“Passing Judgment … on Your Particular Philosophy”: Biden’s First Nominee Versus Biden’s Bork Standard

C-Span Screengrab

“In passing on this nomination to the Supreme Court, we must also pass judgment on whether or not your particular philosophy is an appropriate one at this time in our history.” Those words in 1987 were a game changer in American confirmations when Democratic senators opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork by President Ronald Reagan. While the Senate had long maintained that a qualified nominee would be confirmed despite his judicial philosophy, that changed with Bork. The man who uttered those words was the senator from Delaware: Joe Biden.

Biden has now made his first nomination as President. Democrats insisted, in the words of Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.),  Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson‘s confirmation must be “beyond politics.”

That has not been the position of the Democrats since Bork and certainly not in the last three nominations. Indeed, many Democrats went public with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett that they would vote against her entirely on her conservative approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation.

The question is whether these hearings will clearly establish the judicial philosophy of Jackson.

In her opening statement, Jackson discussed her past decisions and stressed “I believe in transparency. That people should know precisely what I think and the basis for my decision.” GOP senators will demand the same transparency from her during the question and answer sessions.

While other nominees have been relative unknowns on their judicial philosophies, Jackson has an interesting added element. In her recent appellate court confirmation process, Jackson expressly refused to discuss her judicial philosophy.

Far left groups like Demand Justice are clearly confident about Jackson’s judicial philosophy. Many of these groups opposed fellow short-lister District Judge J. Michelle Childs because she is viewed as too moderate.  Indeed, Childs expressly said that she does not believe in the liberal interpretative model of the “living constitution,” where the courts can substantially change the meaning of the Constitution without being formally amended.

Yet, President Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a “living constitution” approach, including a broad view of “unenumerated rights.”

Jackson was asked this standard question when she was last before the Senate. She was specifically asked if she followed the “living constitution” model. She repeatedly refused to answer that questions. 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.”

The answer left many confused and a bit bemused. She is bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court — but she is allowed to have her own philosophy on constitutional interpretation. Moreover, prior nominees have discussed their approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. One of them was Jackson herself. When she was nominated for the district court, Jackson answered “no” to that question.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett not only refuted the premise of the living constitution theory but expressly embraced an originalist interpretative approach.

Since Bork, Democrats have demanded that Republican nominees answer such questions and opposed them based solely on their philosophy. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass) famously attacked Bork on the Senate floor:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy…No justice would be better than this injustice.

It was a gross misrepresentation of Bork’s views, but it worked. Bork was “borked” and Biden played a key role in the “borking.

Jackson has spent days before “murder boards” practicing responses to this and other expected questions. She is likely to give a highly generalized response.

The strategy of confirmations is to offer the smallest target by offering the least possible information. To that end, Jackson is likely to invoke the “Ginsburg Rule” that any discussion of her interpretation in specific areas would be inappropriate. However, she is likely to be pressed on whether she still agrees with interpretative approaches in her arguments before joining the bench.

The amicus brief in McGuire v. Reilly is likely to draw the greatest attention. As a volunteer lawyer, Jackson wrote on behalf of women’s groups defending a Massachusetts law that barred abortion protesters from the entrances of facilities. In fairness to Jackson, the law was similar to a Colorado law upheld by the Court 6-3 in Hill v. Colorado. However, that decision is viewed by many conservatives as fundamentally at odds with the Constitution.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent with Justice Clarence Thomas:

“What is before us, after all is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the ‘ad hoc nullification machine’ that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today’s decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts.”

Based on what the Democrats have stated since 1987 (and most recently with Justice Barrett), Republicans could vote against Jackson if she still holds that same view. Democrats opposed Barrett even though her interpretative views were supported by the majority of the Court in prior cases on issues like gun rights.

Indeed, Republicans may be quoting Biden from the Ginsburg hearing where the Ginsburg Rule was fashioned.  Biden advised Ginsburg that these hearings are meant “to discuss your judicial philosophy” and later expressed concern over how Ginsburg, “at least from my perspective, appeared to be reticent to answer” questions about her judicial philosophy. Professor Biden is likely less worried than Senator Biden about such reticence in the days to come.

224 thoughts on ““Passing Judgment … on Your Particular Philosophy”: Biden’s First Nominee Versus Biden’s Bork Standard”

  1. Kentanji Brown Jackson should be forced to answer one simple question:

    What year was America founded?

  2. The point that is missed when discussing Bret Kavanaugh’s supposed perjury is that none of the witnesses said it didn’t happen. Let’s say that this is true and none of the witnesses said that it didn’t happen. On the other hand none of the witnesses said that it did happen. One of those said that Kavanagh was a fall down sloppy drunk. If this were true why weren’t their multiple witness he saw him in such a condition? Someone could have said he hated puppies but if it couldn’t be confirmed by other puppy lovers how could we take such an accusation seriously. From the Washington Post. Sep 17, 2018 — “Senator Leahy has never asserted that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury. But his testimony clearly was misleading. Maybe Senator Leahy was correct when he said that Kavanaugh was misleading but I am in agreement that the Senator never said that Kavanaugh had perjured himself. He left that up to the left wing press and they did a fine job of it. When we consider the honesty of Senator Leahy we should consider his statements pushing what we now know to be the Russian hoax. https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/citing-mounting-evidence-of-trump-russia-ties-senator-leahy-renews-call-for-independent-special-counsel. Patrick Leahy lied to disrupt the governance of our nation by an elected President. Why should we then assume that he wouldn’t lie to stop the appointment of a conservative judge. His record proceeds him and we should see it for what it is. Expletive deleated.

    1. “Let’s say that this is true and none of the witnesses said that it didn’t happen.”

      It IS true that none of the witnesses said “it didn’t happen.”

      What this tells you that Kavanaugh lied when he said — under oath — “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen.” Because that’s not what the witnesses said.

      “One of those said that Kavanagh was a fall down sloppy drunk.”

      A college friend said that, but she was never called as a witness. Most people who volunteered to be witnesses were not allowed by the Republican majority to be called as witnesses, and most were not interviewed by the FBI.

      “why weren’t their multiple witness he saw him in such a condition?”

      There were multiple people who offered to testify about Kavanaugh’s drunken behavior and Kavanaugh’s lies about his drunkenness. It’s not the prospective witnesses’ fault that the Republican majority refused to allow them to be called as witnesses.

