Newsweek: However, the Republican National Committee called Jackson "a radical, left-wing activist," accusing her of advocating for terrorists.


ok

... Graham is a little old lady. Upset because he didn't get to pick the candidate.

... agree it would be smart for the republicons to vote for her big time. But they won't. Gotta keep their base small, manageable size.

Nice remark. Many would consider this comment to be "homophobic".

Not "many".
More sexist plus ageist than homophobic.
But we understood the insult and why it fits.

I'd have been ageist the opposite direction, a tantrum thrown by a "child" who didn't get the candy at the counter.

Graham is such a disappointment.

[Peter Brown]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

Alger Hiss graduated phi beta kappa from Johns Hopkins University, where he was voted "most popular student" by his classmates, and received his law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was a protégé of Felix Frankfurter, the future U.S. Supreme Court justice.

[Peter Brown]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

[Peter Brown]

Despite her overwhelmingly excellent qualifications, she is likely to be opposed by 46 or more Senators. Looks like Collins may be only "likely" GOP vote, though Murkowski is probably a yes. Graham is grousing...

How vigorously the GOP/Fox et al oppose her is the only question...

She should be 97+ vote yes, and would have been in less partisan days.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd give her a respectful hearing and then give her a very strong majority thumbs up. But too many have their heads up their...

From Newsweek: However, the Republican National Committee called Jackson "a radical, left-wing activist," accusing her of advocating for terrorists.


ok

... Graham is a little old lady. Upset because he didn't get to pick the candidate.

... agree it would be smart for the republicons to vote for her big time. But they won't. Gotta keep their base small, manageable size.

Nice remark. Many would consider this comment to be "homophobic".

It was homophobia writ clear. And of course the usual suspects are excusing it this morning, as expected.

What I wouldn’t pay to see Manchin and Sinema vote no on this nomination. I don’t care in the least, but I do think the resulting hysteria by our friends on the left would be so epically delicious, I would never ask for one more favor from God. I shall now.

[MDlaxfan76]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

[runrussellrun]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

[Peter Brown]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Another excellent piece from Andy McCarthy for anyone who wants to be clear eyed

Biden’s Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Is a Political Opportunity for Republicans


They should show the nation that it is possible to oppose a nominee without trying to destroy her character.

President Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. She would replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the current term, 28 years after being appointed by President Clinton. A hard-core progressive, Judge Jackson is not the best pick Biden could have made. And that is not solely from the point of view of conservatives, who would prefer a bench full of constitutionalists — textualists who will apply the law as written — but who obviously knew that Biden, who has governed from the left, would never nominate such a jurist.

She is also not the best pick for progressives. With a conservative majority on the Court, a disposition that will not change by swapping out Breyer with a like-minded lefty, progressives would have been better served by a jurist in the mold of Justice Elena Kagan — a skilled progressive strategist, whose collegial manner has paved a loose alliance with the Court’s tractable conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That helps progressives dodge some cases they should lose, narrow some losses, and steal the occasional win. Jackson is more in the fiery radical mold of Justice Sonia Sotomayor; the Left may swoon, but a justice who provokes rather than beguiles the Court’s center is not going to get progressives the five votes they need to prevail in big cases.

That said, Jackson is a safe choice for Biden in the sense that she will be confirmed. To me, she has seemed the obvious pick from the start. Not rocket science here; just consider five points:

She checks Biden’s black-woman box.

Her academic credentials are stellar.

She clerked for Justice Breyer. When an administration would like a justice to retire, or a lower-court judge to take senior status, which enables the president to replace them with younger nominees to these coveted lifetime appointments, the jurist — who can’t be forced to retire or go senior — has some leverage to influence the selection of his replacement. It is not surprising, then, to find a number of the retirees replaced by their protégés. We don’t know what discussions may have taken place between Justice Breyer and the White House, of course, but we do know that Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has been friends with Breyer for decades, even before they served on the Court together) was replaced by his former clerk, now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, after he agreed to retire. (And President Trump may even have helped entice him into retirement by naming yet another Kennedy clerk, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.)

