Below is my column in the Hill on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is most notable of the statements of support for Judge Jackson is how little is said about her judicial philosophy or approach to the law. The fact is that we have a comparably thin record of opinions in comparison to recent nominees. While she obviously has opinions as a district court judge, there are few opinions that shed light on her judicial philosophy. That is not surprising for a trial judge who issues hundreds of insular decisions on trial issues or outcomes. This is not about the years of experience on the bench, which I have repeatedly noted is a great strength in the nomination. It simply means that we have fewer opinions offering substantive insights into her approach to legal interpretation. The question is whether we will learn substantially more in this confirmation.
Here is the column:
For many liberal groups, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a supreme “deliverable” by President Biden. Activist groups have pushed her nomination to the Supreme Court while opposing the consideration of fellow short-lister District Judge J. Michelle Childs. These groups clearly did not like Childs and her more moderate take on legal issues. Yet the interesting question is, what did they see in Judge Jackson that made her the preferred choice? It seems to be widely understood but barely discussed.
Jackson received a rather unenviable start to her nomination. Without any real pressure on timing, the White House announced its selection of the D.C. circuit judge even as Ukrainians were fighting street by street for their freedom. The “now for something completely different” moment was quickly overshadowed by images of the agony abroad.
That decision follows Biden’s unnecessary, unprecedented pledge to consider only Black females for a vacancy on the court — the very type of threshold criteria that the court has declared unconstitutional or unlawful for schools or businesses. (Jackson herself previously rejected Biden’s premise for imposing his threshold racial and gender exclusion, stating during her appellate confirmation hearing that “I don’t think that race plays a role in the kind of judge that I have been and would be.”)
With a sterling academic and professional resume, she deserved a much better framing and timing for her nomination.
Jackson always has been the front-runner in this process. Activist groups such as Demand Justice, which has led efforts to pack the court and to hound Justice Stephen Breyer into retiring, pushed her nomination while opposing Judge Childs, whom they considered too moderate and tough on crime. This concerted opposition campaign, which included the Our Revolution group aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), painted Childs as anti-union and pro-employer too.
While these advocates and others all agreed that Jackson was the best choice, they have not explained clearly why. NBC News declared that “Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement’s agenda.” Yet the confirmation process is designed to guarantee that we do not have wink-and-a-nod nominations where agendas are to be fulfilled but not discussed.
Jackson has an extremely limited written record to review — something considered an advantage for a nominee. Most of her district court opinions are not very illustrative of her views or approach to the law. She did write several very long opinions as a district court judge but has only one published opinion as an appellate judge. That opinion, a win for unions against a federal agency, was released roughly 24 hours before her nomination. She has remarkably little else written beyond these limited opinions shedding light on her approach to legal interpretation.
Liberals want a justice who is willing to expand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments. President Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a “living constitution” approach, including a broad view of “unenumerated rights.” When asked if she supported such an approach, Childs answered “no.” Jackson, in contrast, has been far more obscure and conflicted in her response.
When she was nominated for the district court, Jackson answered “no” to that question. However, when nominated for the appellate court (and widely discussed as a future Supreme Court nominee), she became more evasive and, frankly, baffling in her answer: She told the Senate that she simply did not have experience with such interpretations as a judge.
It was a bizarre response since the question concerned her judicial philosophy. After all, Jackson has a distinguished academic background and a long career in legal practice. She is clearly familiar with this core concept of liberal constitutional interpretation. (Her answer reminded some of us of when Justice Clarence Thomas testified that he really had not thought much about Roe v. Wade.)
Her answer also made little sense since she had no difficulty responding to the question in her prior confirmation. When again pressed on the issue, Jackson’s position became unintelligible. She told the Senate that she is “bound by the methods of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has adopted, and I have a duty not to opine on the Supreme Court’s chosen methodology or suggest that I would undertake to interpret the text of the Constitution in any manner other than as the Supreme Court has directed.”
That answer was mystifying. She is bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court — but she is allowed to have her own philosophy on constitutional interpretation, and other judges have answered the same question. Indeed, past nominees have gone into some detail on their approaches to interpreting the Constitution while avoiding how they would rule on particular cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett not only refuted the premise of the living constitution theory but expressly embraced an originalist interpretative approach.
What is known is that Jackson has faced pushback for exceeding her constitutionally or statutorily defined role in cases.
For example, in 2019, she wrote a lengthy opinion in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan in favor of immigration groups challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s expansion of the expedited-removal process to the statutory limit. Jackson surprisingly ruled that she had authority to enjoin the policy despite a federal law stating the question was left to the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the agency. The D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Jackson as exercising considerable judicial overreach. The lone judge in dissent did not find in Jackson’s favor but instead cited her for a different error in exercising jurisdiction over the challenge.
