Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Media, Politics, Supreme Court

“We Have Never Had This Moment Before”: The Jackson Confirmation Shows Striking Differences From Prior Confirmations

Below is my column in USA Today on the confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. For the most part, the hearings remained respectful and civil. I criticized some of the questioning from Republican senators on relevance or tone, but the difference with the prior three nominations was striking in a number of respects. Judge Jackson faced tough questioning on her prior decisions, but there were no giant pictures of alleged future victims or attacks on her religion or family that we saw two years ago. Indeed, as Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.), stated “This is not a normal day for America. We have never had this moment before.”

Here is the column:

The famous “gonzo journalist” Hunter S. Thompson once said, “Politics is the art of controlling your environment.” The confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is about to vividly show what Thompson meant. Less than two years after the abusive treatment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Senate is holding a hearing that is dramatically different in the treatment of the Supreme Court nominee and the issues considered relevant to her confirmation.

For those with memories going back to 2020, there have been striking differences in how the news media haved covered Jackson’s nomination in recent weeks. When Barrett was nominated, the media ran unrelenting attacks on her and her background. Nothing was viewed as out of bounds, from her religion to her personal life to fabricated theories of prior assurances on pending cases.

From the start of the Jackson hearing, this is clearly different in both optics and approaches. Barrett was surrounded by pictures of people relying on the Affordable Care Act, a framing to portray Barrett as threatening the very lives of sick people. It was all part of an absurd claim (fostered by liberal legal experts) that Barrett was appointed to kill the ACA.

I objected at the time that senators were radically misconstruing the pending case and that Barrett was more likely to vote to preserve the ACA. (Barrett ultimately voted to preserve the act, as expected.)

There will be no gallery of endangered people surrounding Jackson. Most senators will give her the confirmation hearing that was denied to Barrett: respectful and civil. That is a good thing.

Yet, the Jackson nomination should not be treated as inviolate.

Questions about judicial philosophy

Almost immediately after Jackson’s nomination, liberal members and commentators made clear that past questions or criticisms would not be tolerated or would even be declared racist. For example, while past Republican nominees were called “political deliverables” on presidential campaign promises, the phrase was declared categorically  “offensive” by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Min., in this nomination.

That is a triviality in comparison to more substantive and outstanding questions. While every prior nominee has been subject to questions about judicial philosophy, it was declared a racist dog whistle to even note that Jackson’s philosophy is not clear (particularly given her past refusal to discuss her philosophy).

While past nominees have been found to have similarly limited records on constitutional interpretation, a senior editor at Above the Law declared asking such questions as akin to declaring her a “lesser Black woman.”

Indeed, the expectations for the hearing were made clear by Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who insisted that Jackson’s confirmation is “beyond politics,” and that the vote is not about her alone but “about the country, our pursuit of a more perfect union.”

For those of us who have covered virtually every living member of the Supreme Court in their confirmations, the expected limitations are glaring and troubling.

As I said immediately after her nomination, I like many aspects of Jackson’s background, particularly her work as a public defender and a trial judge. I also stated that President Joe Biden did Jackson and others a great disservice in declaring that he would not consider anyone but Black female candidates. Jackson would have been on the shortlist without such a threshold exclusionary criteria.

Jackson herself rejected the notion (pushed by Biden and supporters) that she would rule differently as an African American female. In her prior confirmation, Jackson said, “I don’t think that race plays a role in the kind of judge that I have been and that I would be.”

I commended Jackson for that position, and I expect she will handle herself brilliantly this week. However, the Senate hearing will be manifestly different from the prior nomination.

Barrett was the subject of disgraceful attacks on the basis of her religious beliefs. Senators called on her to explain her association with People of Praise, a small Christian group in Indiana. The group once referred to female leaders as “handmaids,” and liberal commentators had a field day with vicious and vulgar assaults.

Yet, there is virtually no mention of Jackson’s position on an advisory board for the now-defunct Montrose Christian School in Rockville, Maryland.