In the last eight years, Judge Jackson has been confirmed twice by a Senate that has not changed too much. First, President Obama put her on the district court; and then, just last year, President Biden elevated her to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That tribunal is traditionally a launchpad for Supreme Court elevation, so the senators who voted to confirm her had to know she was a likely future pick. Biden knows that GOP senators Collins, Murkowski, and Graham, who broke Republican ranks to vote for Jackson’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, are highly likely to vote for her again. I would not be surprised if there were one or more other GOP votes this go-round. There shouldn’t be, given Jackson’s record, but Supreme Court confirmations garner intense publicity, and some Republicans may fear being demagogued if they oppose the first black woman justice, even if she should be opposed on the merits. In any event, Biden need not worry much about the 50-50 Senate (or even the current 49-50 Senate — Democrat Ben Ray Lujan, who is recovering from a stroke, will probably be back in time to vote on the nomination later this year). With a few Republicans pried away, the president will have the margin he needs to get Jackson across the finish line.

Finally, Jackson had one advantage for Biden that no other nominee could offer: Her appointment to the Supreme Court would open up another slot for Biden to fill on the D.C. Circuit. To the government, the D.C. Circuit is the most important appellate court in the country because the vast majority of litigation involving federal agencies occurs in Washington. Those cases get appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

All that said, it is regrettable that Biden made such an issue of Judge Jackson’s race and sex. There is no longer anything unusual in our country about black women being elected or appointed to powerful government posts. Biden did the process and Judge Jackson no favors by the way he went about this. Indeed, it was incompetent: All he needed to do, since the decision was all his, was first say he was going to pick the best nominee he could find, and then pick Jackson or one of the other highly accomplished black women who were under consideration. Instead, Biden being Biden, he elevated immutable characteristics over impressive achievements, leaving his nominee vulnerable to the criticism that she may not have been the best candidate available. This is unfair to Judge Jackson — I am not a fan of her jurisprudence (I’m firmly a Justice Clarence Thomas devotee), but on paper she is as qualified as anyone, regardless of race or sex.

Hopefully, Republicans will not fall into the trap Biden has tried to lay — i.e., making any opposition to Jackson a matter of racism and/or sexism rather than judicial philosophy. I sense that this was what Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was getting at when he recently said he had no problem with Biden’s predetermination to make a “long overdue” appointment of a black woman to the court. McConnell wants to take race and sex off the table as anything other than symbolic considerations. I’d translate his remarks as: “There’s no reason at this point for anyone to think a black woman would not be an excellent and highly fitting addition to the Supreme Court. Now, let’s get down to examining whether this particular black woman would be an excellent and highly fitting addition.”

Of course, the political reality here is that Judge Jackson’s nomination is not a hill to die on for Republicans. At issue is not a philosophical sea change, such as the progressive-to-constitutionalist shift from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. There is not a glimmer of daylight between Jackson and Breyer. She will not alter the Court’s trajectory.

Republicans can’t derail her nomination, so there is no reason to be strident about it. They should use the Jackson nomination for two critical purposes, both of which will advance their political prospects and the state of the judiciary. First, they should show the nation, after the Left’s deranged jihad against Kavanaugh and its inane conspiracy theories about Barrett, that it is possible to oppose a nominee while exhibiting respect and admiration for her achievements, rather than trying to destroy her character. Second, they should use Jackson’s record and dogmatic progressivism to highlight for the country the radicalism of Biden’s judicial appointees.

This won’t stop Judge Jackson from taking a seat on the Supreme Court. But it will help Americans see what’s at stake in 2022 and 2024. We need a Republican Senate as a check on Biden’s capture by the woke Left — the president will have to pick more reasonable nominees to get them through a GOP-controlled Senate. And we will need a Republican president if crucial judicial vacancies are to be filled with constitutional conservatives.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/ ... publicans/

[dislaxxic]

Imagine if Ketanji Brown Jackson Got to Play by Clarence Thomas’ Rules

Imagine, if you will, a confirmation hearing next month at which nominee Jackson cheerfully says: “Don’t worry about anything I say or do, it’s all good, I’m just staying in my lane and ‘taking direction from the law.’ ” Imagine a line of questions to Jackson from her old classmate Ted Cruz, attempting to ferret out her political views, that ends with “Oh, never mind, I see that, like Justice Thomas, you are allowed to do and say whatever you want once confirmed anyhow.”

No such exchange will occur at Jackson’s hearing, though, because Democrats’ judicial nominees do not play by the same rules as Republicans’. Brett Kavanaugh cut his teeth as a GOP operative, pushing Ken Starr to humiliate Monica Lewinsky, then helping George W. Bush to win the 2000 election at SCOTUS. Amy Coney Barrett pitched in to the Bush v. Gore team too. And it’s almost impossible to count how many of Donald Trump’s lower court nominees spent their careers doing overtly partisan legal work for the Republican Party before joining the bench. All of these partisans swore that the moment they donned a black robe, they would leave their political biases behind. Spoiler: They didn’t.

