SCOTUS

[cradleandshoot]

It would be nice if they were televised, I understand why that will never happen.

You're right Cradle, some of the Justices wouldn't come across very well on that teevee medium...



..

Yet he is still way nicerer than the late notorious RBG and Scalia. I suppose when your being accused falsely of being a rapist and a drunkard by a bunch of Democrat senators that probably would rub anyone the wrong way.

[JoeMauer89]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

[JoeMauer89]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

I never said that, I guess you could say that you would hope the court is more balanced now. That is a reasonable statement. Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Joe

[Peter Brown]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

I never said that, I guess you could say that you would hope the court is more balanced now. That is a reasonable statement. Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Joe

No one has accused KBJ of being “pro pedophile”. That’s a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left. What she’s been accused of is being soft on violent crime; child abuse happened to be one of those violent crimes that her record was examined for.

Her record here doesn’t trouble me.

What she ought to be worked over for is her Marxist leanings. There is zero doubt she’ll vote as required, to satiate the far left of America. I have no problem discussing and detailing how the far left in effect is anti-American…it is. She’ll vote with zero application of the Constitution where and when necessary (mostly social issues, but any 10th, 1st, and 2nd amendment case, KBJ will be reliably far far far left, wildly untethered to American exceptionalism).

To deny that is to deny reality.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

I never said that, I guess you could say that you would hope the court is more balanced now. That is a reasonable statement. Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Joe

I was looking for your answer. I learned a long time ago, politicians don’t serve the people. I don’t cheer for them. All I ask is that my rights be protected so that I have an equal opportunity…. I can do the rest myself.

[runrussellrun]

experience different that other sitting Justices? The talking point is, most Supremes never actually worked for "humans", only corporations.

Got it.

Only difference, she worked for humans AND corporations.

It was sad the question was even asked "what is a woman" ?

even sadder, is that an Ivy league educated person struggled to answer..

[dislaxxic]

"Struggled to answer"?? She, like MOST of us, recognized a numbnut gotcha question being asked by a MAGAt Senator that flat out EMBARRASSED herself, and everyone watching, with her FRC wingnut inquiries. "What is a Woman?" i mean honestly, who took that question seriously this side of Crazytown?

..

[runrussellrun]

"Struggled to answer"?? She, like MOST of us, recognized a numbnut gotcha question being asked by a MAGAt Senator that flat out EMBARRASSED herself, and everyone watching, with her FRC wingnut inquiries. "What is a Woman?" i mean honestly, who took that question seriously this side of Crazytown?

..

If the question was framed with VERY relevant "what is a woman" question regarding case law........like, say for example the VERY real legal case of a RAPE in a school building by a "woman" male, on another " woman". Yup....that Loudon County school board issue and problem stemming for schools deciding what sex someone is, while touting that VERY same school districts awesome AP biology class.

but, alas....

Yes, a stupid question, especially the way it was phrased and lacking any content.

Just wondering what the Loundoun cty school disticts bio class is teaching students about reproduction.

A woman, biologically speaking, is the complementary sex in the planets animal population, to a male.

Instead, this Harvard educated person seemed all confused. Or rather, not wanting to "offend".


Can a male get pregnant?

Yes....stupid question. the non answer was, as well. As if she didn't know that question wasing coming.

[MDlaxfan76]

Too bad they don't televise at least a portion of the supremes hearing cases and asking questions. With the exception of Thomas who never asks questions each of us could actually see and hear the justices doing their job. I wonder why they don't televise the supremes. The fear is that everybody would be performing for the cameras. I spent more hours than I care to admit listening to audio of the supremes on CSPAN when I had cable. So when you actually can LISTEN to them in action it makes it easier to decide for yourself. All I have now is OTHER people trying to tell me what they think... The Fanlax spinmeisters.

Anytime you or anyone else wants to listen to the oral arguments, it's easy to do:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... audio/2021

Thank you for that link. I use to find them later in the evening on CSPAN. I do not have cable anymore and rarely stay up past 9pm anymore. They are both dull and fascinating at the same time. It would be nice if they were televised, I understand why that will never happen.

Great; they are indeed fascinating if one has the time and interest. Enjoy!

[MDlaxfan76]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

I never said that, I guess you could say that you would hope the court is more balanced now. That is a reasonable statement. Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Joe

Not spin, Joe...you simply avoided his question.
Was that because you already knew that she has far more experience than nearly any other sitting Justice at the time of their nomination? Most people wouldn't know that unless they've been paying close attention and weren't in the right wing media bubble exclusively.