      “Patrick Leahy lied to disrupt the governance of our nation by an elected President. ”

      I and many other people have accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath, which is illegal. I’ve provided evidence. Many additional people offered to serve as witnesses about Kavanaugh having lied under oath. If you’re alleging that Leahy did something illegal, provide evidence of it. If you’re not alleging that Leahy did anything illegal, then it’s not analogous.

      1. Anonymous, so your telling us that the FBI didn’t interview witnesses. Is this the same FBI that lied to get a FISA warrant to continue the investigation of Carter Paige. How could you think that an FBI that was out to get Trump any way they could would not have interviewed witness if they thought it would damage his administration? If they thought they could get information against Trump they would have moved heaven and earth to bring such witnesses forth if they thought they had any credibility at all. Somehow you want us to believe that all of a sudden the FBI was a friend of Trump and refused to interview witnesses. You try to connect the dots but the lead in your pencil has deteriorated due to by old age.

        1. It’s a fact that the FBI did not interview many relevant witnesses.

          In response to questions from Senators Whitehouse and Coons, FBI Asst. Director Tyson stated “the FBI does not initiate a supplemental background investigation in the absence of instructions from the requesting entity.” The White House is the requesting entity for background investigations of SCOTUS nominees. Thus, when the allegations surfaced, the FBI could only interview people that the Trump WH instructed them to interview. She continued “On September 13,2018, the FBI was asked by the Office of White House Counsel to conduct supplemental background investigations, specifically, limited inquiries. … The requesting entity [the White House] sets the parameters of a limited inquiry, which may include interviewees and topics to address. Over the course of six days, as part of several limited inquiries, the FBI interviewed ten individuals…. The FBI received over 4,500 tips [about Kavanaugh], including phone calls and electronic submissions.”

          Focus on the facts, not your imaginings.

          1. Wow Anonymous, 4500 tips about Kavanaugh but not one of them were at the party. Thay must have been on twitter. Since when do you get to look in the FBI files to know how many tips they got. You just couldn’t get any more ridiculous.

            1. Ti T, work on your reading comprehension. The FBI Asst. Director’s statement (including that they got 4500 tips) is public information that I was quoting.

              She said that the Trump WH set the parameters for the further investigation, including who they could interview, and they only interviewed ten people, not all of the relevant witnesses, no matter your attempt to distract from these facts.

              1. So silly…. The democrats could have called any of these people to testify. They only choose one who couldn’t remember any verifiable details (now convenient).

                1. No, they could not. Read the Senate rules about calling witnesses. The Dems were in the minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Senate as a whole, and the Republicans would not allow most of the people the Democrats wanted to call as witnesses.

                  1. The FBI handled this case by the book. Before anything occurred and before the Senate hearings, the FBI undertook a full investigation. That is standard. Democrats kept witnesses they wanted interviewed secret, Ford in particular. For political gain, they were attempting to bypass standard procedures and publicly embarrass a political appointee with unsubstantiated claims that later proved false. This action led to a supplemental investigation which is beyond routine investigative procedures. Supplemental investigations are limited by nature.

                    Feinstein and Schumer got what they asked for. The FBI investigated and let the Senators decide. If the Democrats had chosen correctly, they would have provided all the necessary information for the investigation at the onset during the initial FBI investigation. They freely decided not to. Democrats made wild claims of undermining the confidence in our judiciary when they were the ones responsible for doing so.

                    Anonymous the Stupid is engaging in his typical spin and lies, not bothering to look at the entire procedure. Instead, he takes testimony out of context and relies on indefinite pronouns like ‘it’ to prove his case. He should be ashamed of his appalling actions and his lack of ability to adequately present his case.

          2. “the FBI could only interview people that the Trump WH instructed them to interview.”

            ATS, shall we laugh now or later? The FBI spied on Trump and lied about all sorts of things involving Trump.

            The Dems held back their evidence. That alone tells us the evidence was questionable. The facts are that everything has a beginning and an end. In Ford’s case, the ending was terribly delayed, but in the process, she was proven to be a liar.

      2. Okay anonymous I’ll go with your witnesses never saying that it didn’t happen. They just said that they could not recall that the party ever happened. They could not remember ever being at the party that Ford described. No witnesses saw it happen and no witnesses could collaborate the accusers testimony. What could be Ford’s motive for her accusations. Lets start with over a million dollars in a number of GofundMe accounts. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-campaign.html. Her lawyers represented her pro bono and her security costs $55,000. That leaves a lot of cash that she could put in her pocket. Not bad for a crying actor in a one week show. Please notice that my link refers to an article in the left wing magazine Slate.

  3. ‘Judge Jackson tried to deflect on key questions by telling Senators that constitutional issues haven’t come up often during her judicial service. Does she actually feel unprepared? If so, she shouldn’t be confirmed. If not, then she owes the Senate much more clarity and candor.’ @LeaderMcConnell

    1. Hey Mitch — please get your caucus IN LINE to vote NO on this WOKE nominee. You know, the way Pelosi whips her people in line. You know, just like the old slave masters of the south used to do. YOU WILL DO AS I SAY AND NOT STEP OUT OF LINE.

      The Democrat Party is the party of slaves and slave masters. How dare any black Americans vote for a Democrat today? It is unjustifiable.

    1. Dems created a circus of lies, smears, hitjobs and utter CRAP-filled personal attacks the likes of which NONE of these Democrat nominees could ever withstand. Not one of them. The Republican nominees deserved the same respect these Democrat nominees are given. But Democrats being Democrats utterly lack common decency, courtesy, or respect for others that they demand be given to them and their nominees, and causes. F ’em all. The Dems dish out the crap all day long, but they can’t take it. They lose their sh*t over even a little bit of respectful questioning on relevant issues.

      1. Again: there’s good evidence that Kavanaugh repeatedly lied under oath. We should not want anyone on the Court who lies under oath.

        Republicans could have rejected him and then confirmed another conservative. Why are you defending a perjurer?

    2. This was posted as a reply to Thinkitthrough’s comment on Kavanaugh and became decoupled.

    3. Ketanji has been lying (choose whatever word you want, they mean the same) on RELEVANT issues, not some high school yearbook line by line, gotcha questions posed by an utterly assinine senator — of which there are many on the Democrat side.

    4. ATS, repeating the same things in a repetitious manner will not make your abysmal record any better. It demonstrates that no further thinking is performed by you, no matter what else is added.

      You have a mind that is made up by others, and nothing changes your mind until those others change theirs.

        1. “If you had a factual argument, you’d present it.”

          I did. You just don’t like the facts that contradict your twisted words.

