“I just find those words offensive frankly.” Those words of Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) on Fox Sunday were telling and timely. Klobuchar was responding to my column referring to the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as a “political deliverable” by President Joe Biden. Even before Jackson’s appearance on Capitol Hill, it appears that any acknowledgement of her nomination as fulfilling Biden’s express pledge is already being called “offensive.”
It does not matter that most of us have said that Jackson has a stellar record, including in that column. This includes years of experience on the bench, which is a great strength for a nominee. It also does not matter that I agree with Klobuchar’s assessment of Jackson’s remarkable life story and praised her appearance at the White House.
In modern American politics, confirmations (for both parties) are about political deliverables and calculations. For supporters, the key is to make criticism or even questioning untenable. This weekend, while Sen. Klobuchar was calling the words “political deliverable” offensive, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.) was on a different Sunday show to say that Jackson’s confirmation is “beyond politics” and that the vote is not about her alone but “about the country, our pursuit of a more perfect union.”
Of course, it has long been about politics and what is either offensive or inviolate depends greatly on who is nominating a candidate.
On CNN, when the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was announced, a panel agreed with host Chris Cuomo in stating that Barrett was “a big deliverable.”
Two years earlier, liberal commentators referred to Brett Kavanaugh as “a generational deliverable and a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.”
Before that, CNN’s Gloria Berger referred to Neil Gorsuch in a list of “deliverables.”
Even those of us who admire Barrett acknowledged that her nomination was a major deliverable. None of that was viewed as offensive.
It was also not offensive for Democratic senators to accuse Barrett of being nominated to vote against the Affordable Care Act, surrounding her with pictures of people who she was expected to harm or kill in that mission. At the time, I wrote that the suggestion was preposterous, the case was extremely unlikely to overturn the ACA, and Barrett was more likely to vote to preserve the Act in that case. That is precisely what she did but not a single Democratic senator apologized for the treatment of Barrett.
Democratic senators also said that they would vote against Barrett solely on the basis of her conservative approach to constitutional interpretation while demanding that she confirm her vote on future cases dealing with Roe v. Wade. I warned at the time that they were creating a type of “Barrett Rule” that could be applied to the next Democratic nominee. That nominee is now Jackson who refused to discuss her own judicial philosophy in her appellate nomination. If Democrats were allowed to vote against nominees like Barrett on the basis of her judicial philosophy, Republicans are unlikely to view the same grounds as barred in this nomination.
What is particularly striking about the offense taken early on Jackson is that President Biden was the first to cite this nomination as a deliverable to win votes in the primary. Biden declared that he would only consider black females for the first vacancies and campaigned on that promise with African American voters. No one claimed that was offensive or wrong, even though the Supreme Court itself has declared such threshold race and gender exclusions to be unconstitutional or unlawful by schools or businesses.
Jackson was also the choice of far left groups who opposed the more moderate short lister District Judge J. Michelle Childs. The nomination delivered a reliable vote on the left for the Court.
The real question is whether the Senate will tolerate any serious questions about Jackson. The Democrats insisted that Barrett discuss her judicial philosophy and Barrett did so. That was appropriate. A nominee should not be judged simply on the basis of a life story. Barrett was also highly accomplished, but the Democrats were unrelenting in their opposition. Other nominees like Robert Bork were highly credentialed but were rejected on the basis of judicial philosophy.
The Democrats maintained a two-year filibuster (yes, the “relic of Jim Crow”) against Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who was seeking to become only the second black woman on the D.C. Circuit. Brown also had an extensive record of experience and incredible life story. She was born to Alabama sharecroppers and grew up in the segregated South and worked as a single mother. Like the equally moving life story of Clarence Thomas, Brown’s background was largely dismissed or ignored by the media and Democratic senators. She was opposed by two future Democratic presidents: Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Democratic senators also used the filibuster to block a vote on Miguel Estrada, who finally relented and withdrew his name. Estrada also had a moving and accomplished background. Arriving at the age of 17 with little English, he went on to graduate magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia and then magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where he served as editor of Harvard Law Review. Sound familiar?