After embracing these political operatives for four years, Senate Republicans abruptly flipped their standards once Biden took office. They will now scour Jackson’s record for the slightest whiff of partisanship and smear her with guilt by association. This process has already begun: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement on Friday criticizing Jackson for being “the favored choice of far-left dark-money groups that have spent years attacking the legitimacy and structure of the Court itself.”

In reality, McConnell himself is the only modern lawmaker who successfully altered the court’s structure by shrinking its membership to eight justices for more than a year. And his party mastered the art of using dark money to promote SCOTUS nominees under Trump. But McConnell’s DARVO jiujitsu only confirms that Republicans have no real case against Jackson. They will simply say that Democrats like her, and that fact must be enough for Republicans to hate her. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who voted to confirm Jackson to her current appeals court last year, has already complained that with her nomination “the radical Left has won.” Wait, what? Oh, right, when Federalist Society candidates tell us they’re suddenly neutral after a lifetime of hackery, it’s to be believed. When a Democratic nominee has spent a lifetime eschewing radical political causes, she’s a subversive liar and political hack.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

[youthathletics]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

[Peter Brown]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

It's incredible how you can get liberals to devote their entire lives to a cause they hadn't even previously spent a single second thinking about, as long as you convince them this is the newest and best way to signal that they are on The Good People team.

[seacoaster]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

And I thought you knew something about original sin. Guess not.

[cradleandshoot]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

+1 I agree 100%. That idea would have made way too much sense. What was that old time honored saying that was used.. I will nominate the most qualified candidate. That is what Biden did. I think his choice is more than qualified. She is the FLP that will serve on the court for many years. She should be a 93 vote approval judge. She certainly will always be a rock solid vote for the liberal left. That is not a criticism just a fact..

[jhu72]

Despite her overwhelmingly excellent qualifications, she is likely to be opposed by 46 or more Senators. Looks like Collins may be only "likely" GOP vote, though Murkowski is probably a yes. Graham is grousing...

How vigorously the GOP/Fox et al oppose her is the only question...

She should be 97+ vote yes, and would have been in less partisan days.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd give her a respectful hearing and then give her a very strong majority thumbs up. But too many have their heads up their...

From Newsweek: However, the Republican National Committee called Jackson "a radical, left-wing activist," accusing her of advocating for terrorists.


ok

... Graham is a little old lady. Upset because he didn't get to pick the candidate.

... agree it would be smart for the republicons to vote for her big time. But they won't. Gotta keep their base small, manageable size.

Nice remark. Many would consider this comment to be "homophobic".

... so shoot me. Karen.

[jhu72]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

... but ... but ... but ... they are black

[jhu72]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Another excellent piece from Andy McCarthy for anyone who wants to be clear eyed

Biden’s Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Is a Political Opportunity for Republicans


They should show the nation that it is possible to oppose a nominee without trying to destroy her character.

President Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. She would replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the current term, 28 years after being appointed by President Clinton. A hard-core progressive, Judge Jackson is not the best pick Biden could have made. And that is not solely from the point of view of conservatives, who would prefer a bench full of constitutionalists — textualists who will apply the law as written — but who obviously knew that Biden, who has governed from the left, would never nominate such a jurist.

She is also not the best pick for progressives. With a conservative majority on the Court, a disposition that will not change by swapping out Breyer with a like-minded lefty, progressives would have been better served by a jurist in the mold of Justice Elena Kagan — a skilled progressive strategist, whose collegial manner has paved a loose alliance with the Court’s tractable conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That helps progressives dodge some cases they should lose, narrow some losses, and steal the occasional win. Jackson is more in the fiery radical mold of Justice Sonia Sotomayor; the Left may swoon, but a justice who provokes rather than beguiles the Court’s center is not going to get progressives the five votes they need to prevail in big cases.

That said, Jackson is a safe choice for Biden in the sense that she will be confirmed. To me, she has seemed the obvious pick from the start. Not rocket science here; just consider five points:

She checks Biden’s black-woman box.

Her academic credentials are stellar.

