Below is my column in the Hill on the expected fight over the Supreme Court seat to be vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer. The Democrats are calling for a confirmation process strikingly different from their own approach in the last three Supreme Court nominations.
Here is the column:
As the White House vets “short-listers” to replace Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) has reminded Senate Republicans that they really need to be “open-minded” about the choice. It was an ironic statement from a senator who told all men to “shut up” during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and rejected any notion of that nominee being entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Hirono’s comment highlights today’s uncertainty over what exactly the Senate should “mind” in a confirmation. Hirono and the White House may be most worried that their eventual nominee will face the standards applied to the three nominees during the Trump administration.
Being a short lister is no easy task, but the president appears intent on making it more precarious by the day. Biden said last week that he would fulfill his controversial pledge to consider only black female candidates, a threshold racial and gender test that is opposed by the vast majority of the public and will continue to cloud the selection. Biden then added another prerequisite: Any nominee must embrace a liberal view of the Constitution on “unenumerated rights.” Thus, the president seems to be drawing incoming fire on his own nominee’s position — a position less than impregnable following the stroke of Sen. Ray Luján (D-N.M.).
Judicial philosophy
Biden has maintained that his nominee must apply a liberal interpretation to the Constitution. On one level, this is hardly surprising; presidents are allowed to pick nominees who reflect their jurisprudential views. Of course, the required expansive view of rights demanded by Biden does not include disfavored rights like parental rights on abortions or educational information, gun rights or states’ rights. Those rights are to be narrowly interpreted. In the prior three court confirmations, Democratic senators maintained they would oppose a nominee who followed a conservative view of constitutional interpretation.
In the case of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, Sen. Angus King Jr. (I-Maine) wrote in The Atlantic that he would only vote for a nominee who expressly favored an “appropriate application of the terms of the Constitution to particular cases.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Democratic whip, declared that his opposition to Barrett was based on her interpretive approach that would work “against change and evolution in America that is inevitable and in fact necessary.”
Under this approach, Republicans would not have to be “open-minded” about a Biden nominee who follows an expansive view of constitutional interpretation. This includes support for a “living Constitution” approach that allows courts to “update” the Constitution without the necessity of constitutional amendments. Biden reaffirmed that view in discussing his expected nominee’s acceptance that “the Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights or curtailing rights.” Indeed, adhering to the living-Constitution theory may be the only pro-life position tolerated in a Biden nominee.
Virtually all of the nominees on Biden’s rumored short list run from the left to the far left of constitutional interpretation. Yet one favorite is South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs, who holds the critical support of Biden ally Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.); Childs answered “no” when asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), during a previous confirmation hearing, if she would adhere to a living-Constitution view.
The more fluid interpretative approach demanded by Biden can entail limiting some rights while elevating others. For example, California Justice Leondra Kruger adopted a breathtaking view of the religion clauses. While working in the Obama Justice Department, she argued Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a case involving a claim that religious schools should be able to require adherence to their central religious values. Kruger clearly shocked the High Court with a categorical denial of religious freedom in such choices. That led even Justice Elena Kagan to balk and ask, “Do you believe, Ms. Kruger, that a church has a right that is grounded in the Free Exercise Clause and/or the Establishment Clause to institutional autonomy with respect to its employees?” Kruger replied: “We do not see that line of church autonomy principles in the Religion Clause jurisprudence as such.” The court unanimously rejected her position and supported the church.
Pre-confirmation pledges
During the three Trump court nominations, Democrats shocked some observers by demanding an assurance on how justices would vote on pending cases. That was particularly the case with Barrett, who was confronted with demands that she pledge under oath to preserve Roe v. Wade or ObamaCare. I warned at the time that Democrats were creating a “Barrett rule” that could be used against their own nominees in the future.
With a pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Democrats pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was nominated to kill health care and filled the hearing room with photos of people who allegedly would die if she was confirmed. At the time, some of us noted that Barrett was more likely to vote to preserve the ACA and that the senators were radically misconstruing the pending case. (Barrett ultimately voted to preserve the Act, though not one of the Democratic senators apologized for their treatment of her.)
For some of Biden’s potential short-listers, such assurances have already been given on current appeals like challenged election reforms. Many commentators (like the editors of the Baltimore Sun) are pushing the nomination of the outgoing head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Sherrilyn Ifill. Ifill declared that state election reforms requiring such things as voter identification are an effort “to subvert our democracy and ensure the outcome of elections is controlled by one political party.”
Personal background
One of the most alarming attacks launched by Democrats in prior nominations was against Justice Barrett on the basis of her religious beliefs. Sens. Feinstein and Hirono called on her to explain her association with a traditionalist Catholic church group. Some liberal commentators launched vicious, often vulgar assaults; “Real Time” host Bill Maher declared, for example, that Barrett was “a f—ing nut … really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues.”