Estrada was shredded by the Democrats. After he withdrew, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) took a victory lap and said ”This should serve as a wake-up call to the White House that it cannot simply expect the Senate to rubber-stamp judicial nominations.”
None of this matters, of course. Despite the campaign pledge leading to the Jackson nominee, any reference to the threshold criteria or the campaign on the left will not be tolerated.
President Biden can continue to campaign on delivering on his promise with this nomination, but the nomination cannot be described as a deliverable. However, past and future Republican nominees can be deliverables, but their accomplished backgrounds are largely unmentionable.
During the primary, critics accused Biden not of treating this future nomination as “beyond politics” but treating it as politics itself. Ironically, it was Clyburn who told Biden to make the pledge in the presidential debate. Biden did so and secured not only Clyburn’s endorsement but won the critical South Carolina primary. That does not make Jackson an unworthy candidate for the Court. As I have said, she has a great resume and reputation. In the end, politics propels nominations, it does not define nominees. However, the question is whether the “beyond politics” narrative will put this nominee beyond serious scrutiny in the confirmation process.
That’s like saying that calling a SWAT team on a hostage taker will only escalate the situation.
No.
If the hostage taker is neutralized, then the hostage situation will come to an end.
Question’s to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:
1. Do Americans of maturity have dominion of their bodies?
2. When does a child reach maturity and who is responsible for the child until maturity?
3. When in your opinion does life begin?
4. Do you believe that America is systemically racist?
5. Can you define systemic in the context of race?
6. Do you believe the previous three Supreme Court nominees received fair hearings?
7. Please explain answer to question 6.
8. It’s been stated that you believe the Constitution is a living document, what part or parts of the Constitution do you believe should be modified and the reason(s) for the modification(s), and how should the modification be made? By the Courts or by Constitution Amendment(s)?
9. In the context of the January 6th accused defendants and Amendment VI to our Constitution, what is your understanding of a Speedy Trial, and do the trespassers have right to bail?
10. Again on the issue of January 6th, please define your understanding of the term Treason?
11. And finally please explain your thoughts of Free Speech and when or if speech should be censored?
The Ukrainians need more than applause.
Go there and pick up rifle and help them.
Oh, sorry, you only want people you look down there to go die for whatever cause.
There’s already a war.
British, French, and American involvement can stop the war, like when explosions are used to put out oil fires.
Stopping a war translates to PEACE.
There are multiple wars going on in the world, not just one.
Surrender to one’s enemy ends a war and brings peace. Ukraine should surrender. Or if Ukraine just agreed to never join NATO that too would apparently immediately end the war.
Countries can act independently of NATO if they want to. That IS an option. They have the means to destroy that Russian convoy with bombers and fighter jets with bombs. The Ukrainians aren’t afraid of going to war with Russia, so why should Britain, France, or the United States?
You want a world war? Your desire for one is not in the interests of people globally.
BTW, people who admit to using a living Constitution approach ALSO draw on “the *principle* of free speech” and “the *principle* of the right to bear arms.” You may wish to pretend that they don’t, but if that’s your belief, then you live in a pretend world, not reality.
Do you even know what redlining is?
Since you raised the question, it is apparent that you don’t know much about redlining. Suddenly, when statistical numbers are run, redlining is no longer an attractive term. The use of the term is due to ignorance and alerts the listener to the ignorance being displayed.
For the most part, so-called redlining has to do with risk, which is the basis for loans. The riots by Antifa and BLM destroyed certain minority areas. When loans for the reconstruction of those businesses are higher than elsewhere, you will call that redlining. Those who understand money will recognize that the greater risk caused by Antifa and BLM requires a much higher interest payment for any loan.
There are also insurance concerns.
