No, Judicial Methodology is Not the Same as Judicial Philosophy

Before the start of the confirmation of hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of greatest outstanding questions concerned Jackson’s approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation.  “Judicial philosophy” was the very basis that Democratic senators cited in voting against Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. However, within minutes of the start of the hearing, it was clear that Jackson would not discuss her views. Instead, when asked about “judicial philosophy” she responded with descriptions of her “judicial methodology.” It is not the same thing but that evasion was shrugged off by members and commentators alike.

Many of these senators were unrelenting in demanding that Barrett explain her judicial philosophy just two years ago. Sen. Chris Coons (D-R.I.) declared: “What’s at issue is her judicial philosophy.” Yet, after Jackson refused to answer those questions, Coons declared (6:30): “I don’t believe that ‘a judicial philosophy’ is always all that meaningful.”

Likewise, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) who opposed Barrett as an unacceptable “originalist,” now dismisses originalism and judicial philosophy questions for Jackson (8:48) because “I do not find labels particularly useful.”

Most recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said that he does not understand all of the focus on judicial philosophy in the Jackson hearings. Yet, in the Gorsuch confirmation, Whitehouse demanded that the nominee address his “judicial philosophy” and compare it to the “judicial philosophy” of the prior nominee, Merrick Garland.

By the second day of questioning, Jackson’s conflation of philosophy and methodology as synonymous became absolute. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) again pressed Jackson on her refusal to answer this question. Jackson then completely merged the terms (1:33): “I do have a philosophy. My philosophy is my methodology.”

That is linguistically and legally wrong. Jackson described the methodology in mechanical steps of reading the text, applying the facts, and avoiding bias. Thus, she explained, “my judicial philosophy is to rule impartially and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge.”

Judicial philosophy encompasses how a jurist approaches the act of interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Even as you mechanically go through the steps described by Judge Jackson, you are still left at some point with interpreting words with contested meaning. There are widely different approaches to how to perform that task and how much importance to put on issues ranging from original intent to textual language to the more general purpose of a given law.

The problem is that that “philosophy/methodology” also happens to be the oath that all judges take to “faithfully and impartially discharge” their judicial duties. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a nominee testifying that she follows a methodology “to rule in a prejudiced fashion and to rule consistent with my personal agenda.”  Literally, every judge embraces that same methodology.

It is akin to a potential client of an investment banker asking what her investment philosophy would be if hired and the banker responding “my philosophy is not to steal the money of clients and use it for my own enjoyment.”

It has become common these days for the meaning of words to yield to the political convenience of the moment. For example, When its real meaning stood in the way of real money, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) simply tweeted: “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.” Done.

However, calling methodology a philosophy robs both terms of their meaning in this context. If you asked someone about their preferred clothing style, you would be a tad confused if they then described the steps that they use in getting dressed from putting on their socks to their overcoat.

In fairness to Judge Jackson, she is not the first nominee to seek to evade questions on judicial philosophy. In that sense, it was not surprising to see a nominee avoid a clear answer. What was surprising was the response of media and legal experts after a nominee claimed that judicial philosophy and judicial methodology are the same thing. Few noted, let alone criticized, the false substitution.

So, for the purposes of this hearing, the two terms will be treated as synonymous. Presumably, upon confirmation, the terms will return to their original meaning for the next Republican nominee.

152 thoughts on “No, Judicial Methodology is Not the Same as Judicial Philosophy”

  1. From our wittiest Senator,

    “Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Kennedy probed.

    “I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” Jackson evaded again.

    Senator Kennedy pushed further on the point, asking Judge Jackson an important follow-up, “When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?”

    “Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” Judge Jackson responded, again with an ill-timed grin on her face as her initially confident answer turned to another know-nothing response.

    So much for lived experience.

    Again, the contrast with ACB is stark. ACB has an answer. Her core values, education, training…and experience inform her about questions such as this.