  4. ‘Biden and the Democrats are attempting to impose critical race theory into the interpretation of the the United States Constitution, and it signals the beginning of the end of blind justice.’ @mkolken

  5. A smear of Brett Kavanaugh was brought forward. The claim was that he forced a women to put his penis in her hand. Here is what the The New York Times said about the young lady who was the supposed victim. The New York Times updated its story to point out that the alleged victim did not wish to comment, and that friends say she did not remember the incident. Just remember that they will say or do anything to further their totalitarian agenda. They will stoop to any level. Just throw some of it against the wall and see if it sticks.

      1. ATS, relying on the same old dumb argument doesn’t improve your status as a debtor. It makes you look like a loser.

  6. If Judge Jackson is confirmed, she and the other eight justices will have far more unrestrained power to shape our society than our Framers ever imagined. In practical terms it does matter how she understands the law, interprets statutes, and conceives the role of the state in the lives of private citizens.

    Before joining the bench, Judge Jackson worked openly for progressive causes and is not, as at least one commentator has labeled her, apolitical. But more importantly, Judge Jackson has served on two unique federal courts. Her eight-year tenure as a district court judge and months-long tenure as an appellate judge has been in jurisdictions that normally hear specialized types of cases that do not afford judges opportunities to entertain broad questions of law. In fact, in response to questioning about her philosophy of constitutional interpretation during her last confirmation, she surprisingly, but honestly, replied, “I have not had any cases that have re­quired me to develop a view on con­stitutional interpretation of text in the way that the Supreme Court has to do and has to have thought about the tools of interpretation.” It is hard to see how her few months as an appellate judge and her publication of just two appellate decisions since July 2021 has remedied that.

    But there is a case that stands out from her time as a trial judge that provides a window into her attitude about the role of the courts in the American system. Judge Jackson was quite willing to lean on the doctrine of judicial review to an extreme and radical extent in subjecting Trump-era immigration policy to judicial review even in the face of a statutory provision that granted “sole and unreviewable discretion” to the executive branch. An Obama appointee on the appellate panel that reversed her wrote, “there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the Sec­retary’s independent judgment.” Jackson’s was a blatant example of judicial activism recognizable even to a judge that likely shares many of her ideological and political sympathies.

    Two aspects of Judge Jackson’s background that should be of some comfort to those who value liberty include two unique things. First, if she were to join the Court, she would be the first justice in more than a generation to have presided over a trial that included a jury, which is a unique institution critical to American democracy. Second, having served as a public defender, she would be the only current justice who had spent any portion of her career defending citizens against the state rather than representing the state and its interests. There is no question that we need more judges at all levels of the judiciary with such experience.

    Ultimately, however, Judge Jackson’s confirmation would almost certainly prove problematic for the causes of preserving individual liberty and stemming the tide of encroaching government involvement in the lives of ordinary citizens. She’s demonstrated a willingness to exert judicial power beyond its already strained boundaries. The bigger problem that lovers of liberty should wrestle with, however, is that her confirmation matters to any substantive extent given that the courts following Marbury have far exceeded their place in American government and public life and proven not to be, as they were once described, the “least dangerous branch.”

    – Trey Dimsdale

    Trey Dimsdale serves as counsel for First Liberty Institute (FLI) and executive director of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, an FLI initiative focused on education and cultural advocacy for freedom.

  7. Everything Biden does is tainted with the stench of his crookedness, including his nomination for the Supreme Court. Here is another problem that leads to America’s demise if Americans are not careful and start voting against those that hate America.
    —-
    “individuals responsible for producing this crisis placed U.S. national security in danger and imperiled USAGM’s ability to fulfill its legal mandate of advancing U.S. foreign policy.

    Biden’s new USAGM leadership quickly rehired senior officials dismissed on the recommendation of career adjudicators, following investigations by McGuireWoods, an outside law firm.”

    https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/hold-federal-agency-broadcasts-americas-message-had-chronic-security?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter#digital-diary

  8. Ted Kennedy is thankfully dead so single women in a car with him no longer need to fear drowning in a river while Ted abandons them. Lindsey Graham is his antithesis. Bravo for Graham. May the Republicans grow a pair of testihclees and do to the black nominee like Democrats did to Clarence Thomas.

    “Every group that wants to pack the court, that believes this court is a bunch of right-wing nuts who are going to destroy America, that considered the Constitution trash, all wanted you picked… This is all I can say: [The fact] that so many of these left-wing radical groups who would destroy the law as we know it declared war on Michelle Childs and supported you is problematic for me”

    – Senator Lindsey Graham

  9. Listening yesterday to Jackson led to these thoughts:

    1. She is a master of the vacuous sound bite — staying in her lane, for example, which she repeated many times.

    2. She said she was restrained by text, but in the expedited removal case she stopped under the APA through a nationwide injunction a decision by DHS that the applicable statute said was in its sole unreviewable discretion which could be exercised at any time. She was reversed on appeal.

    3. Despite protestations of judicial restraint, she made retroactive an element of the First Step Act that Congress explicitly decided not to make retroactive. Cotton did a good job questioning her on this.

    4. Her rationale for light sentences in the child pornography cases made no sense, and claiming in a sentencing statement that an 18 year old was the peer of an eight year old was bizarre if not sick.

    5. She was exceptionally evasive in a number of areas: she denied knowledge of the woke racism being taught in the school on whose board she sits; she claimed not to know of the criticism of Childs that suddenly emerged from the left; she refused to defend her participation in an amicus brief regarding the Gitmo system, deflecting that to her law firm and clients — submitting an amicus brief is voluntary unlike the public defender system and she was in no way obliged to be involved.

    6. She refused to define any operational limits to the scope of substantive due process, a line of questioning Cornyn and Kennedy did well to pursue. She rested on platitudes about “ordered liberty” (two contradictory terms put together in a pretence of meaning) and “history and tradition” (as somehow devined by a judge — at a high enough level of generality, anything can count), which are empty vessels waiting to be filled any time five votes can be marshalled.

    7. Going back to point one, staying in one’s lane is a meaningless slogan when you think there is boundless scope to expand the list of “fundamental rights” through substantive due process, and text can be overridden to get a desired result.

    On balance I came away thinking she is a radical pretending to be otherwise.

    If judicial philosophy counts, any Senator who subscribes to principles of original understanding, fidelity to text, a view of equal protection as precluding decisions on the basis of race, limitations on the expansion of substantive due process, and the enhancement of structural principles such as federalism and separation of powers through concepts such as the major question and non-delegation doctrines should vote against this nominee.