Thanks. Without the ability to get insurance, because of BLM and Antifa ,many black stores cannot rebuild. I think BLM should be forced to put up the money for insurance so those stores can be rebuilt, but then again who knows where the donations went? We saw the stores being robbed so I guess we can assume the same thing was done by those in charge of BLM. BLM has proven itself dishonest and self-serving.
True. A small business loan is often secured with a security interest in furnishings, fixtures and inventory. But even if the lien is perfected it’s value as collateral is impaired if it isn’t insured. In a high-risk environment [BLM, Antifa, looters, shoplifters, arson] the insurance will either be unavailable or prohibitive and the loan denied. It has nothing to do with redlining and everything to do wit bad conduct, including law enforcement that won’t or can’t enforce the law.
“political deliverable”
That is Amy Klobuchar. When one has little to offer, they create situations to virtue signal.
Way back in the day when I was young, I had a factory job that allowed me to listen to a radio with headphones and damned if I didn’t listen to each and every hour of Joe’s disgusting harassment of Clarence Thomas. Now to hear this sanctimonious cretin advance a black woman for SCOTUS because it is the right thing to do is revolting. I’m certain that most of the yammering left and BLM people are, by chance or desire, unaware of the disgusting actions of biden back then but he is truly a blot on our nation and has always been.
Alma: “he [Biden] is truly a blot on our nation.”
+++
And now Biden is a blot on the world.
His weakness and apparent senility have opened the doors for bad actors to goose step through on every continent.
The news this morning reports that biden is at 37% approval. I want to know just who these 37% are and how they manage to function in life without a keeper.
37% could include media, newspapers, actors and other deranged people like the ‘homeless’.
Besides, the poll was likely heavily weighted with Democrats like they usually are.
OMG–you are SO deep into discipleship.. Trump’s arrogance, alienation of our foreign allies, trash talking of NATO, his public deference to Putin and stated intention to withdraw the US from NATO emboldened Putin to believe that Biden couldn’t pull together a coordinated effort to oppose him. He thought Trump had weakened America’s relationships with our allies that he’d just take Ukraine in a cake walk and then move on to other countries. Biden is light years smarter than Trump, and he understands the critical role that NATO plays in keeping world peace. He mended fences with our allies. Remember what he said: “the United States is back”–this is what he meant–restoration of relationships of mutual trust respect with our allies, not some pompadoour-wearing fop who panders to dictators. Biden put together a coordinated and unified plan of attack against Putin with our allies.. Trump could NOT have done this. Our allies never respected him because there’s nothing about Trump deserving of respect–he’s just a loudmouth bully with no moral integrity, hungry for power and adulation.
Where the hell do you get off lying about Biden being “weak” or “senile”? Putin’s attack on Ukraine is more of the fallout from Trump, his narcissism and his arrogance, ignorance of world affairs and lack of leadership ability. Trump is the “blot on our nation”, and if anyone bears responsibility for emboldening Putin, it’s Trump. . Biden has healed our relations with our allies, something your hero could never do. All he’s capable of is bully and bluster. That doesn’t go very far in world politics. And, Trump is STILL deferring to Putin, along with Carlson and certain Republicans in Congress, whose pro-Putin comments are being broadcast as propaganda on Russian television. Talk about “opening the doors for bad actors”–how much worse could a former US President behave?
Natacha, You keep pushing word salads but never respond to any points made. You repeat yourself, so I will repeat myself to you.
“The disordered thinking of people like you is literally stunning.”
Natacha, I don’t read through long word salads that can’t stay focused so I will deal with your first statement.
Let us take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I don’t think any of us on the blog want to see Russian aggression. You can correct me if you do. Russia not long ago had a lot of economic problems. Biden’s decisions regarding oil have boosted Russian revenues from oil (its cash cow), and those profits are used to fund their attack on Ukraine. Russia’s economic problems might have held them back without that flow of money.