Yet, many of Barrett’s critics are likely supportive of presumed front-runner D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sat on a now-defunct advisory school board for Montrose Christian School in Rockville, Md. As one conservative commentator has documented, the school provided “Christ-centered education for the glory of the Savior and the good of society.” Among the school’s “uncompromisingly” held principles is that God created men and women “as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation,” that Christians must oppose “all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography,” that marriage is the “uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment,” and that Christians should “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”
The question is whether Democrats will now engage in the same pearl-clutching, breathless shock over this nominee’s apparent religious connections as they did over Justice Barrett’s.
We are light-years away from the days when Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be confirmed 98-0 and 96-3, respectively. But in asking GOP colleagues to “keep an open mind,” Democrats are arguing for the confirmation process that they denied to three previous nominees.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
My pick is Judge Fenton
Marshal Cooper has it out with Judge Fenton over a hanging circus
The DEMs don’t have the votes, unless Ms Lindsay or the other GOPe squishes goes wobbly. Pocket this radical nominee (she will be radical like most of Biden’s nominees have been) until the midterms. Then with a solid majority insist on a moderate nominee or pocket it until 2024. If SOTUS is going to act like a super legislature, then we better damn well use every tool in the toolkit to maintain some control over the monstrosity. Once SCOTUS gets back in its lane (likely never), we can return to the collegial norms of the Senate.
I am no fan of Biden. Or Trump. However, Trump got to pick who he wanted, from a list provided by the Federalist Society.
I am a fan of each and every Justice. The smartest people in the room.
Biden won, he gets to pick. Elections have consequences.
I would hope Republicans will grill the nominee, then overwhelmingly support her.
@Publius
That would be all well and good if modern Dems had any respect whatsoever for the rule of law – they do not. You are operating under a false premise, as it seems many older libs are. Your party has been hijacked, period. It nullifies your argument completely. You are referring to a former fantasy land where people respected the rules, debated things and came to sane solutions. It feels like the last grasp of so many that our modern dems have shred of integrity left – they don’t. Let it go. Your dems are lost without reprieve in the 21st century. You are no longer voting for JFK or FDR, you are voting for Mao. If you do not wish to live in a communist country, and I’m guessing you are old enough to remember the fall of the Soviet Union and what happened to China with the Maoist revolution, then stop it. Stop voting for the same forces within Western societies. Swallow the humble pie and do the right thing. No one can continue to be this perpetually blind into perpetuity. You chose wrong. Be an adult and admit it, and choose differently. Admit that you have prejudices based on nothing more than the words of the media, not your personal experience. This is beginning to go beyond personal comfort, and it will go much farther if we do not stop it *now*.
Nicely said James!
Ray in SC —- Looks like foaming-in-the-mounth to me.
James says:
“Be an adult and admit it, and choose differently. Admit that you have prejudices based on nothing more than the words of the media, not your personal experience.”
When Hell freezes over OR when Trump admits he IS a carnival snake charmer as Turley described him, whichever comes sooner.
jeffsilberman, the Ninth Circle of Hell is frozen, entrapping the worst of the sinners including Lucifer at the centre.
Then why bother grilling? These proceedings then would only be for some kind of a show. Don’t worry, they’re just going to rough you up a little, then they will vote to confirm you.
So, no content of character, which equates, in this situation, to merit?
You’re pretty messed up, right?
You want the worst on the Supreme Court?
My complaint with Turley on this subject is the fact that he keeps using examples from arguments made by these women as advocates for some organization/Governmental entity. The fact that they argued as they did MAY be more of situation of a lawyer defending an indefensible murderer. Having said that, let’s argue on the actual cases they have adjudicated. I have no doubt that there will be many examples that show they lack the judicial temperament and/or philosophy to faithfully interpret the Constitution in their rulings. I’d like a broader discussion of that versus whining about what they argued.
You’re going to be consistently disappointed if you’re looking for that kind of discussion from Turley.
He complains all the time about the “age of rage,” but consistently writes superficial columns that feed it.
Professor Turley writes the columns. You are free to read or not read them. You are also free to comment on the topics about which he chooses to write. But why bother if you are continually disappointed? I am grateful that he provides us with his perspective on important topics of the day.
I bother to engage with views that are different from my own, because I think that the polarization in the US is unhealthy. I bother with things that disappoint me, because I think that’s essential to improving the world.
How about you: do you only choose to engage with things that don’t disappoint you? If not, why do *you* bother with those things?
“I bother to engage with views that are different from my own, because I think that the polarization in the US is unhealthy.”
That is BS, ATS.
Keep pulling the professor down. Except in your mind, you get nowhere.
kenb5602: That’s a fair argument that you make. However, I respectfully disagree with the premise. The FOCUS of this blog article is in its TITLE, to wit, will Republicans employ the same arguments that Democrats used when Democrats voted against the three previous nominees? The professor then needed to provide examples….