    The ONLY thing KJB can do is spit out case law and SCOTUS decisions. She has yet to learn….life. She only knows what she has been told.

    1. “ACB has an answer. Her core values, education, training…and experience inform her about questions such as this.”

      If ACB has a non-religous answer about “when life begins,” quote what she said about it.
      If ACB has an answer about “when equal protection of the laws attach to a human being,” quote what she said about it.

      1. Unlike Durbin, forced to play protector to KBJ. ACB will speak for herself.
        You know, as well as I, The two of them debating this one topic, would yield a constitutional supported position delivered by ACB, with KBJ left in the corner mumbling about micro aggression.

        The challenge is not formulating an answer.

        The talent and skill is being able to defend your answer in an adversarial environment.

        Today it is clear who has the intellect, experience and skill to defend their position.

  2. let me guess…Republicans will shrug their shoulders and VOTE for her! Democrats are at war with America…and 99% of Dc’ers are with them!

  3. ‘For all the racist indignities that black women have suffered, we can all take special joy in KBJ’s nomination (just as we would have in the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown that Biden worked to preempt, even as we disagree with her judicial approach.’ ~Ed Whalen

    To repeat:

    “Just as we would have in the nomination of Janie Rogers Brown that Senator Joe Biden WORKED TO PREEMPT.”

    Make no mistake, this is NEVER about anything other than Democrats and POWER by USING BLACK PEOPLE FOR THIER OWN PURPOSES –just like slave masters used to do.

    “If you don’t vote Democrat then you ain’t Black.” ~Joe Biden

    1. “Just as we would have in the nomination of JANICE ROGERS BROWN that Senator Joe Biden WORKED TO PREEMPT.”

    2. Democrat hypocrisy in how they treat Republican nominees like TRASH and then EXPECT their nominees to be treated with decency and respect when Democrats offer NONE to Republican’s or their nominees is just too much to take. Biden tops the list of offenders.

      Sweep these MOFO’s OUT OF OFFICE in November. Sweep them ALL out.

    3. Olly, you, of course, know that when you first sign in, you check the boxes below and when you get the email from WordPress and click on the subject matter it is automatically done. Outside of that, I am stuck and had similar problems. I ended up changing my name (which altered nothing) and my address which changed the icon. I essentially started anew. Be careful that the old address doesn’t cause havoc with your email if you do that.

      I don’t know much more except that I do nothing with WordPress. Nowadays, I have to enter my address with each response, and the icon stopped appearing to tell me I spelled the address correctly. Sorry I cannot be of more help.

    4. Bush and Trump could have nominated Janice Rogers Brown for SCOTUS. They didn’t.

      1. Under Bush JOE BIDEN said he would FILIBUSTER her nomination, i.e. use a Jim Crow move to keep a BLACK WOMAN off the court. Get it fool?

        1. Hey, fool, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a key US civil rights organization, opposed Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination because “Brown’s record as a California Supreme Court justice demonstrates a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.”

  4. Of course, the appointment of Ketanji Jackson to the SCOTUS is a fait accompli. But a judge who doesn’t know the difference between a man and a woman is unfit to sit on any bench, except the Dunce Bench. Unfortunately, there were no follow up questions to determine Jackson’s level of ignorance, stupidity, and foolishness. Jackson also needed to be questioned on basic law: like what is the parol evidence rule and what is the statute of frauds, etc.? I bet she wouldn’t be able to answer those questions either. But none of this should be surprising, since Jackson is the “best choice” that the Plagiarist-In-Chief will offer America, or what used to be called America.

    1. Could you imagine any of the last 3 appointees giving answers like this?

  5. Jackson then completely merged the terms: “I do have a philosophy. My philosophy is my methodology.”

    This is a jarringly stupid comment. I’ll tell you why.

    I have never met a Lawyer, that did not consider themselves a language savant. A person that has the ability to craft the language to communicate eloquently, there chosen narrative.