    I have little doubt she will be confirmed. Fortunately her elevation will not change the balance on the court, and I doubt she will be persuasive in many cases to the other Justices.

    1. Daniel, can you help us out a bit by providing more detail for this quote. “2. She said she was restrained by text, but in the expedited removal case she stopped under the APA through a nationwide injunction a decision by DHS that the applicable statute said was in its sole unreviewable discretion which could be exercised at any time. She was reversed on appeal.”

      Also, had the administrative law case, Chevron (I think), been reversed, how would that have affected Jackson’s decision? I recognize I may be completely missing the boat, but I am not a lawyer. To me you are speaking legalese. ( I assume APA means Administrative Procedure Act.)

      Thank you for the rest of your summary.

      1. Yes, it is the Administrative Procedure Act. This is not my area of expertise but having read the Make the Road DC Circuit decision this is what I understand.

        The immigration statute says that the DHS can decide in its sole and unreviewable discretion, and at any time, to apply the expedited removal mechanism to any or all people who are in the US impermissibly for two years of less. Jackson said that she reconciled this with the application of the APA by saying that the statutory language governed the substance of the decision but not the manner in which it is made. She then found that manner inconsistent with what the APA calls for and stopped expedited removal through a nationwide injunction.

        The court of appeals said that the statutory language precluded the application of the APA because it meant exactly what it said and did not set out any standards for the exercise by DHS of its discretion that would govern any APA review. This latter is required if the APA is to be considered applicable and administrative decisions reviewable by a court. The decision was 2-1 because a dissenting judge also found that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to begin with so should not even have got to the merits.

        1. Thank you, Daniel,

          The 2:1 decision can lead to puzzlement. I assume that in reality it was a 3:0 opinion with one of the judges thinking the court should never have bothered to hear Jackson’s claim because it wasn’t good enough to meet the needs of a legal claim. I assume that means she didn’t understand the law. Does she know it today? One must wonder what that will indicate when she is on the Supreme Court.

            1. I think it is also important to note that the dissent pointed out that, under the statute, the court had NO POWER to issue an injunction, except in the context of an individual removal hearing not at issue in this case (only the designation of who might be removed on an expedited basis was at issue here — there had not yet been enforcement against anyone).

              So not only did Jackson apply the APA when it’s application had been precluded, but under the immigration statute she had no authority to impose an injunction. She did so by creating a distinction between enjoining the statute and enjoining the implementation of the statute that the dissent considered absurd. The majority didn’t consider this because it held that the decision was unreviewable. It did note that if the decision had been reviewable, a declaratory judgment would have been an available remedy, not an injunction.

              The two judges in the majority were appointed by Obama and Carter. I believe the dissenting judge was appointed by Trump, but it might have been GWB.

              1. “under the immigration statute she had NO AUTHORITY to impose an injunction. She did so by CREATING A DISTINCTION” and “the court had NO POWER to issue an injunction”

                Very troubling. Jackson’s erroneously contrived desired outcome trumped the law and POTUS. It sounds like the case should have been thrown out by all three judges instead of one and that the other two judges’ motivations were for EVERYONE to come out smelling ok.

    2. D: Good facts and analyses. Thank you.

      “4. Her rationale for light sentences . . .”

      To add detail to this point:

      In 2019, the average sentence for such non-distribution crimes was 103 months. Her average sentence for such crimes was 45 months.

      1. There is no reason to assume that the 7 people she sentenced are average. The one case that she and Hawley had an extended exchange about — 1 of 2 where she sentenced less than what the government probation office recommended — clearly was not an average case: it was an 18 yo where many of the photos were of minors close in age. Her main point was that she is required to look at the specifics of each case, so averages aren’t particularly relevant.

        1. “. . . averages aren’t particularly relevant.”

          When determining whether Jackson is soft on such crime, those average are very relevant. 103 months versus 45 months = soft on child por*** cases.

          1. No, focusing solely on the sentences while ignoring everything else about the cases does not tell you whether the person is “soft on crime.” The issue is the appropriateness of the sentences for the specific criminals she sentenced, not how they compare to criminals who committed crimes with different specifics.

            1. That is Jackson’s job in front of the committee. Set the record straight. She couldn’t. She claimed lack of memory while she remembered other things that were not asked.

        2. Close in age? What was said in the hearing was that the photos were of children age 8-10. Is that not true? If you want to defend the sentences that’s fine, but please don’t distort the facts.

          1. That is what this particular anonymous does on a continuous basis. That is what the media does on a continuous basis. That is what the public learns all too frequently, but now perhaps they are learning more of the truth.

            1. Jackson says she doesn’t remember, despite everyone knowing this would be asked. What does that mean? Is she unprepared, or did she want to prevent what she actually thinks from being known? When one looks at the numbers, one sees she is trying to bury a part of her history. She seems to have very selective memory, which is generally proof that one is lying or trying to distort the truth.

              This video you provide makes her look very bad. It appears to show that she made the sex offender into the victim. Maybe you are sympathetic to that group of criminals.

              1. Maybe some Republicans in Congress are sympathetic to that group of criminals. A number of them palled around with Josh Duggar, who as a teen molested several younger girls, including some of his sisters, and who was later found guilty of receiving and possessing child porn.

          2. To be clear: it is certainly not my intent “distort the facts.” I was discussing what I heard in the hearing, and I should have made clearer that I was relying on what was said in the hearing and not on any other information about the case, as I don’t have other information about the case. I am not defending the sentence. I am simply trying to note what she said about the case.

            I was mistaken to say “it was an 18 yo where many of the photos were of minors close in age,” as I do not know for a fact that “many of the photos were of minors close in age,” and she did not say “many.”

            She said “I don’t have the record of that entire case in front of me. What I recall, in respect to that case, is that unlike the many other child pornography offenders that I have seen as a judge and that I was aware of in my work on the Sentencing Commission, this particular defendant had just graduated from high school and some of, perhaps not all, when you were looking at the records, but some of the materials he was looking at were older teenagers, were older victims…” (using the closed captioning transcript, which is sometimes a bit mistaken).

            Again, what I’ve read is that there were 2 cases where her sentence was lower than recommended by the government probation office, and if we want to discuss whether that makes her “soft on crime,” we’d have to look at the particulars of the cases.

    3. “On balance I came away thinking she is a radical pretending to be otherwise.”

      Good point.

      She’s a classic bait-and-switch. Just as Biden was.