(p.s.,lawyers/litigators have the right to refuse representation of clients whose positions they disagree with, even in large law firms, where they may state their opposition and request that cases be reassigned…)
Do government lawyers have that right?
That’s a fair point.
“. . . to consider only black female candidates . . .”
I long ago became numb to this culture’s intellectual dishonesty.
Or at least I thought I had.
That criteria is self-evidently racist and sexist. Where are the voices who are always decrying this country’s (alleged) racism and sexism?
Sam,
“ That criteria is self-evidently racist and sexist.”
No it’s not. It would be racist if the president states the only reason he chose in on that criteria was because such a nominee would be superior due to her race and gender.
Just saying he wants a black woman and that would be his only criteria is entirely his constitutional prerogative.
Just saying he wants a black woman and that would be his only criteria is entirely his constitutional prerogative.
Yes 100%
But the debate centers on using racial preference in hiring. Right or wrong? The constitution says wrong. Legislation, and SCOTUS rulings say right. People that do hiring on a large enough scale find their only protection from govt regulations and enforcement is to hire by racial quotas. Biden is filling a racial self imposed racial and gender quota.
Just a glaring double standard the left is always engaging.
Iowan2,
“ But the debate centers on using racial preference in hiring. Right or wrong? The constitution says wrong. ”
There’s a distinction that’s being ignored. One has to do with the constitution specifically stating what the president’s authority is vs. discrimination on APPLICANTS. Nobody applies to be a Supreme Court justice. There is no pool of applicants who WANT the job. Supreme Court justices are chosen by the president and/or suggested to the president, but ultimately the president CAN choose whoever he wants regardless of qualifications, race, sex, or ideology. The constitution gives the president a distinct authority to choose however he wants. That’s separate from the restrictions imposed on businesses or schools. It may seem like a double standard. A president has certain exceptions because of his position. He can’t be prosecuted or indicted either, not until he’s out of office. Trump and Turley successfully argued that.
Svelaz, You and I have already batted this back and forth.
The President has plenary powers. That is NOT the question.
Should the President use race as his hiring measuring stick? Set an example of how the rest of the Nation Should act?
Iowan says while breaking a smile thinking of Trump:
“Set an example of how the rest of the Nation Should act?”
Like Trump’s incessant lying set a good example!
Puhleeze!
Of course it’s wrong. Don’t fool yourself for one second in thinking that the current administration’s picks would be anything bit partisan. We have already proven that through decisions Trump’s picks were NOT. There have already in a short time time to prove that there have been decisions on the part of those individuals that have angered Trump’s base. this will not be the case with Biden; it is a pure, puerile, virtue signaling power grab that will even further disrupt the courts, and has nothing to do with the courts, but hopes to influence future elections. Our modern dems are despicable in every sense of the word, and as shortsighted as the day is long.
Svelaz, Biden did NOT say “a black woman … would be his only criteria.”
He said “The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” Six criteria: extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, integrity, Black, woman.
Let me refresh your memory. Biden only added the “extra” criteria after receiving strong criticism following his public statement in South Carolina promising that he would nominate a “Black woman” to SCOTUS.(No other criteria were mentioned). -Moreover, his controversial statement followed a private meeting with Jim Clyburn after polls showed Biden way down….Selective facts hurt credibility…
Let me refresh your memory.
When Biden said he’d nominate a Black woman, he did not say or imply that those were his only criteria.
In my opinion, only an idiot would think that race and sex would ever be a President’s only criteria. They weren’t the only criteria when Presidents were only nominating white men. They also weren’t the only criteria for the women and people of color who’ve been nominated. Even when Presidents have nominated people who weren’t particularly qualified, as with GW Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers, they weren’t the only criteria.
You failed to refresh my memory. Instead, you offer your own opinion; I offered what was actually said, what wasn’t said, and when things were said. Thanks anyway, let it go…
Actually, lin, I also pointed out some facts about what was said: when Biden said he’d nominate a Black woman, he did not say or imply that those were his only criteria.
If *you* want to let things go, then do so.
ATS, you can’t stop. That is not normal.
“In my opinion, only an idiot would think that race and sex would ever be a President’s only criteria. ”
ATS, you fit the description. This would not have been an issue had his statement not excluded other races. It was a dumb way of talking to the public, but his most robust base is racist, and he wished to appeal to the racists. I think it was stupid, but some stupid people argue in favor of Biden’s statement.
“Six criteria: extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, integrity, Black, woman.”
So a “little” poison is okay.
Two of those criteria are racist and sexist. You cannot credibly claim to be *against* racism and sexism, while promoting (your brand of) racism and sexism.
According to you, which Presidents did not promote racism and sexism?
Presumably, this will be a short list, but I’m curious who you include on it.
Of those Presidents you think did not promote racism and sexism, did they promote other kinds of bigotry (religious bigotry, etc.)?