Judge Jackson also was accused of judicial overreach in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump in 2018, when she stopped the Trump administration from implementing provisions limiting the ability of federal workers’ unions to collectively bargain. Noting that Jackson was a prospective choice for the Supreme Court, The Washington Post heralded the ruling as a major victory for unions. However, a unanimous ruling by the D.C. Circuit held that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to decide the case because the statute clearly mandates such challenges must be brought first in the agency process and that judicial review is then available in the courts of appeals.
Those reversals evidence a more fluid approach to statutory interpretation that even more liberal judges found to be beyond the pale.
While confirmation hearings often are reduced to little more than political kabuki theatre, Jackson’s hearing will be far more important because of the lack of information about her views on key issues. She has a fraction of the written record of nominees such as Barrett or Justice Neil Gorsuch establishing their judicial philosophy. In the end, Judge Jackson is likely to be confirmed. But her confirmation should be based on advice and consent, not a wink and a nod.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
KBJ is exactly the right choice for the court at exactly the right time in our nation’s history. Her confirmation will provide the radical Left the judicial activist they’ve long sought for SCOTUS. She will join 2 liberal justices that will be emboldened to move further left and 5 conservative justices that will be equally emboldened to move further right. Roberts won’t be able to be so squishy on his judicial philosophy. I predict the arguments before the court and the subsequent debates will present a very bright compare and contrast divide of constitutional philosophy to the American people. The Left wanted an associate justice that was more “representative” of the people, and they are about to find out what percentage of this country constitutes the radical Left and what percentage is to the right of them. KBJ will do more to secure constitutional conservativism than any more moderate liberal nominee could have. We should thank the radical Left for getting this nominee at exactly the time when her judicial philosophy will push a more secure conservative majority on the court, right at the time when the midterm elections will give conservatives control of the Legislative branch.
The court already moved to the right when Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh and RBG was replaced by Barrrett. How silly to suggest that the move to the right is a response to the left rather than the enactment of the Federalist Society’s long game.
Turley: “With a sterling academic and professional resume, she deserved a much better framing and timing for her nomination.”
+++
The towering, disgraceful midden-monument legacy of affirmative action is that nobody can trust a “sterling academic” resume of a black person.
In her case it seems all too possible that every step on her way up, just like her appointment to the Court, was based on only one criterion–that she is black. Legal competence is far down the list of qualifications and they really don’t count. If they exist they are mere irrelevant addenda in this scheme, fortunate if they are worthy of a footnote.
A real tragedy in this horrid system is that many capable black scholars who have truly earned their honors will be secretly suspect until they prove otherwise, and then prove it again. And they know it, they see it in the unspeakable doubts revealed in the faces of their peers, and in their hesitations, the silent insults that must be endured.
Then there are the other tragedies to the Court, to the Law, to the Country, and to All of Us.
Legal competence is further down the list for those on the right. Trump appointed a record number of unqualified judges.
Anon Put the brain back in and stop playing with it.
Since 1989, the ABA has rated 22 nominees as not qualified. Ten of them were nominated by Trump, and he did this in just 4 years (GW Bush nominated 8 unqualified judges in 8 years, and Clinton nominated 4).
Appeal to a BIASED authority is idiotic and offensive.
“[E]xpand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments.”
That “living constitution” is not a government whose powers are proscribed by its constitution. That is individuals who start with a desire (e.g., more welfare, government control, affirmative action), and then manipulate the constitution to satisfy those desires.
That is not fidelity to the constitution. That is rationalization.
Jonathan: Nothing in your column is a bar to Judge Jackson serving on the SC. But your allegations against Jackson deserve a response. You claim Jackson has a “thin record of opinions”. That’s no bar. Does anyone remember any noteworthy opinions by Clarence Thomas when he served on the DC Court of Appeals? You also say Biden’s selection of only a Black female is “unprecedented”. Jackson’s appointment is only unprecedented because she will be the FIRST Black female to serve on the Court. When George HW selected Clarence Thomas for the SC it was clear he wanted to replace Thurgood Marshall with another Black. No other white candidate was seriously considered. That choice was also “unprecedented” and “affirmative action” in spades. Especially since the ABA gave Thomas one of the lowest ratings of any SC nominee. Don’t recall you complaining back then about Thomas’ “thin record”.