You pivoted to an assumption of her "political lean", but where are you getting that impression? All actual evidence is that she's quite 'conservative' in the sense of respect for precedent, and respect for the intent of the legislature at the time of a law being written, rather than substituting any political perspective...she thinks those politics are important, but that's the legislative purview not hers as a judge. That used be considered a 'conservative' view of how to judge cases. Breyer espouses an ideological point of view that is much more open to influence of current need in society versus 'original' intent, so in that sense she'd be to the 'right' of him. To the right as well of Sotomayor.

as she's replacing Breyer I'm not sure how it can be said that the Court will be "more balanced now". Assuming she more often aligns with what we think of as "left" on the Court, her contribution doesn't change the vote count. And she's more likely to be in the middle on many issues.

Now, she might well add some perspectives, informed by her various experiences, as well as intellect, that may at times be persuasive to others, but it wouldn't be her vote that changes 'balance' leftward.

[jhu72]

Wow, the Stupid is, umm, insistent today. Boycott.

I’m forever fascinated how clueless (or obtuse?) the left is with respect to just how far the left would take things if given the chance.

KJB joins Sotomajor now as the two left lunatics whose opinions/rulings literally wouldn’t be any different than if they were Soviets of old. They will for the most part be ignored by the others, including Kagan.

There is no case far left enough where Sotomajor and KBJ won’t rule for whatever the polar opposite of American values would be.

When you throw your weight behind either, even though it might give you a temporary jolt of DNC FLP joy, you shouldn’t ever forget what it is you’re supporting.

And yet you accuse others of trolling when you make these blanket statements without ANY supporting logic or evidence.

Why don't YOU show us a ruling that shows Soviet style court behavior? Where their rulings were polar opposites of American values? And you are insisting they will undoubtably rule this way. Where is YOUR evidence?

He could give you a thousand pages of evidence and you and all the others would spin it as trolling and misinformation, you just want to see him run in circles for your entertainment. Entertaining opposing viewpoints is an integral part of this thing we call life. Apparently not in this little insulated fake reality called FanLax Politics Section. I guess I have to remind myself that it must be an escape from reality for a large portion of posters on this site. Sad...

Joe

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court nominee’s experience and how it compares to other seated Supreme Court justices? How is it similar and how is it different?

She's somewhere in between Breyer and Sotomayor.

Joe

I what way is her experience and background between those two?

In no way, I mean that her political lean is somewhere between Breyer and Sotomayor. That's all.

Joe

Joe, your response was to a direct question.
You didn't answer the question of her experience and how it compares to other sitting SCOTUS justices, instead you redirected to where you imagine her "political lean" is. Which wasn't the question.

And how do we discern her "political lean" from any of her rulings? And compare such to others on the court? Seems to me that she defined her judicial process as quite non-ideological, and potentially significantly more 'conservative' than either of the two justices you mention as a result. But we really don't know, nor should we really.

Of course, your guess as to her 'political lean' relative to those justices could be correct; but does that mean she'll be a judicial activist for political causes that she favors? Hasn't been the case in her first decade as a judge, but only time will tell for sure.

More MD spin, what's new...

Joe

He is right Joe. That is why I asked the question. Most people only know what they saw on TV or Twitter. I didn’t realize how robust her experience was compared to the other justices until I looked into it. Very impressive. That hearing was shameful. No interest whatsoever in serving the people….she is pro-pedophile….Come on man.

I never said that, I guess you could say that you would hope the court is more balanced now. That is a reasonable statement. Stop looking for things that aren't there.

Joe

No one has accused KBJ of being “pro pedophile”. That’s a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left. What she’s been accused of is being soft on violent crime; child abuse happened to be one of those violent crimes that her record was examined for.

Her record here doesn’t trouble me.

What she ought to be worked over for is her Marxist leanings. There is zero doubt she’ll vote as required, to satiate the far left of America. I have no problem discussing and detailing how the far left in effect is anti-American…it is. She’ll vote with zero application of the Constitution where and when necessary (mostly social issues, but any 10th, 1st, and 2nd amendment case, KBJ will be reliably far far far left, wildly untethered to American exceptionalism).

To deny that is to deny reality.

... not reality -- it's a a couple acre field of horse sh*t!!