Which President excluded other races from consideration for the Supreme Court? You can’t answer that.
As a start, every President before LBJ.
There is a difference between excluding other races and not appointing.
Now, repeat your statement with proof and names.
Anonymous,
“ Svelaz, Biden did NOT say “a black woman … would be his only criteria.”
I’m aware of that. I was just paraphrasing what conservative critics are claiming.
Amonymous says:
“Six criteria: extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, integrity, Black, woman.”
Correct. There is NO reverse discrimination at work here because there are plenty of black female judges who are eminently as qualified as any of their white male counterparts.
” . . . is entirely his constitutional prerogative.”
You are correct.
He has the prerogative to be a sexist and racist. And he should be called out for being a sexist and racist.
Sam,
“ You are correct.
He has the prerogative to be a sexist and racist. And he should be called out for being a sexist and racist.”
So you agree Trump should be called out as sexist because he wanted a woman to be the one to replace Ginsburg? He already made up his mind that it had to be a woman.
Will you agree that your handlers should hire better trolls given the low IQ content ewe sputter?
🐑 🐑 🐑
You mean as a racist and sexist bigot. Got it.
Someone said “racist, and you responded with “Constitutional”. What?
The problem is to identify the real racist from the alleged racist, which is impossible unless terms and definitions are the same.
A link to illustrate the problem . . . .
https://quillette.com/2022/02/09/how-social-justice-killed-anti-racism/
Hypocrites one and all.
Funfact:
The Constitution denies all of it.
The Constitution denies the entire welfare state including the entirety of social engineering.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 denied freed slaves citizenship.
They must have been compassionately repatriated, aka deported, in 1863.
They love law and the Constitution.
Or not.
They obey the laws they like, and they disobey the laws they don’t like.
Hypocites one and all.
Anyone woth eyeballs can see the dems are totalitarian evil, and desperate. Why anyone would support such bloodlust is legitimately concerning. They must be voted out. If you can’t vote for a non-dem, then don’t vote at all as a form of protest, as surely we all have eyes. Why anyone believes that if they don’t vote dem then they must automatically choose Trump is also puzzling. We don’t live in a binary world, the dem party has just convinced people we do, and hey – I thought progressives were supposed to be above that anyway. At this point it is literally JUST the democratic party that has lost its ever loving mind. Them alone.
Sort of like John Ashcroft violating Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty and restoring Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics. Doesn’t get more totalitarian than that.
Doesn’t get more totalitarian than that.
Walter Duranty, is that you?
Decapitating newborn babies ala ex VA Governor Ralph Northam as a “choice”
Drone warfare ala Barack Obama
Obama, Clinton, DOJ, CIA, FBI orchestrating a treasonous coup against a newly elected US President
Leaving thousands of US allies in Afghanistan due to cognitively impaired Joe Biden
Democrats Masking children by executive order for COVID
Collapsing the US Economy ala COVID shut down policies
Escalating violent crime in America with Democrats nod to BLM ANTIFA and DEFUND police since 2020
You and your troll farm colleagues and financial backers really have no leg to stand when it comes to recent Democrats being inhumane, brutal, savage and totalitarian. But don’t let any of the above keep you from hoping that Americans are as stupid as CNN thinks they are since that has worked so well for them.
Don’t stop believing, bruh
😜
Just pointing out how “liberal” the Bush Republicans were on constitutional due process by violating Ronald Reagan’s Torture treaty and violating their own Oath of Office loyalty oath (Title 5 US Code 3331 and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Reagan would have criminally prosecuted some Bush officials.
For your information, I don’t support foreign style “unconstitutional- authoritarianism” practices by either party – including Democrats.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Over and over, you ignore your god’s commandments.
Sort of like John Ashcroft violating Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty and restoring Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics. Doesn’t get more totalitarian than that.
Whom do you imagine you’re disagreeing with?
It’s kind of embarrassing that JT keeps using an out-of-date photo of the Justices when he writes about the Court, especially when he’s talking about Barrett.
And anyone who has paid attention to past nomination hearings knows that Senators of both parties will do what they believe serves them. Turley is the one engaged in “pearl-clutching, breathless shock” about this.
Anonymous, I find it humorous that Turley is quite liberal with the term “demand” in describing democrats questioning of Supreme Court nominees. He’s engaging in hyperbole just to put in stark contrast the two parties in order to paint one party as being excessive when it’s just the normal course of the process.
He’s using only one statement from a senator to paint the entire party. That’s hardly a shock in itself. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric that encourages the “age of rage” he often criticizes.
Biden is offering some “smoking kit” to dumb american smokers. Give em each a gun with one bullet. Tell em to point directly into the head and shoot. Get your suicide over more quickly.