You also call the support for Jackson an effort to “pack the Court”. That argument doesn’t pass the laugh test. Jackson being on the Court won’t change the 6-3 conservative majority–the composition made possible by Trump’s own “court packing” with three white conservatives. And you argue that Jackson will be “bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court”. You didn’t take this position in a recent column urging the conservative majority to overturn NY Times v. Sullivan–a precedent that has been around since 1954! Precedents don’t count for much when you think they should be struck down. None of your arguments against Judge Jackson hold up under close scrutiny but this column is no doubt an attempt to give Senate Republicans something to talk about during Jackson’s confirmation hearings. That’s truly a “thin record” to oppose Jackson’s nomination.
Jonathan: Nothing in your column is a bar to Judge Jackson serving on the SC
Straw man
Unable to discuss the topic, you are forced to create a premise, never raised.
Professor Turley didn’t say anything about the support for Jackson being an effort to “pack the Court”. He merely said that one of the activist groups pushing for Jackson’s nomination, Demand Justice, has led the efforts to pack the Court. The only thing that doesn’t pass the laugh test is your reading comprehension.
You also call the support for Jackson an effort to “pack the Court”.
No, he didn’t.
And you argue that Jackson will be “bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court”.
He didn’t do that either. You need to get your eyes checked. Or your English comprehension.
Also, the ABA’s opinion is no more significant than that of the CPUSA, or the KKK. Nobody asked the ABA for its advice. It’s a dishonest political organization, and a low rating from it is a badge of honor. I would be very suspicious of any judge it ranked highly.
This nomination, if successful, could backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. it might force the other judges to adopt more conservative stances to compensate for the predictable ultra-liberal and flawed interpretations from the newly minted Justice.
In a similar fashion, the leftist medias portrayal of Trump as unstable and dangerous may have kept a lid on Russia and China. The left is famous for scoring on themselves.
Fat chance.
Of course she’s going to be a clown. This nomination is coming from the same group of horrible people that offered Garland and sotomayor.
The only remaining questions is whether approving this judge is the compensatory sacrifice for all my misdeeds to all the people that have not been harmed in this country, or if this is simply another brick in a wall being built infinitely high, deep, and broad?
“While these advocates and others all agreed that Jackson was the best choice, they have not explained clearly why. NBC News declared that “Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement’s agenda.”
************************
She’s got the only qualifications demanded by those who think competency is racist and the country’s future is their playground: the correct race and gender. Being an absolute Dim shill is just the bonus.
Mad Caligula had Incitatus and Mad Biden has Jackson. Neither were the best for the task at hand but they had/have the right look and temperament.
“In the end, Judge Jackson is likely to be confirmed. But her confirmation should be based on advice and consent, not a wink and a nod.” I am at a loss as to why she would be pushed through the process simply to satisfy a fringe group while ignoring major reasons why she should not be a judge of any level since her agenda and mind set are not fair and honest.
The question I have for her is. What does does think about the claim that Nancy Pelosi et al Repeated ad nauseam “the house of representatives is a co equal branch of the government”. Does she believe that there are 4 branches of government in the U. S. ?
“the house of representatives is a co equal branch of the government
Only for another 10 months. Then the House will have no constitutional powers.
What in the hell is “co-equal” supposed to add to the meaning of “equal”? What a stupid f&*king word!
William, I see that you’re also posting as “gg” using the same icon. How nice of you to make your sock puppeting so clear.
First of all, “coequal” is not some modern construction, it’s been part of the English language for as long as “equal” has, so you might as well ask what dropping the “co” is supposed to achieve, and call “equal” a stupid word.
Second, it seems to me that the difference is that “equal” implies that two things are the same in some significant aspect, whereas “coequal” implies that they’re different by nature but of equal importance. The earliest uses seem to be about the persons of the Trinity, which are definitely not equal to each other, but are all coequal.
One can only hope that the Democrats are kept from manipulating the coming election as they did in the last and I’m being is ladylike as possible using the term manipulating. Then we might be able to keep her away from making decisions that impact the nation.
Margot: WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT TRUMP’S “LANDSLIDE VICTORY” WAS “STOLEN”? Where is it? Just exactly, HOW did Democrats “steal” the election when every poll, including Fox’s own poll, predicted he would lose, when Trump flopped badly in the debates, and when he never even got a 50% approval rating? I want you to explain to me why you believe the election was “manipulated” when recount after recount, a “forensic” audit and 60+ failed lawsuits due to lack of evidence, prove that Biden won. Why do you believe otherwise? Because a chronic, habitual liar, a serial bankrupter of businesses, a serial cheater in marriage, a serial cheater in business, someone who cheated to get into the White House in the first place, who was impeached twice, and who started a riot to prevent Biden’s victory from being formalized, says so? IMHO, and I’m being ladylike, someone like you who refuses to accept facts and who stubbornly believes the lies of a malignant narcissist isn’t qualified to vote.