[Seacoaster(1)]

The idea that the criticism of her is "a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left" is, of course, completely ludicrous. Cawley started in on this, publishing a long series of tweets suggesting that Jackson's downward deviation from the sentencing guidelines was evidence of someone soft on crime. This was completely debunked in advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings, not least of all by using sitting federal judges' records -- GOP appointees -- as a point of comparison, which showed that Jackson was altogether within the norm of guideline adherence.

Most of us understand that PB doesn't have ideas; he is an old senseless horse who stands at a trough where he is told not just what to drink, but what to vomit. He uses this word "Constitutionalist," which I guess is supposed to mean an adherent of a strict construction of the Constitution, but which really means almost nothing in the practical application of the laws and Constitution. He'll find very little, I would guess, in Jackson's record -- over 600 opinions -- on the federal district court, where she was a trial judge for eight years, and on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where she has been an appellate judge for around a year now, that demonstrate that she is a Soviet-style Gulag travel advisor. His comments are not only stupid; they are childish moron stuff, dressed up in semi-big words.

This judge's qualifications for the job -- her brainpower, academic credentials, experience as a lawyer, and experience as a judge -- are basically spectacular, better than nearly all of her new teammates. She is every bit as qualified as John Roberts, who got a 78-22 vote, with 21 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords?) voting with 55 Republicans. And Jackson gets three GOP Senators. Everyone here knows why the other 47 will vote against her.

[Peter Brown]

The idea that the criticism of her is "a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left" is, of course, completely ludicrous. Cawley started in on this, publishing a long series of tweets suggesting that Jackson's downward deviation from the sentencing guidelines was evidence of someone soft on crime. This was completely debunked in advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings, not least of all by using sitting federal judges' records -- GOP appointees -- as a point of comparison, which showed that Jackson was altogether within the norm of guideline adherence.

Most of us understand that PB doesn't have ideas; he is an old senseless horse who stands at a trough where he is told not just what to drink, but what to vomit. He uses this word "Constitutionalist," which I guess is supposed to mean an adherent of a strict construction of the Constitution, but which really means almost nothing in the practical application of the laws and Constitution. He'll find very little, I would guess, in Jackson's record -- over 600 opinions -- on the federal district court, where she was a trial judge for eight years, and on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where she has been an appellate judge for around a year now, that demonstrate that she is a Soviet-style Gulag travel advisor. His comments are not only stupid; they are childish moron stuff, dressed up in semi-big words.

This judge's qualifications for the job -- her brainpower, academic credentials, experience as a lawyer, and experience as a judge -- are basically spectacular, better than nearly all of her new teammates. She is every bit as qualified as John Roberts, who got a 78-22 vote, with 21 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords?) voting with 55 Republicans. And Jackson gets three GOP Senators. Everyone here knows why the other 47 will vote against her.

Senators will vote against her because she will assuredly vote on the court as a far left activist judge seeking to create policy from the bench. Not too complicated.

There doesn’t exist a far left enough position where either she or Sotomajor would vote against it. You literally can’t go far left enough. Hence, ‘Soviet’. I can’t think of a single issue where she’s in disagreement with a communist.

These far left positions are unAmerican, anti family, and anti Bill of Rights; anyone promoting them, let alone a Supreme Court judge, needs to be soundly rejected.

[dislaxxic]

Boycott ignorant trash talk. Even at the expense of offending Joe Mauer...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

The idea that the criticism of her is "a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left" is, of course, completely ludicrous. Cawley started in on this, publishing a long series of tweets suggesting that Jackson's downward deviation from the sentencing guidelines was evidence of someone soft on crime. This was completely debunked in advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings, not least of all by using sitting federal judges' records -- GOP appointees -- as a point of comparison, which showed that Jackson was altogether within the norm of guideline adherence.

Most of us understand that PB doesn't have ideas; he is an old senseless horse who stands at a trough where he is told not just what to drink, but what to vomit. He uses this word "Constitutionalist," which I guess is supposed to mean an adherent of a strict construction of the Constitution, but which really means almost nothing in the practical application of the laws and Constitution. He'll find very little, I would guess, in Jackson's record -- over 600 opinions -- on the federal district court, where she was a trial judge for eight years, and on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where she has been an appellate judge for around a year now, that demonstrate that she is a Soviet-style Gulag travel advisor. His comments are not only stupid; they are childish moron stuff, dressed up in semi-big words.