Any set of written rules, from the Constitution to the NFL football rulebook, must be viewed as being fair to all that participate. The referees must be viewed as being impartial to each team, only interpreting the rules fairly. One of the big problems is we want the rules to favor our political point of view but don’t want that same rulebook to apply to the other team. Result: the leaders of both teams look corrupt since neither will follow the written rulebook and views the referees as biased.
For example: if we support 14th Amendment equal rights for women, African-Americans, LGBT-Americans and religious minorities we must also support the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners and the 1st Amendment speech rights of our political opponents – it’s the same rulebook with the same referees. Even if the rules are flawed, we can’t amend the rulebook in the middle of a live game.
Conversely, a local court clerk that swore a constitutional Oath of Office (employment contract) governing their job duties and authorities then can’t refuse to marry LGBT couples. The clerks Oath of Office (at work) legally requires them to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality and law. The clerk can still attend church on Sunday or contribute to their favorite political cause when not at work. The clerk can even wear religious symbols or jewelry to work but the clerk can’t impose their religious interpretation onto other people at work.
The above mention of “states’ rights” in the 21st Century primarily concerns “Marijuana Prohibition” not Jim Crow racism. Jim Crow was the illegal interpretation of the 10th Amendment. The preceding amendment – 9th Amendment – states that a right can’t be interpreted to violate another constitutional right. So it has always been illegal to exercise the 10th Amendment (states’ rights) to discriminate against African-Americans or anyone else. When a locality or state illegally exercises the 10th Amendment illegally (to violate rights) it’s perfectly legal for the federal government to intervene in that scenario. Placing marijuana in the same legal class as nicotine or alcohol (arguably more dangerous drugs) is a “legal” interpretation of the 10th Amendment. Under “Citizens United” marijuana manufacturers would seem to have a 14th Amendment right to the same treatment as nicotine or alcohol manufactures – a state couldn’t deny equal treatment to a marijuana company.
In 1973 Texas enacted the strongest, pro-consumer statute in the nation, including a provision for mandatory treble damages. Not surprisingly, the statute was attacked by the business community and before long a case made its way to the Texas Supreme Court. The majority opinion was authored by the Court’s Chief Justice and it was a resounding victory for consumers, providing an expansive application of the statute and rejecting the notion that the Court could ignore legislative intent. Years later, I learned the Chief Justice’s personal, political views. They were what today we would call “far right” but he never allowed those views to infect his judicial decisions. Of course, those days are long gone and I doubt we ever will see them again.
I looked up the identity of the Texas Chief Justice in 1973 (Joe R. Greenhill), and in doing so I came across this fascinating story of how Texas came to have an all-woman Supreme Court in 1925.
https://www.txcourts.gov/supreme/about-the-court/court-history/all-woman-supreme-court/
gg– it was Chief Justice Greenhill. In addition to being a true judge, he was a stickler for courtroom decorum and courtesy toward opponents. Once in the heat of oral argument a friend of mine uttered the phrase, “my God” at which point Chief Justice Greenhill stopped oral argument and made it clear that the case would not proceed until my friend apologized to the Court for using such language.
If the Republicans hold the Democrats to the same standards that the Dems subjected Bork, Barrett and Kavanugh too you can expect salvos of buzz words from their press. The majority of Americans are expressing their disdain for this administration poll after poll. Let’s see how ballsy for the Republicans are and if they can dish it out as well as they receive it? I wonder if the people voted (in a legitimate election) to confirm candidates based on the candidate’s adherence to the constitution would any of these qualify?
LOL that you think the Republicans haven’t already dished it out.
Also, Bork was rejected in a bipartisan vote.
I was not aware that Childs had answered “no” when asked if she supported interpretation on the basis of a “living constitution.” Does anyone know of an analysis of her judicial philosophy, prior decisions or political views? Most commentary on her focuses on her intersectional status and public school background. A couple articles I have seen do note that in private practice she defended employers in unfair dismissal cases including for alleged racial discrimination.
If you Google Michelle Childs confirmation hearing U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina April 2010, it will pull up the transcript and video of her 2010 hearing and her written responses to questions then, as well as her Ballotopedia profile and other relevant profiles.
Does anyone know of an analysis of her judicial philosophy, prior decisions or political views?
She is a devout, practicing Catholic active in her parish as a lay leader. For this reason alone, the Left will crucify her, yet Clyburn wants her. Should be fun seeing the Left lob molotov cocktails at what little is left of the DNC.
https://www.blackcatholicmessenger.com/j-michelle-childs-catholic/
Daniel: Of all the named potential nominees thus far named/identified, I respect one who is willing to stand up to her own race in favor of the rule of law-that is the integrity that I want to see. Notwithstanding, there is some concern for her 2020 ruling that put a stop on witness signature verification for mail-in votes. The pandemic was the cited reason, and SCOTUS stayed her decision (Andino case). At this point, I am willing to grant her the benefit of her stated reasoning.