      1. She is disingenuous, deceptive, and very cagey. She is essentially lying to the people about who she is, what she believes, how she thinks, what she values, and cannot be trusted. She will be a woke nightmare on the Court.

  10. “Action” Jaction, Obama and Kamala.

    Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest.

    The “A” Team, nay, the “AA” Team: Affirmative Action, Antithetical, Ex-merit, Unconstitutional.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Who in their right mind mitigates sentencing for child abusers/pornographers – who even comes close to that appearance of conflict?

    This goes to “Action” Jaction’s absent cognitive process – whatever will she do on the SC?
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Who in their right mind delivers their country, on a silver platter, to its direct and mortal enemies?

    This goes to Americans whom Ben Franklin admonished, “[We gave you] a republic, If you can keep it.”
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Who’s dumbest now?

    All of you who couldn’t.

  11. Judge Jackson has been reluctant to reveal herself, but I don’t understand how this material is being withheld.
    —–
    ‘A lot of hiding’: Senators kept from seeing Sentencing Commission records on Supreme Court nominee
    Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin is “hiding” records from Ketanji Brown Jackson’s time as vice chair of the Sentencing Commission, where she championed leniency for child predators, says Michael Davis, former chief counsel for the committee.

    “Judge Jackson’s history of sentencing below guidelines, particularly in cases involving child exploitation, raises legitimate questions about her views on penalties for these crimes,” “This is exactly why I asked for her Sentencing Commission records — the same types of records the committee traditionally reviews when vetting a Supreme Court nominee.” __Grassley

    https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/ex-top-senate-judiciary-attorney-says-durbin-hiding-ketanji-brown-jacksons?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. Meyer/Alan

      Someone has to serve on sentencing commissions. And we want real, justice professionals on those boards. That shouldn’t disqualify them from ever serving on The Court. We should want a court composed of justices who have held a variety of justice-related positions.

      But anyone serving on those commissions might be labeled as ‘soft on crime’ by conservatives or ‘unfair to defendants’ by leftists. When Biden nominated Kamala Harris for VP, many Bernie Bros were upset that as a Prosecutor, Harris had obtained Maximum Minimum sentences against drug offenders.

      What’s more, many on the left still bristle over the fact that Biden himself sponsored the 1993 Crime Bill which created Maximum Minimum sentencing guidelines.

      The point is that any career professional in the justice system is vulnerable to criticism of being too soft or harsh.

      1. “Someone has to serve on sentencing commissions.”

        Nothing wrong with that.

        “The point is that any career professional in the justice system is vulnerable to criticism of being too soft or harsh.”

        That is true, but that is not my point.

        Let me make it clear. Jackson was appointed to the Supreme Court of the land. Biden tarred her reputation from the start. In the past, she was not transparent, and information needed by the committee about her actions isn’t being released. Why not? How can people come to a fair decision if the information is withheld?

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ In the past, she was not transparent, and information needed by the committee about her actions isn’t being released. ”

          What was she not transparent about? She wasn’t the only one in the commission sentencing below guidelines. Republican appointed judges in the commission did the same thing. She’s explained in detail why sentencing was lower in some cases during the hearing.

          1. Everything Democrats do involves lying. The destroyed Judge Bork, they skewered Judge Janice Rogers Brown, the very qualified African American woman nominated to the D.C Circuit, Senate Democrats trashed the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a Honduran immigrant nominated by Bush to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin called Estrada “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino”. Senate Democrats did a character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, disparaged Amy C. Barrett, and the Left uses troll farms to lie, manipulate and denigrate Americans.

            Americans are over it and are pushing back on Democrats lies, e.g. Hunter Biden’s laptop and his father Joe lying therein.

            Imagine someone trolling using a sock puppet name. Thankfully I have never done that.

            Fire with fire. Your ilk is going down

          2. “What was she not transparent about?”

            Read her statements to prior committees and this one. I am not concerned about her sentencing of others. I am worried about her rationale. I want to hear her loud and clear.

            SM

  12. Professor Biden appears to be reticent about answering questions about Hunter’s laptop.

  13. The question is simple. Why would a person who wishes to be appointed to the highest court in the land not want the nation to know his or her opinions on the law? Why wouldn’t such a person be proud of her philosophy and be willing to tell the nation exactly where she stands? Why would she not want the citizens of the nation to understand how she would interpret the law if she strongly believes what she believes? I hear she got drunk at a party when she was in high school and had sex with five male schoolmates but the schoolmates can’t remember where the party was or how they got home. No one can collaborate their story but I believe them anyway. They’ve already accumulated over one million dollars in their GoFundMe account. You go boys.

      1. There was no one at the party who could collaborate that she was even their. Do you think that if there was such a witness that the Democrats wouldn’t have attempted to their dying breadth to get the word out? Please name the witnesses who were not allowed to testify. We understand. No proof of your claim will be forthcoming for our analysis. As usual we will just have to take your word for it.

        1. What on earth are you talking about?

          You said that “I hear she got drunk at a party when she was in high school and had sex with five male schoolmates but the schoolmates can’t remember where the party was or how they got home.” I assumed that “she” refers to Judge Jackson. If not, who is “she”?

          1. Anonymous, Thinkthrough is the Blog Stooge. Every day he writes rash and shocking sh!t through his many puppets.

            1. You and I have been through this more than once: I do not trust your judgment about whoever you’re referring to as the “blog stooge.” You called *me* a sock of that person recently, despite my being liberal. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people post under more than one name, or post both under a name and also anonymously (Meyer, for example, has done both). But I do not believe that all the people you insist are socks of a single person … are truly a single person. I believe Ti T is a troll, but I do not believe he’s a sock of Estovir. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but it’s not particularly relevant to my point that he can’t even keep track of who “she” is in his trolling comment.

              1. Anonymous, you troll Professor Turley everyday and then you call me a troll. When you have no countervailing argument you always bring out the troll accusation. I am surprised that consuming such weak soup that you are not skinny as a rail. Perhaps not physically but undoubtedly mentally.

              2. REGARDING ABOVE:

                This Anonymous, claiming to be a ‘liberal’ is indeed The Blog Stooge. None of the few liberals on this blog would write this ridiculous response.

              3. Anonymous, I made up the story as a comparison to the unbelievable story of Christine Blasey Ford. It’s not my fault that you are slow on the uptake. Remember, the post is concerning the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. I can hear the smacking of your forehead now. DUH.

                1. No, idiot, I understood that you made up the story, and I pointed out that what one would do is call them to testify under oath. Then you couldn’t keep track in your own head of who you were referring to as “she,” and you replied “There was no one at the party who could collaborate that she was even their [sic].” The sound you hear is your own small brain sloshing in your skull.