Natacha: The fat lady has not sang yet. But the coming Durham release will shed a little light on it. Big Derecho is a coming soon.
Keep on hoping–but, it’s not going to happen. Your hero DID cheat his way into the Whtie House. Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence, said so.
Nat Not a chnace of that occurring. If it had as Hillary would say; “there would have beenhell to pay”. I don’t have heros, I simply vote for the guy who is not a Democrat Socialists. You Dems hatred for DT is unprecedented, and you are so afraid that the DS will be fully disclosed. Don’t have a dirty mind either, the DS is for Deep State and not what you originally connatated.
DT is “unprecedented”: as Turley says, a “carnival snake charmer”, a draft-dodger, a chronic habitual liar, someone sued thousands of times for refusing to pay contractors and material suppliers, someone who brags about assaulting women, someone who brags about the size of his phallus, someone who has taken business bankruptcy 6 times, but still brags about being a “master dealmaker”, someone who cheated his way into Wharton, someone who nurtures an image of a “boy wonder self-made billionaire”, but who actually was dependent on his Daddy to bail him out of one financial failure after another well into his forties. According to Ivana, he’s a wife-beater, too. He pays off porn actresses and nude models, and is on his third marriage. You say there is “hatred” for this person: I find him repulsive to everything this country stands for. He has NO personal integrity: all flash and show–no patriotism, just a desperate need for attention, praise, adulation and power. He insults anyone he cannot bully, and is the worst-possible role model. He refused to graciously accept the fact that he lost the election, and instead goes around lying about nonexistent fraud, raising money from gullible people like you who refuse to accept the truth.
There’s no “Deep State”, except in the mind of your narcissistic hero. He doesn’t understand that agency heads and personnel are supposed to be loyal to the mission of their agencies, rather than to him personally, so he wouldn’t understand why someone like Col. Vindman, for example, wouldn’t lie for him or why he couldn’t get the DOJ to go after his perceived enemies. And, yet, people like you still believe in this dismal excuse for a person, who actually praises a murderous dictator like Putin.
Nat You are yet to ascertain what is dismal, but you will ascertain soon. Laugh, hoot and haramph as you please, but the curtain will be lifted a littlke bit soon. AG GM will fight like hell to redact and withhold.
In the meantime, produce the proof that your hero’s “landslide victory” was stolen. I want to see it.
Your Democrat hypocrite lunatic liars have built another wall around the Capitol to keep the commoners out….yet they leave our southern border wide open to MILLIONS of illegals and deadly drugs to flow endlessly into our country. These Democrats led by Pelosi and Schumer are the most despicable lying hypocrites and the people are done with them. Done with them all. We will be taking out the trash in November.
You know what you can see on your girl Jenn Psaki?
Someone needs to tell her: Color your roots girlfriend!
LOL. Too true.
We will be taking out the Democrat trash in November. THEN you will see unmistakable proof of a “landslide victory”….
Your bad faith is extraordinary. The stealing has been explained to you repeatedly. Most of it is open and obvious; some is a bit more obscure, But anyone who was interested and sane would find it quickly through simple Internet searches.
Natacha,
Remember the #MeToo Movement? Where’d it go?
Oh that’s right. There came a credible accusation of sexual assault (digital rape, to be exact) by Sen. Joe Biden of one of his staffers….and then the #MeToo movement went silent. Joe Biden is an accused rapist. Believe ALL women! That’s what happened to #MeToo.
It’s Lt. Col., Natacha.
The treasonous slime bag is not a Colonel.
The proof is in hundreds or thousands of comments that have been directed at you on this site. You are a malevolent troll.
At least Biden is consistent, a lousy record for everything and now a poor choice for a Supreme Court Judge.
This is a sneak preview of what Dems would do if they were allowed to pack the court. The Constitution would be dead in the water. We have officially been warned.
Professor Turley, This is in regards to your tweet about the heroism of the people of the Ukraine and the protestors in Russia. I feel that that your statement was incomplete because it should have mentioned how much the scenes in Moscow of the protestor arrests looked like the scenes in Canada, including dragging protestors away by their hair. Take your pick- Russia and 20 years as a guest of the state or Canada-All of your assets and bank accounts frozen, insurance cancelled and thrown into poverty. Not much of a choice is there?
Turley says, “ Yet the confirmation process is designed to guarantee that we do not have wink-and-a-nod nominations where agendas are to be fulfilled but not discussed.”