Thanks for all the responses. I too worry about her 2020 election decision regarding the requirement that a witness be present for the signing of a mail-in ballot. That having been said she may be the least bad of the possible options that have been floated. The fact that Graham and Scott appear supportive may be more than just S Carolina boosterism. There sure would be a lot of Catholics on the court, not that this bothers me.
PS. don’t feed the troll
Iowan,
There are no more than 5 or 6 Liberals here who have yet to be driven off this blog by the hostility of the vast majority of Trumpists. Liberals and NeverTrumpers here feel threatened not unlike Conservatives on college campuses! It’s a pity that Turley does not maintain this blog as a forum where Liberals feel welcome to speak freely instead of being besieged by never-ending accusations of being trolls which is an implicit demand to leave this forum.
There are just a few of us NeverTrumpers like Turley himself who stand between this blog becoming what Turley fears most- an exclusive rallying point for MAGA/Q-Anon supporters….
jeffsilberman — I dunna know, trolls can be most impressive:
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x5490150128a784bd%3A0x9ddb04f1ce7199df!3m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMHs5kAj9E651zXj2ckaQECfL5ApprKdBYkvtda%3Dw426-h320-k-no!5sfremont%20bridge%20troll%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipMHs5kAj9E651zXj2ckaQECfL5ApprKdBYkvtda&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ_6LRyvb1AhX2D0QIHbIWD_MQoip6BAhCEAM
Here is our mountain home:
trollheim fjell norway picture
(I think you have to copy that line into your browser, primitive in that part of Fjordland.)
By the way, much more impressive when driving by in the bus, nationalized of course as Norway is a reasonable country of peasants and fisherfolk since Olaf Bluetooth christianizedd the Norsemen and ending Viking plunder.
Oops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth
All posters are welcome here.
Stupid posters will have their idiocy called out and amplified to expose their innate hate of the United States and its founding documents.
We are all aware of the double standard. If not for that core value, Democrats would have no values at all.
The DEM’s pick will be radical, Biden’s words a minority, certain gender, and TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED. Biden sold himself to the Bernie Sanders wing of the party and the Social Justice NUTS, who are ruining this country. No matter what the Republicans say or ask, they will be labeled by THE DEM’s as RACISIT, MEAN and etc. Plus they have a voting problem minus the Senator from New Mexico
WHATEVER YOUR POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR PERSONAL PERSUASION, ALL OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS.
Remember Bork
Yup! Thank god he never made it to SCOTUS.
Yeah, do you remember why so many Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting him?
Borking is the Democrat norm.
The triathlon killer with his zipper down created a fog so dense that it was impossible to appoint a brilliant jurist who would have added his incredible knowledge of anti-trust laws to the Supreme Court. That is what was needed, but the left plays dirty partisan politics and they are aided by the media. His book, The Antitrust Paradox, defined the appropriate use of the law in antitrust cases. For that knowledge alone, he was sorely needed on the court, then and now.
Judge Bork Converts to the Catholic Faith
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/faith-and-character/faith-and-character/judge-bork-converts-to-the-catholic-faith.html
“Yes, we are slouching toward it if we havent passed the city limits already. Im afraid that the Supreme Court is playing a large role in moving the culture in that direction. ”
That is one of the strongest arguments in favor of religion. Man needs to believe in something. Let that something be a positive, not a negative.
Thank you, Estovir, for the interesting article on a great man. Had he married an orthodox Jew, he might have become an orthodox Jew. He wished to fill an important void, and that is understandable. Jews and Catholics are supposed to believe in the Ten Commandments. Do leftists? Maybe, maybe not.
Do leftists believe in the Ten Commandments?
Looking at all ten, leftists seem to have serious voids. As an exercise, one can show the emptiness of a leftist without requiring any religious dogma, though understand I am not criticizing religious dogma. It’s just that the lack of any belief, agnostic or not, sets a person up for leftism and all the terrible things that come with it.
Take the biggy (Jewish version)
1) I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Did our progressive friends replace God with the state? We know the answer. That need for replacement is a danger to a free society.
Let me go to #6) Thou shalt not murder.
How many babies are killed through indiscriminate abortion? I understand there are two sides to the argument, but leftists see red unless one has full and total abortion rights to the point of killing a viable baby while removing him limb by limb.
I believe one can easily do the other eight as well, but I provide those two just as a way of exercising one’s God-given intellect or, at the very least, not the intellect provided by the state.
Remember Ted Kennedy.
Remember the Alamo!
This is the most goofyTurkey article to ever be posted.
Turkey. Not turkey.
When you’ve finished with your juvenile name calling, please go and take your nap. You’re especially cranky today.
Turley says:
“Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sat on a now-defunct advisory school board for Montrose Christian School in Rockville, Md. As one conservative commentator has documented, the school provided “Christ-centered education for the glory of the Savior and the good of society.” Among the school’s “uncompromisingly” held principles is that God created men and women “as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation,” that Christians must oppose “all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography,” that marriage is the “uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment,” and that Christians should “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”
“The question is whether Democrats will now engage in the same pearl-clutching, breathless shock over this nominee’s apparent religious connections as they did over Justice Barrett’s.”