Biden demonstrated weakness and an inability to manage problems that quickly develop. That weakness provides the opportunity for Russian aggression.
The history of Russian aggression in Ukraine existed when Biden was VP.
We have the history of Biden’s management of Ukraine in the past, Biden’s weakness and an influx of money to Russia. Those are pretty strong incentives for a nation desiring to take back parts of eastern Europe for over 15 years now while Biden is President.
Though there is more, what do you have to say about these three things? Skip the verbiage and deal with what is in front of your eyes.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/24/as-madness-reigns-in-russia-a-voice-of-wisdom-from-kenya/comment-page-6/#comment-2162070
I’m sorry that you have reading comprehension issues. See Col. Vindman’s comments below. Biden isn’t weak–Trump is. If “Russian aggression” is a bad thing, why does your hero continue to praise Putin, why did he defer to him in Helsinki over American intelligence, or call the Russian invasion “wonderful”, “smart” or “savvy”? Why did he call NATO “obsolete” and state that he would withdraw the US from NATO if he could manage to stay in office? NATO is the shield of the free world against the aspirations of Russian intention to take back countries that were freed from the USSR and to prevent WW III. Trump’s praise of Putin is being broadcast on Russian television as propaganda. We have a former American President who incited a violent insurrection when he lost re-election, after trying to bully, litigate and lie his way into staying in office, who continues to praise a violent dictator who invaded a peaceful country, and who keeps lying about losing the election, which continues to stoke division in this country. We have Republican members of Congress who also cheer Putin on, and who voted to refuse to accept certified vote totals because Trump lost based on nothing but lies. How on earth could you fail to see the clear message about the state of America that this sends to the rest of the world? That message is that America is divided, that we no longer can count on a peaceful transfer of power without violence and that there is support from a former POTUS and his political party for the Putin invasion. The image of America as weak due to serious internal divisions is Trump’s fault, not Biden’s. America has never before had a POTUS who lied about losing and who won’t shut up and go away. Anyone should be able to see this.
Biden has nothing to do with Russia selling natural resources, which include minerals, precious metals such as platinum and resources other than gas and oil, like timber, and I’ve seen no proof that Russia suddenly got a cash windfall after Biden beat Trump.. Biden didn’t cause any sudden influx of money to Russia–who told you this–Tucker, Hannity? Where’s the proof? Russia, BTW, still has economic problems, which Biden’s leadership has made much worse due to encumbering their finances and uniting our allies to join suit, and even neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland have joined. Even the Pope got involved–he went to the Russian Embassy and implored them to stop. Trump couldn’t unite our allies after insulting and alienating them. Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin perceived America’s weakness and vulnerability due to Trump’s lies about losing the election, the insurrection, his endless praise of Putin and constant criticism of his successor, something else unprecedented in US History. Why don’t you deal with what’s right in front of your own eyes?
From “Business Insider”:
Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman accused Trump and the GOP of emboldening Vladimir Putin.
He said the GOP had “blood on its hands” over the Ukraine crisis.
Vindman testified in Trump’s first impeachment investigation.
Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who rose to prominence as a witness in Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, said the the Republican Party has “blood on its hands” for emboldening Russia to invade Ukraine.
Vindman, who is Ukrainian-American, made the comments in an interview with Salon that was published on Monday.
He said that Trump’s refusal to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the factors that led Putin to act. He also blamed Trump for weakening the US internally with his divisive politics.
He singled out Trump, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson for criticism, highlighting their praise for Putin even as it became clear that he would invade.
“The Tucker Carlsons, the Donald Trumps, the Mike Pompeos, they and other Republicans are going to have to own this issue because they are the reason that Russia launched this operation,” said Vindman.
Vindman, who served as the top Europe expert on the National Security Council, said that the domestic divisions exposed by the Jan 6 riot had likely been a factor in Putin deciding to act now.