That’s not what happened in the last three nominations. Republicans manipulating nominations to ensure their nominees will pursue their agenda has been pretty clear. Turley is being quite the hypocrite when suddenly he’s criticizing groups for supporting a nominee that fits their agenda because they are democrats. As a constitutional scholar Turley should know that literally anyone can be chosen to be a SC justice. Biden is well within his prerogative on who he can choose, even if it’s limited by sex and race. President’s are allowed to do that. There’s nothing unprecedented about it.
Jackson a former defense attorney would be a first in the Supreme Court. The perspective of a defense attorney would provide a different view on issues. The constitution does not state how it is to be interpreted. Claiming it should only be interpreted as it was viewed when it was written is not a set rule. It’s just a matter of opinion. Even justice Scalia’s own originalist philosophy was ignored by him when it became inconvenient.
Svelaz, perfect Biden timing, just as we are having a terrible spike in crime and the people are going very strongly against Democrats for their pro-criminal positions the president nominates a DEFENSE ATTORNEY to the SCOTUS. She will get the seat (the battle) but Democrats will look bad promulgating her (the war).
Hullbobby, and just what exactly are these “pro-criminal” positions?
What party do Gascon, Boudin, Bragg, Fox and the DAs in St Louis and a few other crime ridden places belong? What party has members that support DEFUND THE POLICE? What party advocates taking away police immunity? What party supports BLM (read their platform)?
Nice try Svelaz, but it is a swing and a miss!
Hullbobby,
None of what you posted as examples is a crime or “pro-criminal”. Being in a city where crime occurs is not supporting crime.
“ What party advocates taking away police immunity?”. Both parties advocate for this. Even justice Thomas agrees police shouldn’t have immunity.
Supporting BLM is not a crime nor it is “pro-criminal”.
Defund the police is not “pro crime either. Especially when you have clear evidence that police departments have problems with corruption.
Republicans are also “pro-crime” if you’re just going to play the association game.
Svelaz, now do “bail reform”. Is letting criminals out without bail pro-criminal or not?
Supporting BLM IS PRO-CRIMINAL.
Defunding the police IS PRO-CRIMINAL.
Is the fact that all of the Dems went against Judge Childs, and in favor of Jackson, because she was harder on crime not enough of a tell for you?
“letting criminals out”
They haven’t been convicted. They’re awaiting trial. I guess “innocent until proven guilty” only applies to those on the right. People should only be in jail pending trial if they’re either too dangerous to release or are a flight risk, in which case they shouldn’t be eligible for bail. Anyone eligible for bail should be out of jail pending trial.
They may be innocent until proven guilty, but you are pro-criminal when you let people out and those same people commit a violent crime or murder.
If your policies cause crime to go up, then you are pro-criminal.
By the Republicans agenda. No. By our founders agenda.
It is still going to be, for all intent and purposes, approval of the nomination by a “wink and a nod”. This is become true for a great many of the number of “people of color” that received admittance to many of the higher learning institutions and prompts one to ask immediately: did they earn their place? Did it displace a more qualified candidate? This would be more than similar, in that she obviously was nominated because she is a female of “color” – never mind the qualifications of any other candidate.
“Jackson a former defense attorney would be a first in the Supreme Court. ”
That’s false. Thurgood Marshall had also worked as a defense attorney. However, KBJ is a former public defender, which would be a first.
I stand corrected
“Turley is being quite the hypocrite when suddenly he’s criticizing groups for supporting a nominee that fits their agenda because they are democrats. “
That is not what Turley said.
Anonymous, It’s what he implied.
First Tuley said it,
Then Turley implied it and
Tomorrow you will flee the scene.
“I stand corrected”
Was the most honest and intelligent thing you have ever said on this blog. You should repeat that statement more often.
“Even justice Scalia’s own originalist philosophy was ignored by him when it became inconvenient.”
Example?
Svelaz, you just like a far Leftst, with another rambling set of abstract generalities and that is a huge conundrom??? Why not interpretate as written? NO, just like lawyers, you want arguable loopholes. “The constitution does not state how it is to be interpreted. Claiming it should only be interpreted as it was viewed when it was written is not a set rule. It’s just a matter of opinion. Even justice Scalia’s own originalist philosophy was ignored by him when it became inconvenient.”
Turkey says Biden made the nomination while a Urkranian event was going on. SO WHAT!
PROFESSOR TURLEY opined that Jackson’s legal and educational qualifications warranted her having more of an unfettered nomination vis a vis timing due to A WAR GOING ON AT THE TIME.
Liberty2, please grow up and/or go away.
Democrats always set out to divide the Nation. Every single Judge nominated by Republicans are centrists. Something Democrats claim to want.
In this nomination. Biden could have gotten everything he publicly claims he wants. Black, female, but with the added feature of a person willing to engage others ideas and build a moderate centrist bench.