As one conservative commentator has documented, the school provided “Christ-centered education for the glory of the Savior and the good of society.” Among the school’s “uncompromisingly” held principles were that gender is a gift that’s “part of the goodness of God’s creation”; that Christians must oppose “all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography”; that marriage is the “uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime”; and that Christians should “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”

Even the fact that the Barrett family is interracial (like the Jackson family) was not off-limits. Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, declared that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested the children were little more than props to their mother.

What needs to be answered

I do not agree with some objections to Jackson, like her alleged support of critical race theory, her advocacy for clients or her work as a judicial clerk.

There are other issues that need to be addressed, including what could be the ultimate issue for confirmation. In the Barrett confirmation, some Democratic members not only demanded Barrett tell them how she was likely to vote on pending cases, they also declared they’d vote against her purely for holding a conservative judicial philosophy.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., opposed Barrett because her interpretive approach would work “against change and evolution in America that is inevitable and in fact necessary.”

According to that standard, every Republican senator could presumably vote against Jackson if they viewed her as supporting liberal interpretative models like the “living Constitution.” After all, Biden pledged that he would only nominate someone who holds a liberal view of the Constitution on “unenumerated rights.”

What is striking about the pushback on asking about Jackson’s interpretative approach is that some of us do not want to simply assume that she will just apply a liberal approach. Her trial court decisions shed little light on that question, and she previously refused to discuss her philosophy. Yet, those who insist that she has a clear philosophy are more clear in their objections than their analysis – or what that constitutional interpretative approach is.

Jackson is not the first nominee with such questions over judicial philosophy. However, no nominee is inviolate. This is not about the republic. It is about this nominee and her approach to questions of judicial interpretation and judicial ethics.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

141 thoughts on ““We Have Never Had This Moment Before”: The Jackson Confirmation Shows Striking Differences From Prior Confirmations”

  1. Turley says:

    “Barrett was the subject of disgraceful attacks on the basis of her religious beliefs. Senators called on her to explain her association with People of Praise, a small Christian group in Indiana. The group once referred to female leaders as “handmaids,” and liberal commentators had a field day with vicious and vulgar assaults.

    Yet, there is virtually no mention of Jackson’s position on an advisory board for the now-defunct Montrose Christian School in Rockville, Maryland.”

    Jackson is not a member of a fringe religious group whose cultists practice glossolalia:

    “Does Amy Coney Barrett babble in tongues?”

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/does-amy-coney-barrett-babble-in-tongues/

    “She’s a fervent Roman Catholic who belongs to a charismatic fringe clique, People of Praise, whose members reportedly babble “the tongues” like Pentecostals. Various researchers say that this kooky practice has spread so much that one-fourth of all Christians around the world are tongue-talkers.”

    Call me crazy, but kooks who speak in tongues have no place on the SC.

    Case closed.

  2. Bob M delightfully says:

    “The only way a white male will breeze through going forward is if he chops his balls off or converts to Islam kinda like Jeff Silberman and Dennis McIntyre respectively speaking”

    Another Trumpist commentator of whom Turley must be so proud that he is a member of his “blog family.”

    Is there any question that Turley would absolutely deplore such a vile statement?
    Given the likes of Bob M, can there be any doubt that Turley is a NeverTrumper?

    Will any you Trumpists disavow such revolting comments or do you embrace them as your own?

      1. Correction: “American Nazis” and ONLY in retaliation for being called a Marxist or commie. Don’t lie.

  3. A timeless tutorial for enigma, before his time. This was the most important album in any college dorm room, at least for me and my friends.

    1. Not before my time, perhaps even after. I would have sworn my high school choir (of which I was a member) sang a couple songs from the musical. Turns out it must have been the Fifth Dimension version of “Let The Sunshine In,” as the musical and film didn’t come out until I was done with college. I’m not sure where the education comes in. As a high school athlete in Minnesota, I witnessed lots of white girls seeking that chocolate. I personally was too shy at the time to take much advantage of the offerings. I started school a year early and was universally younger than all the girls in my class and did I say shy? When I got to college, an HBCU, and the ratio of women to men was 8:1 I found my way.

  4. Lets all just pray Justice Thomas is ok and back on the bench soon. If anything happens him, America is in real trouble…

    1. Absolutely. He needs his own trusted security and food tasters with him round the clock. They are going to ‘Scalia’ him. It’s a premonition I’m having.