                  No wonder you like Trump, he also has difficulty keeping track of what his pronouns refer to.

                  1. Putz after my last comment, you should be the last one to complain about pronouns. You are a hypocrite along with being a putz and a liar.

          2. Anonymous, of course my story about Biden’s candidate for the court is ridiculous. Just like the accusations against Kavanaugh were ridiculous. I made the accusations up just like they made the accusations about Kavanaugh up so that the readers of this forum might understand what the Democrats will stoop to. Another appropriate comparison would be the ridiculous accusation made by the left concerning a document that is now considered by The New York Times, Politico magazine and CNN known as the Steele Dossier to be untrue. Now these same outlets that once said that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation are now saying that the Hunter laptop is authentic. It’s to be expected; they will continue to force fed you and you will happily accept it without considering the poison they are putting down your uplifted throat. Like a junkie you just keep going back for more. Sorry that you didn’t pick up on the irony.

            1. As I pointed out to someone else a little while ago, whether one found Ford credible is a matter of opinion, and ditto for Kavanaugh.

              What we do have good evidence of is Kavanaugh lying under oath. Here are a few examples:

              With respect to Blasey Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed some variation of “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” That’s a lie. They said things like “I have no knowledge of the party in question” or that they couldn’t confirm it, but that’s not the same as stating that it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser said that although she didn’t recall the gathering, she believed Ford that it did happen.

              He said “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” But his own calendar showed that he’d had attended a gathering like the one she described, with the people she said were there.

              When asked if he had “never had gaps in memories, never had any losses whatsoever, never had foggy recollection about what happened” while drinking. Kavanaugh affirmed “That’s what I said.” This is refuted by people who knew him at Yale. For example, his then-friend Liz Swisher: “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling… There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.” And there are a number of others who also refuted his claim, like Daniel Livan: “I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them.”

              He lied about the definitions of sexual slang terms that he and his classmates used.

              Or consider this exchange:
              Hatch: “Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?” — referring to Democratic material that Miranda had stolen.
              Kavanaugh: “No, I was not aware of that matter ever until I learned of it in the media late last year.”
              But Sen. Leahy later produced an email Kavanaugh had received from Miranda with a Democratic draft letter that Miranda had stolen and that Kavanaugh had read, Leahy saying “I am concerned because there is evidence that Mr. Miranda provided you with materials that were stolen from me. And that would contradict your prior testimony. It is also clear from public emails—and I’m restraining from going into not public ones—that you have reason to believe materials were obtained inappropriately at the time.”

              These are only some of the examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath.

              Again, Republicans should have rejected him. Another conservative jurist would have been nominated, and they could have confirmed someone who didn’t lie under oath.

              1. Let’s take your first paragraph of evidence. “Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed some variation of “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” That’s a lie. They said things like “I have no knowledge of the party in question” or that they couldn’t confirm it, but that’s not the same as stating that it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser said that although she didn’t recall the gathering, she believed Ford that it did happen.”

                How many times was the pronoun ‘it’? Six. This leaves big questions about your truthfulness and providing evidence in context. Likely you stole the “evidence off of Slate or a similar article that was poorly written and a hit piece. That is the sum total of your knowledge. Worthless.

                1. LOL that you object to my quoting statements from Kavanaugh that include the pronoun “it.” Do you want me to lie and change what he said? Or you think it’s OK for him to say “it,” but not me to use “it” to refer to the same thing?

                  Again, Kavanaugh’s claimed “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser” (these are quotes from his testimony), and those claims of his are lies. None of the witnesses said that what Ford alleged didn’t happen, and Keyser said that she believed Ford’s allegations.

                  You can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge Kavanaugh’s other lies.

                  Your response is what’s worthless. If you want the context for Kavanaugh’s statements the entire hearing transcripts are available online.

                  1. “LOL that you object to my quoting statements from Kavanaugh that include the pronoun “it.”

                    Keep laughing ATS, but to find a person guilty of something and understand the context, one needs to know what the ‘it’ is and the context of the answer. You read the left-wing’s extracted portions of quotes purposely limited in content to make fools believe what the writer wishes them to think.

                    “it didn’t happen” What didn’t happen? The meaning of the pronoun ‘it’ can be different for everyone that answered. You replace the word ‘it’ with what is in your mind, which differs from what others are thinking.

                    “None of the witnesses said that what Ford alleged didn’t happen”

                    The negative is worthless in this type of situation.

                    “Keyser said that she believed Ford’s allegations.”

                    Yet, “Keyser said that she believed Ford’s allegations. On the other hand reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly quietly admitted that Christine Blasey Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser did not believe ‘it’, sexual assault. Of course the ‘it’ could mean other things as well but they write “We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”.

                    Enough of this stupidity. Your one-sided extractions avoiding context are disgusting as you defame someone because his ideology upholds the Constitution.

                    By now, everyone knows that you are not a credible individual. There is nothing more that one needs to say. Everyone knows you twist the truth and lie.

                    Allan S. Meyer

                    1. Kavanaugh said “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser”

                      You ask “What didn’t happen?” You don’t realize that he’s talking about the sexual assault that Blasey Ford alleged?

                      If you want the context for the Kavanaugh’s statements “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen,” and “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser,” those two statements are on p. 726 of the hearing transcripts (govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/pdf/CHRG-115shrg32765.pdf)

                      You quote Yet, “Keyser said that she believed Ford’s allegations. On the other hand reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly quietly admitted that Christine Blasey Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser did not believe ‘it’, sexual assault. Of course the ‘it’ could mean other things as well but they write “We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”

                      You do not say where your quote is from. The person you’re quoting is so inattentive to details that he or she doesn’t even spell Robin Pogrebin’s name correctly. It appears to be from a third hand discussion of a book that was published long after the hearings, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.” If you want to introduce everything that people said to the authors of that book, you’d better be wary, because those authors said they concluded “that Ford and Ramirez were mistreated by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager, and that Kavanaugh over the next 35 years became a better person” (quoting an Atlantic article by Kelly and Pogrebin, theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/pogrebin-kelly-kavanaugh/598159/ ), and in the book, they support their conclusion with statements made by multiple people.