Childs would have been MUCH better at advancing the Democrat agenda. Childs would have been a Justice that was able to work with the Republican nominated candidates to reach moderate decisions. Now the left and right will have no reason to talk to each other. Since Beyer is being replaced, a moderated would have been the status quo. Biden worked hard to build a tal ideological wall between the Justices.
With Jackson, you have a hard immovable leftist, no negotiating will happen. Her views are so far out of acceptable legal, and constitutional norms, no member would engage her views, due to their extremism
Iowan, your comment in spot on!!!
“Every single Judge nominated by Republicans are centrists.”
No they aren’t.
Consider their Martin-Quinn scores, for example:
http://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/index.php
Re read the last 6 words. …bear any responsibility for this content.
That’s a routine disclaimer about funders. The funders are not the authors. The authors take responsibility for their conclusions.
I don’t generally accept an appeal to authority arguments as valid. Also my father taught me that there are liars, damn liars and the worst of all statistical liars.
Consider their Martin-Quinn scores
Have no idea of who they are. Not relevent.
Are the like the experts expounding on Hunters emails????
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
The point being, people will push their political agenda and hide behind a curtain of “Authority”
If you have some cases proving the Republican appointed Justices have strayed from the constitution, we can debate.
Whether you choose to educate yourself about it or not, your claim that “Every single Judge nominated by Republicans are centrists” remains false.
Cite a case.
One of the conspirators over at Volokh, did an analysis a while back. Three of the most left judges, compared to three of the most conservative judges.
What they found was the leftist judge could be predicted to vote their idealologhy over 70% of the cases, and the conservative judges, not anywhere close to that.
If you have a ruling to support your claim, now’s the time.
If you’re not going to look at the evidence I already provided, OK, but I’m not going to play your game where you insist that I have to provide evidence in the form that you prefer. You get to decide your own evidence, but you don’t get to decide mine. You haven’t provided any evidence yourself. All you did was proclaim that “Every single Judge nominated by Republicans are centrists” and then allude to an unnamed article at Volokh by an unnamed author, where who knows if you’re even remembering it correctly.
I hope that Republicans treat her with more respect and at least meet her, unlike what Durbin and many D’s did to Barrett, before hopefully derailing her nomination. Child’ would have been better, but I hope that this can be delayed until next January
No, it cannot “be delayed until next January.” Justice RBG died in the fall, and her replacement wasn’t delayed until January, even though a majority of Americans believed that the winner of the 2020 election should have been the person to nominate her replacement. The Democrats will follow the same quick confirmation that the Republicans pushed.
If they have the stones for it, Republicans can block her in committee. Senate committee is split 11-11 between Dems and GOP. This means GOP can stall nominee because Dems lack majority in committee to advance nomination to full Senate (VP Harris doesn’t have tiebreaker vote in committee). Only way to further advance is if Senator brings nomination to full Senate for floor debate, but in order to end debate by cloture a 60 vote majority is needed thus enabling GOP to filibuster.
Kevin: you really don’t understand anything about how democracy works, and you really don’t care, do you? Under Trump, the GOP lost the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency. So, now Republicans are busily gerrymandering, passing laws to make it more difficult for working-class people to vote, including making it less convenient, and pushing for “poll watchers” to intimidate voters. The American people chose Biden, but all Republicans can think of are ways to force themselves into power, just like Trump did: beginning with cheating to get into office with Russia’s help, holding up aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up lies about Biden, shoving 3 Federalist Society judges onto the SCOTUS, vetted specifically BECAUSE their views were far-right of the majority of Americans, then starting an insurrection after he couldn’t litigate, bully or lie his way into the “landslide victory” he believed he deserved. Now, after McConnell shoved a judge onto the SCOTUS, despite the proximity of an election (which was the excuse he used to prevent Barak Obama’s choice from being seated), you think that Republicans should STILL try to prevent a lawfully-elected POTUS from seating a justice of his choice by manipulating the process. And, you wonder why most Americans do not support the Republican Party.