  5. “THE BARACK HUSSEIN AND KETANJI SHOW”

    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    Oh, good.

    A pledge of allegiance, what?

    Most certainly, they persist in the same vein as the American Forefathers (i.e. actual) and Founders.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    “Ketanji?”

    That name suggests a deep and abiding love for America.

    There can be no doubt that a person by that name is determined to achieve complete assimilation into America while “shedding the skin” and allegiances of foreign nations.

    Clearly, a person by that name entertains no ill will for America and has no need to “fundamentally transform” America into something at variance with the intent of its Founders, precisely because of that person’s love for America and that person’s belief in American exceptionalism.

    A prima facie, true American patriot, I say, in league with…

    Ketanji Washington, Ketanji Jefferson, Ketanji Madison, Ketanji Hamilton, Ketanji Adams, Ketanji Franklin, Ketanji Hancock, Ketanji Henry, Ketanji Jay, Kentanji Mason, Ketanji Monroe, Ketanji Paine et al.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Is your “Social Score” sufficiently politically correct yet, all you spineless, treasonous, communist, milquetoast poltroons?

    You keep working on that cowardice in the face of the enemy, and the comprehensive surrender of your rights, your freedoms and your nation.

    The courageous and determined Ukrainians, sacrificing “life and limb” for their country, are reminiscent of the American Founders; unfortunately, they are long gone.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  6. I think the better comparison is to how Republicans treated the last nominee of a Democratic President, Merrick Garland.

    Republicans stole that seat. They would steal this one if they could. The only reason there is a hearing at all is that the Democrats control the Senate. They will probably steal the next one if Thomas were to die next year or something.

    Spare me the lamenting of the lack of civility on the Democratic side.

      1. He can’t answer that. Democrats set the stage, and Republicans followed using the stage the Democrats set.

    2. Come on, man! Quit yer whining about Garland. Democrats would have done the same thing.

    4. If you don’t see how lacking in civility the Dems regularly are, then you are not paying attention. You are just regurgitating media talking points. Which are lies.

    5. It is an exercise in futility to endeavor in debate with a fraud and a liar.

      The withholding of Garland’s confirmation was entirely legal and shall stand in perpetuity.

      The author knows that well and thoroughly.

      There is precisely NO time constraint enumerated in Article 2.

      The Senate may provide Advice and Consent at a time of its choosing.

      The President has no power to formally compel any particular date or time of the provision of Advice and Consent by the Senate.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Article 2, Section 2

      The President shall…nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,…

      1. “It is an exercise in futility to endeavor in debate with a fraud and a liar. ”

        That’s why I never bother debating you.

  7. Anyone who can sit there and say she doesn’t know what a woman is, lacks credibility and should be rejected on that basis alone. An appointment to the Supreme Court isn’t a game. If Jackson isn’t willing to be honest in response to questions, she has no business sitting on the nation’s highest court.

    1. But she’s not a biologist, right, so how can that be a fair question?

        2. I heard a good one, though.

          Q: What’s a woman?

          A: The person who came in second behind the man who won the Women’s NCAA swimming championship.

      2. Anonymous – since she is not a biologist, does she think her daughters are women?

        1. More tellingly – She can’t explain what a woman is yet uses the word in her responses to questions, daily conversations and writings. The relevant question – what to call a person who regularly uses words which they have no idea what they mean?

          1. Anonymous – we are going to have to have a biologist certify Jackson is a woman before she qualifies for the two-part Biden test for the Supreme Court. However, Biden could have done his own exam in advance. 😉

          2. Only because in 2005 Biden blocked the *first* Black woman from sitting on the Supreme Court.

            Why would a Democrat stand in the way of the first African American woman being elevated to the high court?

            Because Democrats don’t believe blacks should have the power to think for themselves. If you don’t vote for him or share his ideology, “You ain’t black” ….and you ‘deserve’ nothing but being shoved out of the way. Total disrespect for ‘wrong think.’ Get in line Black people. Don’t go off plantation, now. That is Joe Biden. Racist through and through.