    To conflate two words, philosophy and methodalogy, is like an accomplished sports announcer conflating a safety and a hat trick.

    It just exposes a raw ignorance, and person out of their depth trying to sound ‘smart’.

    1. My judicial philosophy is what ever I deem it to be at the moment.

  6. “Can you give me the definition of a woman”? Brown: “I can’t”.

    Ginsburg: “Physical differences, between men and women, however, are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.”

  7. I heard a good analogy by Dana Perino this morning.

    She said, KBJ questioned about Judicial philosophy, and answering with “judicial process”. Is like asking a person about their fassion style of dress, and explaining how you get dressed in the morning.

  8. Your Right, She has convoluted “judicial philosophy” vis-à-vis “judicial methodology.”

    BUT … there may be a perception problem with her ‘feminine evasiveness’ in her diversion of the question.
    To a Female that is acquainted with ’employing feminine evasion’, this may seem acceptably normal.
    To a Male the perception may appear as an avoidance-front, and unacceptable (within the context of the situation).

    I think the Question is being asked wrong. i.e.: Judge Jackson, what ‘rationalizations’ do you employ when developing a Jurist opinion.

    Ibid.: The Big Chill (1983)

    Michael : I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.

    Sam Weber : Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.

    Michael : Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

  9. This hearing is in sharp contrast to the previous one.

    There is no doubt which nominee carries substantially more intellectual heft.

    To me the biggest difference, ACB knows exactly what her position is and has the intellectual vigor to square that with Constitutional law.
    KBJ, is using her memory to spit out canned responses, with little supporting constitutional scholarship.

    1. “To me the biggest difference, ACB knows exactly what her position is and has the intellectual vigor to square that with Constitutional law.”

      Remember when the legal mensch Joy Blowhard from the “View” stated Judge Barrett holding up a blank notepad reflected how empty she was herself?

      Judge Brown is sheeting bricks as she is asked tough questions like the definition of a woman

    2. There’s an even bigger contrast with Kavanaugh. Unlike him, KBJ remains composed in contrast to Kavanaugh’s face twisted in angerr with spittle coming out of his mouth, demanding that Senators answer his questions, … With him, scores of people claimed that he was lying under oath and offered to be witnesses, only to be rebuffed by the Senate Republicans, but I haven’t heard of anyone making similar allegations against her.

      1. Your troll farm handlers have been notified that you are not doing your side any favors. Have you considered being a dick dancer in gay West Hollywood for your daily rages?

        1. “Your troll farm handlers have been notified that you are not doing your side any favors.”



      2. Have you ever had a stellar career and record as a jurist, mentor, employer of clerks, etc, only to be smeared to holy hell and accused among other things –of being a gang rapist –in front of your wife and family– AND THEN to be asked to treat the slimball, DIRTY Democrat senators who perpetrated the f’n smears WITH DEFERENCE AND RESPECT? Holy sh*t. Kavanaugh could teach the Master Class on how to maintain your composure IN THE FACE OF DEMOCRAT HIT JOBS and their FAKE NEWS MEDIA COLLABORATION in the TAKE DOWN.

        Democrats are some of the MOST DISHONORABLE DISGUSTING VILE politicians on the face of this planet. They deserve NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT and DISDAIN. And to be SWEPT OUT OF POLITICAL POWER IMMEDIATELY AND FOREVER.

        1. The Democrat Party of today is the GREATEST EXISTENTIAL THREAT to the SAFETY and WELL BEING of America and all of her citizens. The DEMOCRAT PARTY IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMERICA.

          1. The Liberty, Freedom and Safety of our Constitutional protections ARE ALL UNDER EXISTENTIAL THREAT by the entirety of today’s DEMOCRAT PARTY.


          2. Democrat poltiicos, by and large, have shown they have NO moral center, NO ethical center, NO grounding principles in anything BUT seizing POWER at ANY COST. They lie, they cheat, they steal elections. And they lie about stealing elections.