This is not even taking into account the fact that your party has losers like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Mike Pompeo, and the fat slob you worship actually praising Putin. The sole reason for praising Putin is because Republicans think they can use the Ukrainian invasion as a weapon against Biden. Trump is already doing that, claiming that Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if his fat axx was still in the White House, but the opposite is true. Trump has always been a useful idiot for Russia. If Trump had actually pulled the US out of NATO, then Putin would have been less threatened by having the shield of NATO in independent countries that formerly were part of the USSR and would be going after them after taking over Ukraine. Here’s another inconvenient truth about that: after your fat hero insulted and alienated America’s European allies, including removing troops from Germany, as well as calling NATO “obsolete”, Putin bet that Biden couldn’t coordinate enough support with our allies to stop him and he’d just have a cake walk in taking over Ukraine (because it wasn’t part of NATO), and then move on to small Baltic countries that ARE part of NATO, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. His gamble flopped, just like Trump’s bad comb-over in a rain storm. Biden pulled together our NATO allies for a united opposition to Putin, which Putin wasn’t prepared for. He’s not even bothering to collect his dead soldiers, whose corpses are being left to rot. Biden got Germany to reject the Nord Star pipeline that will cost every German family thousands more every year in higher fuel costs. Our European partners also agreed to kick Russa off of the SWIFT system, and to encumber Russian funds. Trump couldn’t have done any of these things, but he continues to be a useful idiot by continuing to praise Putin–Trump’s Pompeo’s and Tucker Carlson’s videos are being shown on Russian television as propaganda. And, all you can think of is ways to prevent the President chosen by the will of the American people from successfully selecting a judge for the SCOTUS. Republicans continue to lose the support of the American people, and are desperate to hold onto power, no matter what it takes.
Federalist Society judges onto the SCOTUS, vetted specifically BECAUSE their views were far-right of the majority of Americans,
Not really a reply, as much as pointing out, Federalist Society picks for SCOTUS are picked due to their rulings and writings closely following the text of the United States Constitution.
The left identities judges closely following the text of the constitution, as “far right”
That’s all you need to know about how leftist feel about the Constitution, and the protections afforded citizens against a authoritarian federal government.
You must be deathly afraid that my path to stopping the nomination of Jackson will come to fruition. How else to explain a half-page long diatribe about everything under the sun EXCEPT my comment on the Senate procedure for stopping a nominee.
As to your aside ‘And, you wonder why most Americans do not support the Republican Party. ‘, Better check more recent polling from Gallup –
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073774921/americans-political-party-preferences-shifted-to-republicans-in-recent-months
Oh, and by the way I have never been a member of the Republican OR Democrat Party.
You’re an ***hole. The GOP lost the House for one reason in 2018: insane lies about Trump that turned into the Mueller inquisition.
You’re nuts. All three of Trump’s appointees are to the LEFT of the average American.
You seem to have missed the fact that the filibuster was already done away with for SCOTUS nominees under McConnell.
You don’t seem to understand that the filibuster I referred to is not about the nominee, but about the cloture vote necessary to end debate on a motion to bring the nominee up for a confirmation vote. You should familiarize yourself with the rules of Senate procedure.
https://clarion.causeaction.com/2022/01/27/how-republicans-can-block-bidens-supreme-court-nominee/
You don’t seem to understand that your article is wrong.
“In April 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII in order to allow cloture to be invoked on all nominations by a majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present), including Supreme Court justice nominations.”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2021-05-13_RL31980_1e8205efe9ac7be4b7631c919586ca04818eb781.pdf
You still seem to think it is a cloture vote on the debate on the nominee and referred to Rule XXII which deals with procedure on nominee confirmation. The applicable rule is Rule XXVI. Before the senate can even debate a nomination first a senate motion to advance a nominee that wasn’t sent out of committee must be debated by the full Senate – It is this vote which is still subject to filibuster. Only AFTER the motion to advance nominee to confirmation hearing does the simple majority standard for confirmation take effect.
Not from what I can tell.
“S.Res. 27 also created a procedure to allow a simple majority of the Senate to discharge a committee from consideration of a measure or matter in the event of a tie vote in committee.”
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46769.pdf
Also see “Steps to Consider a Nomination Using S.Res. 27 Discharge Process and Cloture” on p. 9: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31980.pdf
This resolution means that the Committee would no longer consider the nominee, which would effectively kill the nomination. This no-quorum tactic has been already used by Rand Paul to block Biden’s SBA Administrator nominee (Dilawar Syed) since last September. Sen Cardin has twice attempted to advance the nomination by unanimous consent but was blocked by Sen. Paul.
We’ll find out soon enough.
Kevin W., I believe you to be correct and thought about posting the same thing you did, but then I thought about the make-up of the committee. Lindsay Graham is a member. Need I say more?
Which is why I opened with the qualifier ‘if they have the stones for it’. However, in Graham’s case attention must be paid to the fact Biden passed over Graham’s fellow Carolinian who he had supported publicly. That may sway him to oppose this nominee.
Interesting tiny fact, but I don’t think that will affect Graham. I think he is coming up for reelection. That is something that Lindsay Graham cares about.
Perhaps not, but I can always hope.
Leftist have to lie about their beliefs. They fall so outside of the constitution, they can’t defend themselves. Jackson supports the (malleable) institution (SCOTUS) but not the Constitution.