She clerked for Justice Breyer. When an administration would like a justice to retire, or a lower-court judge to take senior status, which enables the president to replace them with younger nominees to these coveted lifetime appointments, the jurist — who can’t be forced to retire or go senior — has some leverage to influence the selection of his replacement. It is not surprising, then, to find a number of the retirees replaced by their protégés. We don’t know what discussions may have taken place between Justice Breyer and the White House, of course, but we do know that Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has been friends with Breyer for decades, even before they served on the Court together) was replaced by his former clerk, now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, after he agreed to retire. (And President Trump may even have helped entice him into retirement by naming yet another Kennedy clerk, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.)

In the last eight years, Judge Jackson has been confirmed twice by a Senate that has not changed too much. First, President Obama put her on the district court; and then, just last year, President Biden elevated her to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That tribunal is traditionally a launchpad for Supreme Court elevation, so the senators who voted to confirm her had to know she was a likely future pick. Biden knows that GOP senators Collins, Murkowski, and Graham, who broke Republican ranks to vote for Jackson’s confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, are highly likely to vote for her again. I would not be surprised if there were one or more other GOP votes this go-round. There shouldn’t be, given Jackson’s record, but Supreme Court confirmations garner intense publicity, and some Republicans may fear being demagogued if they oppose the first black woman justice, even if she should be opposed on the merits. In any event, Biden need not worry much about the 50-50 Senate (or even the current 49-50 Senate — Democrat Ben Ray Lujan, who is recovering from a stroke, will probably be back in time to vote on the nomination later this year). With a few Republicans pried away, the president will have the margin he needs to get Jackson across the finish line.

Finally, Jackson had one advantage for Biden that no other nominee could offer: Her appointment to the Supreme Court would open up another slot for Biden to fill on the D.C. Circuit. To the government, the D.C. Circuit is the most important appellate court in the country because the vast majority of litigation involving federal agencies occurs in Washington. Those cases get appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

All that said, it is regrettable that Biden made such an issue of Judge Jackson’s race and sex. There is no longer anything unusual in our country about black women being elected or appointed to powerful government posts. Biden did the process and Judge Jackson no favors by the way he went about this. Indeed, it was incompetent: All he needed to do, since the decision was all his, was first say he was going to pick the best nominee he could find, and then pick Jackson or one of the other highly accomplished black women who were under consideration. Instead, Biden being Biden, he elevated immutable characteristics over impressive achievements, leaving his nominee vulnerable to the criticism that she may not have been the best candidate available. This is unfair to Judge Jackson — I am not a fan of her jurisprudence (I’m firmly a Justice Clarence Thomas devotee), but on paper she is as qualified as anyone, regardless of race or sex.

Hopefully, Republicans will not fall into the trap Biden has tried to lay — i.e., making any opposition to Jackson a matter of racism and/or sexism rather than judicial philosophy. I sense that this was what Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was getting at when he recently said he had no problem with Biden’s predetermination to make a “long overdue” appointment of a black woman to the court. McConnell wants to take race and sex off the table as anything other than symbolic considerations. I’d translate his remarks as: “There’s no reason at this point for anyone to think a black woman would not be an excellent and highly fitting addition to the Supreme Court. Now, let’s get down to examining whether this particular black woman would be an excellent and highly fitting addition.”

Of course, the political reality here is that Judge Jackson’s nomination is not a hill to die on for Republicans. At issue is not a philosophical sea change, such as the progressive-to-constitutionalist shift from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. There is not a glimmer of daylight between Jackson and Breyer. She will not alter the Court’s trajectory.

Republicans can’t derail her nomination, so there is no reason to be strident about it. They should use the Jackson nomination for two critical purposes, both of which will advance their political prospects and the state of the judiciary. First, they should show the nation, after the Left’s deranged jihad against Kavanaugh and its inane conspiracy theories about Barrett, that it is possible to oppose a nominee while exhibiting respect and admiration for her achievements, rather than trying to destroy her character. Second, they should use Jackson’s record and dogmatic progressivism to highlight for the country the radicalism of Biden’s judicial appointees.

This won’t stop Judge Jackson from taking a seat on the Supreme Court. But it will help Americans see what’s at stake in 2022 and 2024. We need a Republican Senate as a check on Biden’s capture by the woke Left — the president will have to pick more reasonable nominees to get them through a GOP-controlled Senate. And we will need a Republican president if crucial judicial vacancies are to be filled with constitutional conservatives.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/ ... publicans/

McCarthy trying to walk back 60+ years of republiCON history.


Of course McCarthy misses the real opportunity for his party, because it is unthinkable to him --- just vote as a party for Justice Jackson. Really p*ss off your racist base!

[MDlaxfan76]

I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.