“Putin, like Trump, smells vulnerability and exploits it. Vladimir Putin perceived that the United States was distracted and vulnerable. He’s been testing our resolve. He’s been getting positive signals in that regard,” he said.
“There is blood on the Republican Party’s hands. They were partially responsible for what is happening in Ukraine,” he said.
“Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump were basically as popular on Russian TV as they are here in this country. They’re constantly being played there. What is the impression given? The United States is divided, and there’s an opportunity there. So these folks now own it.”
Vindman was serving as director for European affairs on the National Security Council when he was subpoenaed in 2019 by lawmakers probing allegations Trump had abused his power in witholding military aid from Ukraine.
Vindman testified that he thought a phone call in which Trump sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to produce dirt on Joe Biden was improper, prompting a backlash of criticism from Trump and his allies.
Vindman is currently suing several allies of Trump, claiming they waged a campaign of intimidation to stop him testifying.
He accused them of punishing him for his testimony by spreading lies about him and forcing him from his job, which ultimately led to him resigning from the military in summer 2020.
In recent weeks he has criticized Trump and his allies for their stance on Russia, but also said that Biden had not done enough to deter its aggression.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Now, you Trumpsters tell me: did the insurrection Trump started create the impression to the rest of the world that the United States was divided and thus, vulnerable? How on earth can you criticize Biden for this perception of America by calling him “senile” or “weak”?
Sure, appointing this Black woman is a “political deliverable,” just as the appointment of every Justice in my lifetime has been from either Party. Listening to the question and response in context. What Klobuchar may have found offensive is the suggestion by Harris Faulkner that she was only a political deliverable when she is much more than that and highly qualified.
Turley goes to great lengths in this article to note how he has defended Judge Brown’s record without noting the columns he’s written to suggest she isn’t qualified. I find that misleading but not highly offensive because I’ve come to expect it.
“She is much more than that and highly qualified.”
+++
She appears highly qualified as a half-nuts race-radical. As a jurist, not so much. Who’s next? Al Sharpton or Whoopie?
It is your qualifications to judge and rationale I would question.
So you want Whoopie to be a Justice?
When you show yourself capable of engaging in serious conversation, we can have one.
Tell that to Kamala Harris re: serious conversations. OTOH, maybe educated folks should give her a pass considering her audience at “The Morning Hustle” with Headkrack & Lore’l, weekdays from 6 to 10 AM eastern time.
Q: “What’s going on in Ukraine?”
Kamala: “Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine so basically that’s wrong.”
Now here comes the troll under one of his multiple identities, not taking you serious either.
She is truly an imbecile.
“It is qualifications?”
Indeed.
I once encountered a “teacher” of this ilk who said, “I have went to college.”
I believed her.
Your ilk almost died out after the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, but unfortunately, you rose again.
“The George will rise again!”
enigma – I walked into a history classroom where the teacher was “discussing” W W eye eye”. As a historian that will put a wooden stake through your heart.
It took me a second to get that. Shame!
enigma – I meet with her after school and explained that it was World War II. Not sure how she explained it to her students. 😉
I’d play it off as a joke and use it correctly in the future. Some things you just can’t admit.
enigma – interesting cover. 😉
The column was a Fox contract deliverable
NASA says it wants to put a black woman on the Moon.
Why not this one and make everyone happy?
They didn’t say Black woman. They said “With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon.” But you’re a sexist, racist person who believes that none of the current astronauts who are women and people of color are qualified to land on the moon. Don’t you know, only white male astronauts are qualified to land on the moon.
ATS-
You quote with favor;
“first person of color on the Moon”
Awkward articulation. Why don’t you just say “colored” instead of the drawn out and stupid sounding “person of color”?
POCs is even worse; sounds like POX. Is that a good thing to send anywhere? Didn’t do the Indians any good.
Or we could call whites “un-colored” and everyone else “un-un-colored”.
Thus ‘the first un-un-colored on the moon”.
What a noble goal for what used to be a science program.