This judge's qualifications for the job -- her brainpower, academic credentials, experience as a lawyer, and experience as a judge -- are basically spectacular, better than nearly all of her new teammates. She is every bit as qualified as John Roberts, who got a 78-22 vote, with 21 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords?) voting with 55 Republicans. And Jackson gets three GOP Senators. Everyone here knows why the other 47 will vote against her.

+1

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)


Senators will vote against her because she will assuredly vote on the court as a far left activist judge seeking to create policy from the bench. Not too complicated.



There doesn’t exist a far left enough position where either she or Sotomajor would vote against it. You literally can’t go far left enough. Hence, ‘Soviet’. I can’t think of a single issue where she’s in disagreement with a communist.

These far left positions are unAmerican, anti family, and anti Bill of Rights; anyone promoting them, let alone a Supreme Court judge, needs to be soundly rejected.

Maybe that is a reflection of your thinking skill instead of a reflection on her processing of the issues.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The idea that the criticism of her is "a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left" is, of course, completely ludicrous. Cawley started in on this, publishing a long series of tweets suggesting that Jackson's downward deviation from the sentencing guidelines was evidence of someone soft on crime. This was completely debunked in advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings, not least of all by using sitting federal judges' records -- GOP appointees -- as a point of comparison, which showed that Jackson was altogether within the norm of guideline adherence.

Most of us understand that PB doesn't have ideas; he is an old senseless horse who stands at a trough where he is told not just what to drink, but what to vomit. He uses this word "Constitutionalist," which I guess is supposed to mean an adherent of a strict construction of the Constitution, but which really means almost nothing in the practical application of the laws and Constitution. He'll find very little, I would guess, in Jackson's record -- over 600 opinions -- on the federal district court, where she was a trial judge for eight years, and on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where she has been an appellate judge for around a year now, that demonstrate that she is a Soviet-style Gulag travel advisor. His comments are not only stupid; they are childish moron stuff, dressed up in semi-big words.

This judge's qualifications for the job -- her brainpower, academic credentials, experience as a lawyer, and experience as a judge -- are basically spectacular, better than nearly all of her new teammates. She is every bit as qualified as John Roberts, who got a 78-22 vote, with 21 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords?) voting with 55 Republicans. And Jackson gets three GOP Senators. Everyone here knows why the other 47 will vote against her.

It’s really sad.

[jhu72]

The idea that the criticism of her is "a dnc/media talking point thrown out to rile up supporters of the left" is, of course, completely ludicrous. Cawley started in on this, publishing a long series of tweets suggesting that Jackson's downward deviation from the sentencing guidelines was evidence of someone soft on crime. This was completely debunked in advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings, not least of all by using sitting federal judges' records -- GOP appointees -- as a point of comparison, which showed that Jackson was altogether within the norm of guideline adherence.

Most of us understand that PB doesn't have ideas; he is an old senseless horse who stands at a trough where he is told not just what to drink, but what to vomit. He uses this word "Constitutionalist," which I guess is supposed to mean an adherent of a strict construction of the Constitution, but which really means almost nothing in the practical application of the laws and Constitution. He'll find very little, I would guess, in Jackson's record -- over 600 opinions -- on the federal district court, where she was a trial judge for eight years, and on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where she has been an appellate judge for around a year now, that demonstrate that she is a Soviet-style Gulag travel advisor. His comments are not only stupid; they are childish moron stuff, dressed up in semi-big words.

This judge's qualifications for the job -- her brainpower, academic credentials, experience as a lawyer, and experience as a judge -- are basically spectacular, better than nearly all of her new teammates. She is every bit as qualified as John Roberts, who got a 78-22 vote, with 21 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords?) voting with 55 Republicans. And Jackson gets three GOP Senators. Everyone here knows why the other 47 will vote against her.

Senators will vote against her because she will assuredly vote on the court as a far left activist judge seeking to create policy from the bench. Not too complicated.

There doesn’t exist a far left enough position where either she or Sotomajor would vote against it. You literally can’t go far left enough. Hence, ‘Soviet’. I can’t think of a single issue where she’s in disagreement with a communist.

These far left positions are unAmerican, anti family, and anti Bill of Rights; anyone promoting them, let alone a Supreme Court judge, needs to be soundly rejected.

FULL STOP. The rest is just another acre of horsesh*t.

[Seacoaster(1)]

"...seeking to create policy from the bench" is the tell-sentence -- that he has no idea what he's talking about. As though making policy from the bench isn't what SCOTUS justices do. The Constitution is policy; effectuating it is the job; reasonable people can and do differ on what its often laconic language means. Dumb.