            They should NEVER be in charge of how we live our lives in this country. NOT NOW. NOT EVER AGAIN.

        2. Your comments suggest that you, too, have a face twisted in anger with spittle coming out of your mouth.

          1. You talking about demented old Joe?
            Biden’s approval among independents is at 27 percent and going down.
            And he’s taking the country down with him.

  10. Turley ridicules hypocrites; in this case, Democratic Senators. Good for him. Likewise, I ridicule Turley’s hypocrisy as well. He is not being a hypocrite here.

  11. Still think she is a great, qualified pick, JT? She has dodged and weaved like no one I’ve ever seen, she could deflect for NASCAR, and she has not been subject to an infinitesimal FRACTION of the scrutiny as the last two confirmations. I can’t say that I’m surprised, but if she gets confirmed, it’s probably a tiny death knell. This is what the Dems want to do to our country, and they want it to be permanent, or at the least to last many generations. This is the rare matter where we don’t get to vote; I hope you are all paying attention so that we may act accordingly when we do.

  12. AP News: “The Supreme Court declined to say Wednesday whether 73-year-old Justice Clarence Thomas remains in the hospital, though he had been expected to be released by Tuesday evening.”

    I’m not a fan of his jurisprudence and would love for him to resign, but I hope he’s OK.

    1. The godly Thomas is still in the hospital. However one demoniac just left our world and descended into Hades.

      Ding dong the witch is dead

      “Madeleine Albright, first female secretary of state, dead at 84”

      Burn beaatch burn

      1. I wonder what Turley would think of your beautiful sentiments. Whether he regards you as a suitable member of his “blog family.”

    2. “I hope he’s OK.”


      Such a heartfelt and credible sentiment by an author named “ANONYMOUS.”

      Seems more like an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

      Aninny (attribution, Mespo), you can’t possibly be serious and “ANONYMOUS” simultaneously.

  13. She is just a stooge…and would BE TOLD WHAT TO THINK!
    Democrats have become a group think HIVE of hate, lies, anti-law and anti-science!

    1. Is this based on anything in particular or would you say that about any nominee of a Democratic President? BTW, Democrats are anti-science? Best laugh of the day.

      1. “Best laugh of the day.”

        It appears blacks like you (or is it ewe) are science deniers and proponents of black genocide.

        Life begins at conception. If you ever had children you would know these things…oh wait, youre one of those angry black dudes who denies agency for black women, celebrates misogynist rap music and expects gubbimint to be your daddy.

        1. Your racist comments are revealing.

          “Life begins at conception”

          You are ignorant. Life is continuous: a living female produces living eggs, a living male produces living sperm, and a living egg and living sperm merge to form a living zygote, which might or might not develop into a person (most zygotes die of natural causes before birth, often before implantation).

          If you mean that you believe that personhood begins at conception, a zygote is not a person, and personhood is a political issue, not a matter of science. (Science only speaks to whether the egg, sperm, zygote belong to our species.)

          No one can demand that you donate some of your bone marrow or even some blood to save someone’s life, but you want to demand that women donate the use of their bodies for 9 months without their consent. THAT is misogynist.

          1. Life is continuous?

            PS, that woman donated her body, herself.

            Take some responsibility for your actions and expect others to do the same, why is that so damned hard for some people?

            1. yes, life is continuous. With the exception of abiogenesis eons ago, life does not arise from non-life; life only continues from existing life. Unfertilized eggs and sperm are themselves alive. How on earth do you think that the sperm swims to the egg and pushes its way past the egg’s outer wall if the sperm is not alive?

              No, a woman who does not want to be pregnant has not “donated” her body. Not only are women and girls sometimes raped, but consent to intercourse is not consent to carrying a pregnancy to term, and women sometimes have abortions with wanted pregnancies because of complications. Why is it so damned hard for you to understand consent?