The paths of the Left lead to madness.
Why do you just say “I’m a racist”? Wear it with pride, like George does.
ATS,
You want to treat an entire race as pets who must be patronized and never offended with the truth.
That is the most offensive form of white supremacy and it oozes from your every pore.
The truth is they are just people, some wonderful, even magnificent, and others contemptible and little more than scum. Like everyone else in fact. But you want to lump them together mixing the peaks with the depths and wringing out their humanity. They haven’t figured it out yet but you are their most secret and vile enemy.
Indeed. Malcolm X would agree. See his comments about white liberals.
Scott,
Thanks for that. Years ago I may have first begun to recognize this thanks to Malcolm X.
Time has informed and matured that initial thought to the point I almost forgot that I probably owe it to Malcolm X.
The Left’s zookeepers treatment of that entire population has led many of them into the darkness and slaughter common to places like Baltimore.
YTS, you choose to lie about me because you’re too cowardly to have a truthful discussion.
You and I agree that “they are just people, some wonderful, even magnificent, and others contemptible.”
That doesn’t change that you’re a racist. Wear it with pride, like George does.
I just told you the truth. You are one of the snakes in what could be their Eden.
You didn’t tell the truth. You lied and said “You want to treat an entire race as pets who must be patronized and never offended with the truth.” That’s not what I want. It’s a ridiculous straw man on your part, and you say it because you’re too cowardly to have a truthful discussion. Either that, or you honestly believe your delusion. Either way, you’ve got problems.
Funny in a way, how could I or anyone lie about you?
You are Anonymous. You are nothing. Barely even a word.
If that’s what you actually believed, you wouldn’t make any statements about me at all.
But you do make statements about me. You regularly choose to lie about me because you’re too cowardly or deluded to have a truthful discussion.
ATS-
Oh my! I am wounded–wounded I say– by your accusations. You must know how painful they are. I am a victim!
Can I cancel you now?
YTS, nothing is stopping you except your own choice not to walk away.
ATS,
I am go8ng to blush if you keep laying on the complements.
ATS, you are a liar and a racist. You lie about everything including your multiple names. You virtue signal by letting your ‘pets’ in your house as guests and friends, but you keep them on a tight leash.
Awww … Allan the Chihuahua is running around my ankles and barking his impotent little bark again.
Anonymous the Stupid, whether I am a Chihuahua or not doesn’t change who you are. You remain a racist and a liar.
He’s angry because we hit the bullseye. I think even Enigma sees it. Enigma is infused with racist bile but he is a man with considerable pride and can see when someone is reaching out to pat his head like a pet poodle. He won’t stand for it and neither would I.
Young, it’s so typical of you to assume that Enigma “sees” what you imagine instead of asking him how he actually views it. Once again, you’re too cowardly or deluded to have a truthful discussion.
Should go here:
ATS,
I am going to blush if you keep laying on the complements.
LOL at your Freudian slip typo.
Anny,
Liar. I’ll sue you for libel; wait, how many Annies are there – I’ll sue you all?
I’ll hire Professor Turley as my counsel.
I’m a truthist and a factist.
Pay close attention now.
I said that racism is NOT unconstitutional as freedom of speech, thought and opinion, understanding that property damage and bodily injury are criminal and illegal.
I entertained a black fellow recruit at my family’s table on basic training graduation day – he had no family attending – he was happy – we were all happy.
You are a denier; a hater.
You deny and hate the truth and the facts.
Frankly, The Democrats are offended by everything! That’s always their response when they have no defense! I personally over the group!
Good point. The Democrats should be the PTSD party. One diagnosis to rule them all. Precious.
Promising to only appoint a nominee of a particular race is … racist.
Promising to only appoint a nominee of a given sex is … sexist.
Promising to only appoint a nominee of a given religion is … wrong without a convenient word.
Promising to only appoint a nominee of a given shortness is … silly.