—————-
If the Democrats don’t object to Judge Jackson, you will be correct that they will be abject hypocrites. Thank you very much for warning us about her religious fanaticism. I join your call to Democrats to remain *consistent* in rejecting religious fundamentalists who reject science and believe in Creationism and talking in tongues from serving on the Supreme Court.
Turley says:
“Some liberal commentators launched vicious, often vulgar assaults; “Real Time” host Bill Maher declared, for example, that Barrett was “a f—ing nut … really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues.”
Turley, your attack on Maher as a “vicious” commentator is *chilling* on his right of free speech, don’t you think? I trust you are not suggesting that he should self-censor, are you? After all, we don’t want Rogan to self-censor, do we?
I thought you advocate *good speech” as a cure-all for bad speech? Where is your good speech to persuade me that Maher was speaking badly? Personally, I likewise believe that anyone who speaks in tongues- if true for Barrett- is slightly “advanced” if you catch my drift. I would like to have heard your arguments defending a Supreme Court Justice who believes in speaking in tongues or does so herself.
Instead, you have just have done what you most deplore, that is, adding to our “age of rage” by attacking Maher who legitimately questioned the rationality of one who speaks in tongues.
Jeff, you wrote: “Turley, your attack on Maher as a “vicious” commentator is *chilling* on his right of free speech, don’t you think? I trust you are not suggesting that he should self-censor, are you?”
That’s called a non sequitur (read=does not follow). Free speech, however “chilling”, “ugly”, “good” or “bad” anyone subjectively describes it, is a two-way freedom. Counter-attacking words (WITH MORE WORDS ONLY) does not now, nor did it ever, “suggest” a desire to censor – or even that someone should self-censor. Even if someone goes so far as to say, “Stifle yourself. Silence! Stick a sock in it!” If you obey those empty, unenforceable WORDS, it’s your choice – alone. But Turley didn’t do that. He didn’t even bring up the topic of censorship or self-censorship. You did.
Steve,
You must be new to these parts. Turley is a self-described “free speech originalist.” Turley disapproves of anything which chills free speech which he considers a human right. He counsels ONLY “good speech” to inoculate “bad speech.“ Good speech would entail a persuasive argument that Maher is wrong in thinking a person who speaks in tongues is unfit to serve on the High Court. Calling Maher “vicious” is not an argument!
Instead, Turley simply added to the accumulated rage in our day and age. Turley denounces *rage” in our rhetoric; however, you watch to see how the Trumpists on this blog will follow Turley’s lead and viciously attack Maher.
Steve owned you. More words won’t change that fact.
Take the “L.”
jeffsilberman: Maybe it’s just you who is seeing “rage” in everything. Turley’s description of Maher’s speech didn’t “enrage” me, but then, I don’t look for rage everywhere. You’re like those pathetic college snowflakes who get “offended” simply by the presence of a conservative on campus. They parse every sentence looking for “racism.” They don’t “feel” safe around anyone who isn’t following the party line. Grow up Jeff.
Giocon1,
“ You’re like those pathetic college snowflakes who get “offended” simply by the presence of a conservative on campus. They parse every sentence looking for “racism.” They don’t “feel” safe around anyone who isn’t following the party line. Grow up Jeff.”
I wouldn’t go around flouting the “snowflake” argument.
Remember republicans are creating laws banning CRT because people are getting “offended”, “feeling guilty”, “called oppressors”, etc.
Sounds very snowflakey to me. Republicans are uncomfortable discussing race it seems. Feeling “guilty” is just too much, no?
No. No similarity whatsoever. CRT in schools is a government policy implemented (often in secret without voter input) to transfer wealth from whites to blacks, to take rights away from whites, and to teach whites that they deserve to be victimized in this way.
How is self-defense (opposition to CRT) similar to intolerance (giocon1’s college students)?
“Remember republicans are creating laws banning CRT because people are getting “offended”, “feeling guilty”, “called oppressors”, etc.”
Svelaz, you have been wrong about everything, most recently not recognizing that BioNTech was not approved, and that NYS included a racist rationale for providing anti-viral medications to the general public.
On and on, you are wrong about almost every critical issue. You were even wrong about the Constitution and federalism. I don’t think anyone on this blog has been as wrong so many times as you.
What the general public understands to be CRT is racist, and should not be used in the school systems. You can be as racist as you wish, but you can’t force racism onto our children.
Giocon1 says:
“Maybe it’s just you who is seeing “rage” in everything.”
Turley’s comments didn’t enrage me. When you call what someone said “vulgar”
or “vicious,” THAT person will become incensed. He or she won’t take it lying down. Look what Trump does WHENEVER someone says ANYTHING untoward about him! He lashes back. Turley should have explained why religious fanaticism is not suited on the High Court to respond to Maher. Turley did not practice what he preaches.