          2. “donate the use of their bodies for 9 months”. That’s a new one for me. It’s not just her body for nine months anymore. The new human has a genetic code that is distinctly different from the mother’s. Often the child’s blood type is different and half the time even the child’s gender is different and when the child is male, clearly his sexual organs are not part of his mother’s body, but his own. Half of the child’s chromosomes come from the biological father, half from his mother. The child is genetically just as much like the father as the mother but would we argue on that basis that the father has the right to decide whether the child lives or dies? It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception.

              1. David– Any definition is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

                I am reminded of an old game show in which the contestants were trying to guess a secret thing. They would often start with “Is it animal, vegetable or mineral?”

                How would you answer that with an embryo?

                As we slice down with more narrow terms it becomes more difficult to say.

                But I don’t think we ever get to the point where it is human or not human as clearly as we can say it is animal, vegetable or mineral. A human is what we decide it will be.

                In any event, a human embryo is more human than say a dog embryo. There is something of humanity in every human embryo.

                The argument over whether or not an embryo is is human is a mealy-mouthed evasion.

                The real question is do you want to kill these things or not, because they are alive?

                How much killing are you prepared to stomach?

                Passing question- what do vegetarians think about abortion in general? I think they favor it. Funny to think they balk at eating a ham sandwich because pigs are killed but will eagerly march to demand the right to kill well-formed human fetuses.

                1. You moved the goalposts from “human being,” a noun phrase, to “human” as an adjective. There’s no disagreement that a human embryo is human. A human blood cell is also human, but you don’t go around calling blood cells human beings or have a concern about killing them if you get a small cut (unless you’re a hemophiliac). I bet you enjoy killing your sperm cells before they die internally.

                  1. Anon

                    You inadvertently raised a point that illustrates my idea that at some level what is human, or a human being for that matter, is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

                    We don’t have a dispute about adults, of course, but there are those now who are prepared to ‘abort’ shortly after birth. The newborn for them is no longer human by definition. Going down the scale I remembered the Bible’s injunction against ‘spilling one’s seed’.

                    So you see, when it comes to the definition of a human the issue, and the definition, sounds more in law than in biology when it comes to what is permissible.

                    At what level of development are you no longer willing to legally stomach killing?

                    Unfortunately, the Left/Democrats are growing into something of a death cult. They favor ‘late-term abortion’ [killing] and, on the other end, ‘assisted dying’ [killing]. You seem to be heading for the Aktion T-4 plan for humanity. Your enthusiasm for killing is disgusting.

                    Please don’t forget that it is humanity before you lose your own humanity.

                    1. Your enthusiasm for lying about people — by pretending that they believe things they don’t believe and that they advocate things they don’t advocate — is what’s disgusting.

            1. And all of those differences in the embryo are irrelevant to the fact that it is using the pregnant woman’s body. It gets its oxygen through her respiratory and cardiovascular systems. It gets its nutrition through her gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems. Its temperature is maintained by her body.

              Just as you have no right to demand that someone donate their bone marrow to you, even if you will die without it, an embryo has no right to demand that a woman donate the use of her respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, … systems for its benefit.

              “would we argue on that basis that the father has the right to decide whether the child lives or dies?”

              Let him gestate it. He can donate the use of HIS respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, … systems for its benefit. But he does not get to force the woman to donate the use of hers.

              “It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception.”

              No, it isn’t. Perhaps you’d like to read this excerpt of a developmental biology text: (skip to the section on “Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins” if you’re bored by the historic background)

              It’s estimated that about half of all human embryos die of natural causes prior to implantation because they’re too genetically flawed to even manage early cell division more than a couple of times. If you want to insist that those short-lived embryos are all human beings simply because they’re genetically distinct, OK, but I’m not going to join you.

        2. ZYGOTE

          “Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo’s Conception.

          “Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”

          “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).”


          Fertilization is complete in ~ 24 hours.

          Science deniers watch out!

          1. I’m not a science denier.

            Biologist PZ Meyers: “Life does not begin at conception. It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous.”