Professor Turley remains a Gentleman in his questioning the fitness of Biden’s Nominee and provides examples of why he has questions about the Nominee’s view of the Constitution and the Law.
I am not as constrained as the Professor.
She was picked first for her Skin Color and Plumbing…..and secondarily for her radical Leftist Agenda that she is willing to advance by ignoring both the Constitution and the Law.
It is bad enough that Biden’s bosses limited possible Nominees to only Black Females but when they compounded that by choosing a far Left leaning Black Woman….it just shows the utter contempt the Democrats have to the well being of our Nation.
She should be carefully examined about her fitness to serve on the highest Court of the Land and when found unfit….be voted down.
We can survive the Black and Female limitation in Nominees but we cannot allow the radical Leftists controlling the Biden Administration to inflict a “Legislate from the Bench” Leftist onto the Supreme Court.
Ralph Chappelle, My hat is off to you for writing the truth about this nomination.
@Ralph Chappell: I would only quibble to point out that her ideology was the first and primary consideration. I would submit that every nominee — from both sides — has to meet that initial qualification. Conservatives, ostensibly, continue the winnowing based on secondary traits such as qualification and record. However, color and plumbing are the secondary criteria for leftists, with character, qualification, and record a far, far distant third hurdle.
They are supremely obsessed with the outward characteristics of a person: pigmentation, origin, genitalia, and other traits that have nothing whatsoever to do with the person’s capacity to perform a given duty. In other words, the “role” the person fills is entirely comprised of which external characteristics are checked by the person (the 1st ________ to be on the _______). The role has no relation at all to the duty(ies) involved with the office. One gets the notion that a leftist’s nirvana is to nominate the first black Jewish disabled gay female with purple hair for every conceivable position.
[CORRECTION: Native-American Muslim woman rather that the hated-by-the-left Jewish woman. Apologies for the oversight]
Ralph says:
“It just shows the utter contempt the Democrats have to the well being of our Nation.”
But voting for president a “carnival snake charmer” as Turley described Trump, a conman who praises Putin, does not…
Some people make dumb comments and some are plain dumb.
JACKSON is a Left Wing Radical Social Justice Judge- the Left pushed for her nomination- She will not answer the questions she will doge and avoid answering and the Senators will be accused as being Racist or Bullies by the MSM and the Dem’s. There are more qualified people Biden could have nominated but he was under pressure from the Left to appoint her. VOTE NO for Jackson
If he had kept his socialist mouth shut it would have gone by mostly un-noticed. Instead Biden branded himself as a pro racist and a tool of the racists factions.
If he wanted support and votes he would have picked the much larger and growing fast hispanic segment of the country instead being the supporter of the far left he like his predecessor Obama punished the predominately Catholic hispanic. Haven’t they learned these socialist left are pro abortion including after birth ABORTION? Or was their a careful selection of who got the airplane seats?
Instead he gave in to his masters like the phony pretend religion of Pelosi who is one of the phony pretend democrats but really a fascist socialist and pro neo socialist aka fascist communists and pretended to suddenly love Ukraine then ducked out like the quack quack BS artist he is.
So far his first move as President was a phony treat never ratified by the Senate with The Students of Islam who like the phony democrats are pro those who are pro those who treat women like dirt and go in for murdering women and children. The TallywackerBan.
Are there enough Senators to stop this family of sexist, racists?
She might as well be Jesse Jackson.
I’ve read that Childs’ father was a policeman, and killed on duty when she was 16 yrs old.
That’s when her mother moved the family out of Detroit, because of the crime, and on to South Carolina. Childs’ perspective on law enforcement should be more balanced because of that tragedy. But who knows.
In my opinion, Harry Blackmon would not have reached the conclusion he did in Roe without the influence of his 2 daughters.
Exactly. Only two questions should be allowed. 1) Are you black.? 2) Are you a female? Yes and yes. Confirmed.
Senator: Judge Jackson, are you African American?
Jackson: YEs
Senator: Judge Jackson, Are you female?
Jackson: Yes, I am female.
Senator: Having met all the qualifiactions to serve on the highest court, I have no further questions, and Yield my time.
Didn’t Tucker tell you that Judge Jackson graduated from Harvard Law School, and that she clerked for Justice Breyer?
None of those factors were included in Bidens list of attributes he considered.
You’re lying.
“The person I nominate to replace Justice Breyer will be someone with extraordinary qualifications. Character, experience, and integrity. And they will be the first Black woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”
You are lying. one can bend those qualifications, but one cannot bend ‘the first Black woman’.
You are not telling the truth.
Those aren’t qualifications. Those are gifts.