Nominees should not be judged nor appointed due to irrelevant characteristics.
“Nominees should not be judged nor appointed due to irrelevant characteristics.”
That is spot on!
To boot, she believes in a “living constitution” — which, in fact, means in no constitution.
If the meaning of the 1st Amendment is what the Framers understood it to mean, it cannot apply to any means of speech that did not exist during the Framers’ lifetimes.
If the meaning o the 2nd Amendment is what the Framers understood it to mean, it cannot apply to any arms that did not exist during the Framers’ lifetimes.
You lie when you say that “a “living constitution” … in fact, means in no constitution.”
Every Justice interprets in a living way how the Founders might have thought about a current issue if the Founders were alive today. There is no choice but to have a living interpretation of the Constitution, as living people are the ones interpreting it.
“If the meaning of the 1st Amendment is . . .”
Sure, that follows — if one cannot think in principles, such as the *principle* of free speech or the *principle* of the right to bear arms . . .
“. . . a living interpretation of the Constitution, as living people are the ones interpreting it.”
That is one of the most mind-numbingly ignorant equivocations I have ever seen.
You are unable to counter the fact that we cannot but have a living Constitution, as living people are the ones interpreting it to reason about situations that didn’t exist when the country was founded.
“You are unable to counter . . .”
You haven’t made an argument. (A fallacy is not an argument.)
I suggest starting with an understanding of “living constitution.”
Free tip. It does not mean: A constitution as interpreted by those who are alive.
You haven’t provided any evidence that I invoked a fallacy.
This p.s. got decoupled:
BTW, people who admit to using a living Constitution approach ALSO draw on “the *principle* of free speech” and “the *principle* of the right to bear arms.” You may wish to pretend that they don’t, but if that’s your belief, then you live in a pretend world, not reality.
‘Democratic senators also said that they would vote against Barrett solely on the basis for her conservative approach to constitutional interpretation’
These days that is literally any approach that disagrees with the modern dem party, and of course, to them by extension ‘conservative’ = fascist. The grown ups are in charge? The past year would actually indicate that the DNC swept straight past high schoolers and went right to toddlers to people their party. The nanny state is in charge, and it is run by people that were literally raised by and had all of their experiences through actual nannies and housekeepers. The aristocracy is BACK. Didn’t end well for them last time.
“ Biden declared that he would only consider black females for the first vacancies and campaigned on that promise with African American voters. No one claimed that was offensive or wrong, even though the Supreme Court itself has declared such threshold race and gender exclusions to be unconstitutional or unlawful by schools or businesses.”
No one claimed that was offensive or wrong? Fox News did, even before any potential nominee was listed. They were losing their minds.
The Supreme Court declared thresholds of race and gender exclusions unconstitutional or unlawful by schools or businesses. Biden is neither a school or business. He’s the president who has a constitutional prerogative to choose however he wants just as any other president before him. There’s a specific clause in the constitution that plainly states the president’s authority on choosing Supreme Court nominations.
Svelaz
Here in a nutshell is the nitpicker trying to justify the wrong.
Your argument is why schools should teach ethics.
Excluding men and whites and disfavored minorities is just wrong
Monumentcolorado, the problem is there WAS no wrong. My argument is vey schools should teach the facts about the constitution AND reading comprehension AND why it is important.
“ Excluding men and whites and disfavored minorities is just wrong”
It’s wrong when it’s it’s understood in the proper context.
I am just curious as to why Senator biden was so vehemently opposed to Clarence Thomas?
Senator Biden paved the way for Thomas to get in by refusing to call three witnesses that would have supported Anita Hill’s claim. He compromised as he is so oft want to do. If he had shown more principle, Thomas might not be on the court? Of course, that would have required a few Republicans to stand up to someone accused of sexual harassment, there’s no reason to believe that would happen.