            Here’s a good discussion from developmental biologist Scott Gilbert:
            As he notes, “Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.”

            The majority of human zygotes have no biological potential to develop into people. The have genetic flaws that prevent development. The cell might split a few times and then dies. About half of all human embryos die before even implanting. A zygote is not a person.

            1. More evidence, as if we needed anymore, that you’re either a homosexual male (David Brock is that you?) who has no idea what pregnancy feels like to the loving touch of an expectant mother and father, or you are part of the Margaret Sanger death squad that leads black genocide.

              1. Notice that you cannot counter the science, and you can’t even bring yourself to show a video of an embryo (the stage where the vast majority of abortions occur) or even the early fetal stage, instead you focus at the line of viability, where almost no abortions occur unless the woman’s life or health are endangered. Women still die of pregnancy-related complications.

          1. Pity you chose to be like rappers instead of a respectable man like Herman Cain, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and so many other admirable black men

            When did you move to California?

            1. Savage take down but well deserved. Enigma never adds any intellectual heft to discussions, just race baiting emotions. Kudos!

              1. “if he paid attention to science, he might still be with us.” Please explain.

                  1. Wearing a cloth or surgical mask and staying six feet apart does not prevent anyone from spreading or contracting COVID. An N95 mask if properly fitted will prevent 95% of particles in the 0.1 micron size. The coronavirus is 0.12 microns in diameter and the N95 protects down to 0.1 microns, with 95% efficiency, which is where it gets its name. How many “properly fitted” N95s do you see outside a hospital? The particle size of wood smoke on the other hand is 0.3 – 0.7 microns. If you can smell wood smoke while wearing your face covering of choice, you’re not at all protected from COVID. When an infected person exhales, the virus attaches itself to air particles that pass through cloth and surgical masks and can remain in the air for up to 16 hours. How far the virus travels during those 16 hours depends on airflow. Those same air particles carrying the virus will pass through the mask of an uninfected person just as easily as it passed through the infected persons mask. The distancing guidelines are a joke. They’re based on how far large droplets of fluid travel from someone speaking, sneezing, and coughing. That’s great but the guidelines do nothing to protect you from the virus once it’s attached to air particles. Were you wearing goggles or a face shield to protect your eyes? It the virus can attach itself to air particles and hang out for up to 16 hours then you can contract the virus through your eyes. Another reason masks don’t prevent the spread of the virus.

                    1. EIB,

                      Herbert Cain’s quote is relevant and it is true. Margaret Sanger’s plan worked beyond, I am sure, all of her expectations. the number of black children whose mothers have self-terminated their children is greater that the genocides created by both Stalin and Hitler.

                      Is your obligation to your political beliefs so complete that you cannot see this?

                      To be clear, I am not attacking you, i am attacking the false beliefs that you have been indoctrinated with.

                      Herman Cain was a very successful business man despite the odds of his upbringing. The same degree of success against the odds in their respective fields can be attributed to Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elders, Armstrong Williams, Tim Scott, and others of the conservative ilk who are attacked and disparaged by the left for no other reason than the fact that they are black and they are conservative.

                      These men should all be considered to be shining examples of success in their respective fields regardless of their race or their political beliefs but, instead, they are attacked and disdained by the left solely because of their race and their conservative beliefs.

                      You live in Florida, a very conservative, a very free, a very beautiful, and a very friendly state. As an experiment, please spend a day or two without considering that every interaction that you have is based on race or politics.

                      I am very confident that you will find that the cloud that you have been living under has been lifted. You will find that you are treated based on the content of your character, not based on the color of your skin. We do live in a land of blessings for all. That is if, of course, you can remove the blinders and see the blessings.

      2. Best laugh of the day is you wholeheartedly approving of a POTUS or anyone else in the US announcing a job opening that disallows an extremely wide swath of applicants based on physical appearance and gender.