                      More to the point #1: whatever Keyser said to reporters *later* could not possibly be what Kavanaugh was commenting on in the hearings.
                      More to the point #2: I’m discussing statements made under oath or submitted under penalty of perjury, and you are not.
                      More to the point #3: the sentence you quote from Keyser STILL does not support Kavanaugh’s claims that “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” In your quote, Keyser did not say or imply “it didn’t happen.”
                      More to the point #4, you ignore what Keyser told the reporters she didn’t have confidence in, in the three sentences immediately after what your unnamed third hand party quoted: “Keyser thought the whole setup Ford described—the Columbia Country Club, followed by a gathering with boys at a local home—sounded wrong, given that Keyser had been working at the Congressional Country Club that summer. But Keyser acknowledged that she was a member of the Columbia club, and that she might have stopped by to watch Ford dive and then decided to go to a party. (Ford also said not to assume that the gathering had originated at the club, guessing that it might have been arranged by Keyser and Judge by phone or in person elsewhere.)” Keyser was not implying that she lacked confidence in Ford’s allegation of sexual assault.

                      Kavanaugh was commenting on a statement Keyser made to the FBI under penalty of perjury prior to the end of the hearings, and his claims “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser” are FALSE, as the other people alleged to have been there did NOT say “it didn’t happen.” Nothing you’ve introduced changes the fact that Kavanaugh’s statements were knowingly false about a material issue: what the other witnesses said. Kavanaugh lied under oath.

                      And you entirely ignore all the other false statements he made under oath.

                    2. ATS, my answer stands as stated. Filling the blog with long repetitions of what was said before doesn’t change the facts on the ground. It simply tells us that you have run out of rhetoric and are relying on quantity rather than quality.

                      I’ll take your first argument: “You ask “What didn’t happen?” You don’t realize that he’s talking about the sexual assault that Blasey Ford alleged?”

                      I know exactly what you infer, but you have a history of implying things without proof or stretching the evidence. I will not accept your vague statements unless they are spelled out and backed up by in-context quotes from reputable witnesses. To date, on the truth meters, you regularly use your responses register ‘LIE’.

                      Here is what I said and quoted above to clarify your vague references.

                      Yet, “Keyser said that she believed Ford’s allegations. On the other hand reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly quietly admitted that Christine Blasey Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser did not believe ‘it’, sexual assault. Of course the ‘it’ could mean other things as well but they write “We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”.

                    3. ATS, I should add that if anyone looks at your response, they will note the paucity of any in-context quotes to prove your case. Additionally, you engage in non-essentials like spelling. I quoted the reporter’s words. If I reproduced them with an error in spelling, blame me. I am not a typist, and the spelling has no relevance to the discussion. Stop using punctuation and spelling as a way to divert the conversation down a different path.

                      SM

                    4. Meyer, you repeat your ad hom, and you repeat your quote from an unspecified source that is so sloppy it misspells one of the reporter’s name — you still can’t bring yourself to say who you quoted — but you did not address anything I pointed out in response to your quote:

                      1) If you want to introduce everything that people said to the authors of that book, you’d better be wary, because those authors said they concluded “that Ford and Ramirez were mistreated by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager, and that Kavanaugh over the next 35 years became a better person,” and in the book, they support their conclusion with statements made by multiple people. [I’ll add that in their book, they also describe other offensive conduct by Kavanaugh.]
                      2) whatever Keyser said to reporters *later* could not possibly be what Kavanaugh was commenting on in the hearings.
                      3) I’m discussing statements made under oath or submitted under penalty of perjury, and you are not.
                      4) the sentence you quote from Keyser STILL does not support Kavanaugh’s claims that “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” In your quote, Keyser did not say or imply “it didn’t happen.”
                      More to the point #4, you ignore what Keyser told the reporters she didn’t have confidence in, in the three sentences immediately after what your unnamed third hand party quoted: “Keyser thought the whole setup Ford described—the Columbia Country Club, followed by a gathering with boys at a local home—sounded wrong, given that Keyser had been working at the Congressional Country Club that summer. But Keyser acknowledged that she was a member of the Columbia club, and that she might have stopped by to watch Ford dive and then decided to go to a party. (Ford also said not to assume that the gathering had originated at the club, guessing that it might have been arranged by Keyser and Judge by phone or in person elsewhere.)” Keyser was not implying that she lacked confidence in Ford’s allegation of sexual assault.
                      5) Kavanaugh was commenting on a statement Keyser made to the FBI under penalty of perjury prior to the end of the hearings, and his claims “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser” are FALSE. Not one of the other people alleged to have been there did NOT say “it didn’t happen.” Nothing you’ve introduced changes the fact that Kavanaugh’s statements were knowingly false about a material issue: what the other witnesses said. Kavanaugh lied under oath.
                      6) And you entirely ignore all the other false statements he made under oath.

                    5. ATS, if you don’t like it, then behave and stop twisting words and lying. Throw my replies in the trash before reading like should be done to all anonymous postings. They are a waste of time, yours especially, since one has to double the time spent sorting the lies out from things that might have some truth.

                      If I typed a name and left out a letter, too bad. That is your problem. You want to produce mountains of bullsh!t that I don’t have to address. I took one of your first statements, which should have been one of your best, but one of your best was a piece of trash. The rest would only be worse.

                      You brought up Keyser, so I will stick to that one comment. I don’t have to deal with all the rest of the cr-p that has nothing to do with your claim that I addressed. I’ll deal solely with what the writers stated: “We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I DON’T HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE STORY.” (caps are mine)

                      All the rest of your BS doesn’t count.

                    6. Meyer, I am the only one of us relying on testimony given under oath or submitted under penalty of perjury. I am the only one who provided a link to testimony under oath. You have not countered the fact that Kavanaugh made multiple false statements under oath, you have not quoted anything under oath yourself (other than to repeat a couple of my quotes — while ignoring most of what I quoted under oath), and the single sentence that you pulled out of context from what a witness said in 2019 is irrelevant to the witness statements Kavanaugh was commenting on. Clearly he was not testifying in September of 2018 about a comment made to reporters in 2019.

                      Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed that witnesses said “it didn’t happen.” In their statements under penalty of perjury, not a single witness said that. Kavanaugh lied about this.

                      He also lied about the other things I quoted, all of which you ignore entirely.

                    7. “Meyer, I am the only one of us relying on testimony given under oath”

                      ATS, whether or not that is true, your reliance on the testimony did not lead to the proof required. You provided a bunch of disjointed statements that put together remove context. Until I stopped going point by point, I showed how wrong you are even while using comments from people that wish to side with Ford. You might be able to copy and paste, but you cannot put a good argument together.