Joe Biden Owes Clarence Thomas an Apology
Judge Clarence Thomas at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1991 (via C-SPAN)
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he turned the confirmation hearings into a smear-fest, even in the absence of evidence to support Anita Hill’s allegations.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-owes-clarence-thomas-apology/
How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process
The vice president can’t complain if Republicans object to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124294934268945409
To be fair to Biden, he was an exceptionally incompetent and indecisive chairman, easily cowed and unable to control the hearings. After promising to support Bork, he switched his vote. After promising to afford Thomas some semblance of due process, he presided over what the future justice famously called a “high-tech lynching.”
If Biden should apologize to anyone, it’s Clarence Thomas. Or maybe the American people, for allowing judicial confirmation hearings to be turned into partisan-fueled character assassinations, weaponized to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-owes-clarence-thomas-apology/
Troll
Enigma, don’t reveal yourself because it makes it too easy to see what you are.
The question is whether National Review was trolling or you think I am trolling. You made a statement that didn’t represent what was happening or the time frame. I merely copied part of the National Review article.
You have no appreciation for diversity.
Troll
Joe Biden Owes Clarence Thomas an Apology
Judge Clarence Thomas at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1991 (via C-SPAN)
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he turned the confirmation hearings into a smear-fest, even in the absence of evidence to support Anita Hill’s allegations.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-owes-clarence-thomas-apology/
How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process
The vice president can’t complain if Republicans object to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124294934268945409
This is a political deliverable in two ways: appointing a black woman fulfils his promise that won Clyburn’s endorsement that propelled a weak candidate to victory; and choosing Jackson over Childs is another bone to the progressives.
Jackson’s judicial record on politically controversial legal questions is limited. However, as evidenced by two reversals by the DC Circuit on the basis of judicial overreach, she appears to be inclined to disregard the law to reach her politically preferred result. I hope Graham, Collins and Murkowski, who all voted to confirm her earlier, will reconsider their positions. Judicial philosophy matters on the Supreme Court in a way that it does not in lower courts. Nonetheless, if Lujan is able to vote and the Democrats all stick together, they have the votes regardless of what Republicans do.
‘Nonetheless, if Lujan is able to vote and the Democrats all stick together, they have the votes regardless of what Republicans do.’
That mistaken assumption is probably why Biden chose Jackson to appease his far left rather than opt for the more centrist Childs and an almost certain confirmation.
However, Rand Paul has been able to block Biden’s SBA nominee since September using Senate procedural rules in case of a 50-50 split Senate. GOP can block a nominee in committee by not allowing a quorum on vote to send nomination to full senate for confirmation hearing. If GOP were to use this procedure in Judiciary Committee they could hold back the nominee until after a new Senate is seated in Jan. 2023.
For further explanation of this see my reply to ‘Who Really is Ketanji Brown Jackson’ comment by Anonymous on Feb. 28 @10:14 AM
Don’t you live it….the usual Leftists immediately come out with the usual attacks on anyone that dioes not agree with them.
The fact the radical Leftists who are running the Biden Administration picked a fellow radical rather than a moderate Liberal is on them….not those that point it out to them.
They made their Bed….now they get to sleep in it.
Ralph Chappell,
“ Don’t you live it….the usual Leftists immediately come out with the usual attacks on anyone that dioes not agree with them.”
They are not attacks. They are opposing views.
This judge is a “deliverable.”
Words escape me, even tho I knew this was coming. ANY form of opposition to this nomination will be called racist, or sexist likely both. Quite the reverse of any minority candidate nominated by a Republican. Hypocrites
“ANY form of opposition to this nomination will be called racist, or sexist likely both.”
Illustrating, yet again, that what they accuse you of, they are probably doing.
Dems really are shameless.
“Bust Philadelphia!”. That’s what a person called a Philybuster does.
Anyone who voted against her confirmation should be voted out by his or her voters.
Which is how our system is set up to work. By the same reasoning anyone who votes for the nomination can face the same fate by their constituents.