Describing speech is not censorship. You’ve really outdone yourself this time.
Steve,
I hope you are not a Liberal because you will feel very unwelcome on this blog. Trust me!
Turley laments,
“We previously discussed a new study showing that sixty-five (65) percent agreed that people on campus today are prevented from speaking freely. The poll is additional evidence of the failure of administrators and faculty to maintain campuses as forums for free thought and intellectual engagement. This study shows that conservatives and Republicans on campus feel the loss of free speech most acutely.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/08/gwu-president-triggers-free-speech-fight-after-declaring-posters-criticizing-the-chinese-government-offensive/
There are no more than 5 or 6 Liberals here who have yet to be driven off this blog by the hostility of the vast majority of Trump followers which I refer to as “Trumpists” for short. Despite Turley’s professed concern “to maintain campuses as forums for free thought and intellectual engagement,” Liberals and NeverTrumpers here feel not unlike Conservatives on college campuses! It’s a pity that Turley does not maintain this blog as forum where Liberals feel welcome to speak freely instead of being besieged by never-ending accusations of hating Trump.
Well said Jeff, their minds are made up regardless of facts and evidence. They read and hear only what they want to read and hear.
Fishwings,
Turley won’t say it out loud, but he must appreciate our determined efforts to keep this forum from becoming a 100% MAGA rally. You and I and a handful of others are all what stands between this blog becoming what Turley fears most.
jeffsilberman: The only attacks on this blog are the trolls who clearly are here only to oppose Turley, no matter what he says. So please, don’t play the victim. If you don’t feel “welcome,” try being civil instead of spewing out all the ad hominems. Try actually engaging with the discussion — if you actually have an alternative POV. If you insist on taking the low road, don’t cry when you are exposed.
Giocon1 says:
“The only attacks on this blog are the trolls who clearly are here only to oppose Turley, no matter what he says. So please, don’t play the victim.”
Again with the attack on me as a “troll” which is an implicit demand for me to split.
As I have said many times, I have a higher regard for Turley than do you Trumpists. I see him as a stalwart NeverTrumper who regrettably sold-out as a hired-gun for Fox News. Perhaps, they made him an offer he could not refuse. But one doesn’t call someone a “carnival snake charmer” and take it back! That’s for sure. I’m sure Turley would stand by that characterization of Trump.
You, on the other hand, see Turley as supporting Trump and all that he stands for. I have no doubt that Turley would feel aghast that you think that he dismisses Trump’s serial lying as you do and approved of his behavior as president.
jeffsilberman, maybe Jonathan Turley thought he could help lift it out of the gutter…
David,
We can only hope…
Haven’t you noticed that the responses on the right appreciate Turley’s position on speech? You don’t, yet you remain on his blog insulting him whenever you get a chance. Then, in an about-face, you childishly try to show how you love Turley more than anyone else. You are a spineless snowflake.
jeffsilberman: Oh puleeze. Criticizing is not the same as censorship — on any planet. Free speech all around. Turley isn’t advocating pulling Maher off the air as the hysterical critics of Rogan are doing. He’s describing Maher’s speech as vulgar, not illegal. Get over yourself.
giocon1: You are correct. Moreover, jeffsilberman stated that the professor called Maher “a ‘vicious’ commentator” which is totally false. Turley spoke of vicious comments, not vicious commentators, and if silberman had tried that in court, he wouldn’t have gotten very far….(I’m already on his hate list for calling him out..)
Lin,
Jeff is correct here Turley did include Maher as a “vicious commentator”.
“ Some liberal commentators launched vicious, often vulgar assaults; “Real Time” host Bill Maher declared, for example, that Barrett was “a f—ing nut … really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues.”
Turley explicitly mentioned commentators as launching vicious, often vulgar assaults.
Turley, as usual, ignores proper context. Maher is a comedian. His statement describing Barrett was more of a rhetorical hyperbole than a serious statement.
The distinction you try to make is a distinction without a difference. Turley still implied liberal commentators were being “vicious” in their views of Barrett.
Svelaz, once again you don’t know what you are talking about. Brains are not your strong suit.
Nothing gets through that thick head of yours so I will not interpret what Turley said. Instead I will quote it and let you repeat the error made above over and over again.
‘Some liberal commentators launched vicious, often vulgar assaults; “Real Time” host Bill Maher declared, for example, that Barrett was “a f—ing nut … really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues.”
Welcome to the “People Jeff Hates Club”, lin! You’re in good company.
Giocon1 says:
“Criticizing is not the same as censorship”
Turley is expecting Maher to self-censor his “vulgar” speech is he not?
And where was Turley’s good speech arguing that people who speak in tongues are sufficiently rational to become Supreme Court Justices?