        Is that only OK when your darlings DEMS do it or it is always OK? Hint: it’s a crime to do such thing except when your team does it. The very apec of hypocrisy. Race and gender hatred is good when your team does it. If Trump announced exactly the same but for white males only, you’d scream, “Put him in jail” from the mountain tops.

        1. After RBG died, Trump announced before deciding who he’d nominate that he was going to choose a woman. Trump only nominated white Christians, but I’m sure that’s fine with you.

          1. Why not, we already had proportionate numbers of blacks and hispanics and a disproportionate number of Jews.

            1. Yep, clearly Christians and Jews are the only religious groups in the US.

              Over 20% of the US is agnostic, but for you agnostics, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, … don’t count.

              You’re also wrong about there being “proportionate numbers of … hispanics” on the court, and you ignore Asians entirely.

              You’re also silent about the fact that Trump announced that he’d nominate a woman to replace RBG before he’d decided who to nominate. You think it’s a problem for Biden to commit to nominating a Black woman but not a problem for Trump to commit to nominating a woman. And of course, if you’re hung up on “proportionate numbers,” then over half the Justices should be women, like the population.

              1. “you ignore Asians entirely.”

                Cheer up, homey. At the rate of black hatred of Asians in America, leftists will never be reminded of Asians existing.


                Dirty secret of black-on-Asian violence is out
                Updated: March 2, 2021
                San Francisco Chronicle

                “San Francisco’s hidden truth is out. That’s what community organizer Carol Mo calls the realization that Asian residents are being targeted for robberies, burglaries and intimidation by young black men.

                “It is San Francisco’s dirty little secret,” said Mo, a former Safety Network Community organizer in the Sunset District. “It’s not news to us.”

                Hundreds of people marched into Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting to express their fear, frustration and outrage. But so far the response has been disappointing, particularly from the San Francisco Police Department. It seems intent on downplaying the role of race and its impact in the community.

                The recent incidents of black violence against Asians is the perfect opportunity to open a dialogue about racism. Instead, they are attempting to close the door”

                1. People of all races commit violence against Asians. For example, the guy who murdered several Asian American women in Atlanta is white.

                  1. There’s a huge difference between an Asian being attacked and Asians being attacked because they’re Asian and last I read there was no evidence that was the case in Atlanta.

                    1. Yeah, it’s just a coincidence that six of the eight victims were Asian women, and the Fulton D.A. is seeking to enhance Long’s sentence with hate crime charges for no reason at all.

      3. Not all dems, the jewish judges seem to align, but the moron sotomayor fails miserably all on here own, frequently…I expect this latest prop to fall into the sotomayor camp based on her less than impressive performance. The fact she cannot/will not answer so many questions is telling enough, but her responses are simply mediocre at best. Her interns will be told what to think and they will then write her opinions – best gig ever.

  14. Hows about we get a real search committee of retired (senior) federal judges to pre-screen judicial candiaftes by IQ, test scores, grades and judicial experience and then let El Presidente pick ’em and forward that screening info over to Congress to be reviewed but not publicly disclosed — like we do every other job in America.

      1. That Foundation does not disallow persons based on race/gender like your Holy Hitler Biden did.

          1. Not all of the their recommendations are white. Recent Heritage recommendations include Amul Thapar, Naomi Rao, James Ho, Noel Francisco, and Stephanos Bibas.

            1. SM:

              “Not all of the their recommendations are white. Recent Heritage recommendations include Amul Thapar, Naomi Rao, James Ho, Noel Francisco, and Stephanos Bibas.”
              Shusssh, SM. You’re ruining enigma’s Linda Ronstadt’s routine:

            2. None of them were on the first list provided to Trump to fill the seat left by Scalia after Republicans refused to consider Merrick Garland. He fulfilled his campaign promise to let the Heritage Foundation pick and their list was all white,

                  1. enigma:
                    “The very first player on the list you provided isn’t Black.”
                    No one’s ever seen him in a Knicks uniform. I think he’s on the ready reserve so you can just address the other 20.