                      If you wish a person to respond to specifics, don’t pile up tons of them. Fire your best shot. I took your best shot and showed that you were unaware of the truth or twisting it. I don’t have to spend time going down the line proving everything you said to be wrong. That conclusion is easily drawn from all the prior emails and your best evidence being destroyed.

                    8. Meyer,

                      Kavanaugh’s statements in his 2018 testimony were about the witnesses’ statements in their 2018 testimony.

                      He claimed in 2018 under oath that “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser.” Those are lies. How do we know? Because in their 2018 statements, none of the witnesses said what he claims. He lied about their 2018 statements under oath.

                      “she challenged Ford’s accuracy” about some things in 2019, such as whether the gathering had originated at the Columbia Country Club. She did not challenge Ford’s statement about the assault itself. Even in 2019, Keyser did not say “it didn’t happen.” And Keyser’s 2019 statement is also irrelevant to Kavanaugh’s lie about what Keyser and others said in 2018. You simply cannot admit that he lied, so you make excuses. You ignore every witness other than Keyser — even though Kavanaugh was making claims about all of them — and you don’t address a single one of the 2018 witness statements, which is what his claims were about.

                    9. ATS, this is your ‘primo’ argument. Let me quote you: “it didn’t happen,” “none … said what he claims”

                      From the statements you made, no one has the slightest idea what you are saying. Pronouns and indefinite claims are a refuge for those who don’t know what they are talking about. Based on nothing, you call Kavanaugh, a liar. You are a fool.

                    10. Let me quote you: “it didn’t happen,” “none … said what he claims”

                      No, Idiot Meyer, Kavanaugh is the one who said “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen” / “All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser”

                      And I said “none of the witnesses said what he claims.”

                      You’re a bad faith discussant, a troll, and a waste of time. So I won’t waste my time responding further. Your mind is shut to facts.

                    11. “Your mind is shut to facts.”

                      ATS, you keep using the word ‘it’, so there are no facts on the table. You should be paying me for teaching you how to think, but instead, you make all types of crazy statements. I guess your handlers haven’t taught you how to research so you can provide a complete argument that contains substance instead of containing a bit of this ‘it’ and that ‘it’. You keep proving yourself to be a putz so that by now, only another putz would miss ‘it’.

    1. Thinkitthrough,

      “ The question is simple. Why would a person who wishes to be appointed to the highest court in the land not want the nation to know his or her opinions on the law? Why wouldn’t such a person be proud of her philosophy and be willing to tell the nation exactly where she stands?”

      Because judges before her didn’t answer such questions either. There’s a reason why they don’t. Even justice Barrett avoided answering questions like that. Many of those questions are for campaign slogans then genuine inquiries and judges, smart judges know that.

      1. This is one simple answer of how A. C. Barrett views the Constitution is as follows.

        “In English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” _ACB

        Svelaz, it is time for you to quote Jackson’s answer to this exact question. I think that is what most people want to know. Barrett’s responses elsewhere can confirm her consistency. Can Jackson do the same?

  14. My view is that it’s appropriate for the Senate to ask questions about, consider, and vote based on the judicial philosophy of the nominee. I think this is especially the case when a nominee would change/shift the balance/philosophy of the court.

  15. SMH:

    Sen. Mike Braun (R-ID) said today that he believes that Loving v VA was wrongly decided and it’s constitutional for states to ban interracial marriage, and it should be left to each state to decide.

      1. He can give that excuse, but the reporter asked “You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?” and Braun answered “Yes. I think that that’s something that if you are not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you are not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too,” and then he also said that Griswold v CT (a birth control case) should be left to the states.

        His identification should be R-IN, not R-ID.

      1. Sergeant,

        I am passing judgment on the philosophy of the holder of the second highest executive office in the land. Indeed, we should pass judgment on the philosophies of every office holder and administrative head in DC. Too many are grubby, self-seeking nihilists who would make a carnival barker embrace Jesus less he slide into the same amoral Pit.

    1. Young– I am told that in California she had a reputation for sex (Willie Brown) and drugs (marijuana). All that was missing was rock and roll. I suspect she is pretty much the same. Any day now I expect black democrat politicians to begin distancing themselves from her, reminding people that she is, after all, only 1/4 black.

      1. Honest — I believe she did, most of which might be excused but for the apparent evidence that she abused her office in disgusting ways that appear to have unjustly hurt many people

        She is a mindless force for destruction like Lennie in Of Mice and Men but with a more malignant soul.

        You make a very good point, though. I shouldn’t be surprised if she turned ‘Mostly White’ in the public eye before long.

        She is an albatross hung on the neck of the Democrat party and they need to find a way to ‘Agnew’ her before the Village Idiot can be sucked out of the Oval Office. Nobody likes her.

        Was it worth it to steal an election to get this?

        1. The election wasn’t stolen.

          Biden won. The Electoral College voted for Biden, and Congress certified the EC vote, despite the efforts of rioters to prevent it.

          1. Anonymous…..Gosh, it must be so fun to live there at the Magic Kingdom and ride pink horsies and play Make Believe all day!

              1. Anonymous………..Creating and cooking-up “facts” in your little Easy Bake oven IS make believe. Period.

                1. Cindy, it’s a fact that Biden won the election, that a majority of the members of the Electoral College voted for Biden, and that Congress certified the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021.

                    1. I’m using the standard definition for a presidential election: each state certifies the vote in their state, a state’s Electors are determined by the certified state votes, the Electors vote in the Electoral College, and the Congress certifies the EC vote. Do you deny any of that? By that totally standard definition, Biden won the election.

                  1. Anony………..you’re extremely misinformed and wading deeper into blah blah land. Seek help.

                    1. Seek help yourself. You haven’t countered a single fact that I presented.

  16. “[Why can’t you simply put the most qualified American jurist on the Supreme Court of the United States],” Ben Franklin queries posthumously.

    “[We didn’t create the restricted-vote republic or write the Constitution to be ‘fundamentally transformed],'” exclaims Ben.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Franklin’s republic was of the severely-restricted-vote variety, allowing a turnout of just 11.6% in 1788.
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    “[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin
    ___________

    You couldn’t.

          1. Thanks for reading…again.

            Please understand; I do appreciate your patronage.

            Your stamina approaches mine.

            Your notions, not so much.

            It appears you can’t stop yourself from the vigorous pursuit of nothing.
            _______________________________________________________

            “He’s a real nowhere man”

            “Sitting in his nowhere land”

            “Making all his nowhere plans for nobody”

            – The Beatles, 1965

Leave a Reply