                    “The Langhorne, PA-native was signed by New York to 10-day contract on Jan. 6 and then waived on Jan. 13. He signed a second 10-day contract on Jan. 19. He did not appear in any games for the Knicks.”

                    1. I didn’t provide the list, you did. Did any of the non-white people on the later lists provided by the Heritage Foundation ever get an interview with Trump?

                  2. Nice diversion, enigma. Let’s just agree you like only racism (by your outcome based defintion) when its in your favor. It’s okay. At least its honest — unlike Cory.

                    1. Except for noting the comparison to the questioning of Thurgood Marshall (which is no doubt a coincidence) I have only claimed that despite how much they claim to have been polite and respectful. The Senate Republicans were rude and disrespectful. Some, like Thom Tillis were pretty bad at misrepresenting her record, In one case he said she suggested letting out all the Federal prisoners in DC during COVID-19 when she said the opposite and told him to look down two lines from where he quoted. When corrected, he still summed up her testimony by having advocated freeing prisoners. They would have been just as rude and nasty to any Biden nominee, they just got extra points from the base because it was a Black woman.

      2. Or one could always leave the entire search process to the American Constitution Society and promise to pick from their list of radical Leftists like Brown Jackson

  15. Senator Blackburn missed a great follow-up question yesterday after KBJ said she could not define a woman. This should have been the follow-up: “Judge what are you, a woman, a man or something else? And if she said a woman, then “Judge, how do you know that?”

    1. Watch out!!!! That kind of thinking will have the PC police knocking at. your twitter account at midnight.

    2. Ketanji Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is.

      Ketanji Jackson was nominated because she is a woman.

      Did Joe Biden make some kind of monumental mistake?

      The Constitution does not differentiate regarding people, candidates, officers, etc.

      Affirmative Action is so ridiculously counterintuitive, illicit, antithetical and unconstitutional, it has become what it has always been, incoherent, incomprehensible and wrong, even to its very recipients and beneficiaries.

      This product of inordinate indoctrination by Karl Marx University doesn’t know she’s a woman or what a woman is, but she is more than willing to accept all the bias and “free stuff” she can get her hands on.

    3. I had the same thought. But the senator should have started with: Are you a woman? Answer: yes. Then: How do you define woman? If she would say: I don’t know, the follow up would be: Then how do you know you are a woman?

  16. Excuse me.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Mr. Alexander Hamilton would like to say a few words to Judge Jackson.

    Al, go ahead, Al.


    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton


      Ketanji Brown Jackson Accused of Judicial ‘Activism’ for Halting Deportations of Illegal Aliens

      President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, was accused of judicial “activism” for a ruling where she halted quick deportations for newly arrived illegal aliens despite federal law. During the third day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) accused Jackson of “activism” in her role as a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.). In the case, the George Soros-linked Make the Road New York sued former President Trump’s administration for its expanded expedited deportation of illegal aliens who had not resided in the U.S. for more than two years.

      The federal statute states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has “sole and unreviewable discretion” to carry out the policy of expedited deportation.

      Jackson issued a preliminary injunction to halt the policy on the grounds that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and did not sufficiently weigh the impact that the policy would have on illegal aliens. “That, to me, is exhibit A of activism,” Graham said. “… you’re not convincing me that it is anything other than activism.” “For those of us in the law writing business, I don’t know how you could tell a judge more clearly that the administration, the agency in question, has discretion to do certain things within the statute,” Graham said:

      So this is an example to me, and you may not agree, where the plain language of the statute was completely wiped out by you. You reached a conclusion because you disagreed with the Trump administration. [Emphasis added]

      Graham also noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed Jackson’s ruling, stating that she exceeded her legal authority because the statute left this matter to the discretion of DHS and did not empower a federal judge to override that judgment. “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,” the court stated. “The ‘forceful phrase ‘sole and unreviewable discretion,’ by its exceptional terms.”

      – John Binder

Comments are closed.