  8. First of all, Turley, you know damn good and well that everything Cotton, Graham, Cruz and that bleached blondie hillbilly from Tennessee did at the confirmation hearings was pure show: to get free air time on Fox and other alt-right news and to pander to the Trump base, especially the Q Anoners, because you and I both know that Judge Jackson will be confirmed. They performed solely to show off for the disciples. They were rude and disrespectful to her and Graham went on an unhinged rant about Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, which Judge Jackson had nothing to do with. They also LIED about her being soft on possessors of child pornography to the point of demagoguery, according to the National Review. AND, possessors of child pornography are not child molesters either, but the two things were intentionally conflated, because, as is well-established, the disciples will believe anything they are told by alt-right media.

    From Talking Points Memo:

    “Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got what they set out to achieve in their performances during Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings Wednesday: airtime on Fox News.

    The four hectored her, with raised voices and constant interruptions, on her record of sentencing people in possession of child pornography. Their theatrical intent was clear at the time: many repeatedly asked questions that she’d already answered, and cut her off when she tried to explain the complicated process of sentencing those crimes.

    Hawley asked repeatedly if Jackson “regrets” her sentences, picking out lines from a handful of cases he thought sounded damning for her. Graham slapped the dias, and dramatically stormed from the chamber when his time concluded. Cruz appeared to check his mentions on Twitter after shouting at Jackson and trying to prevent the next questioner, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), from taking over.

    The core of their argument, that Jackson has been unacceptably lenient with those in possession of child pornography, has been debunked by nearly every large news outlet. Representatives from the American Bar Association, after interviewing hundreds of people, said they found “no evidence,” including from prosecutors, that Jackson downgraded sentences for those kinds of crimes.”

    But, as we all know, Turley, you’re not paid to be fair or reasonable: just keep the disciples riled up with political punditry masquerading as reasoned legal commentary. The big difference between Judge Jackson’s nomination and those of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett is that the POTUS who nominated her did NOT cheat to get into office, nor did one of the nominees take a seat that rightfully belonged to the choice of the predecessor, whose nomination was blocked by Mitch McConnell. Judge Jackson’s nomination was not pre-vetted by the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society whose views and values do NOT represent the majority of Americans.

    1. Natacha: Well, either you are a lawyer or a talk-show host. Why use fifty words when a thousand is better, am I right? Plus, I guess you are the arbiter of who represents a majority of Americans? I don’t count myself as part of your posse fortunately.

      1. I’m going by the last election results in which Republicans got trounced, losing the Presidency and the Senate and also opinion polls on issues like abortion rights, civil rights and voting rights in which the Federalist Society’s views are drastically far-right of the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans. These are things they don’t explain to you on alt-right media. I’m not an “arbiter” of anything: just reporting the results, including the analysis done by the National Review who called Republicans’ attacks on Judge Jackson’s sentencing decisions to be untrue to the point of demagoguery. And, I AM an attorney, too, but I don’t have a posse. However, your comment to me does display the depth of your discipleship. You consider yourself “fortunate” to disagree with me, but I’m not offering my opinions about anything other than Turley’s selective commentary. Trump lost the popular vote and DID cheat his way into office. McConnell DID block Merrick Garland’s nomination for the alleged excuse of the proximity of the upcoming election, but then changed the ground rules when it came to a chance to shove Barrett onto the Court. Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch were all vetted by the Federalist Society. Their presence on the SCOTUS is in defiance of the wishes of most Americans.

        1. “Their presence on the SCOTUS is in defiance of the wishes of most Americans.”

          Actually, their presence on SCOTUS gives Americans the hopeful reassurance that America, Land of the Free, will still be around in a few years.

          1. No, the agenda of the radical right-wing judges, nominated by someone who lost the popular vote and who cheated his way into office, WORRY most Americans because they fear that the liberties we now have will be curtailed by their flawed interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            1. What liberties do we fear will be curtailed by radical right-wing judges?

              Because, hon, it’s actually the other way around.

            2. Natacha, you keep saying things, but when another brings in verifiable facts, suddenly you can’t speak.

              I am waiting for your reply on my explanation of international law and the Mideast, along with your reply to immigration. Since you refuse to follow up, we can assume we know why. You are a big talker but don’t know what you are talking about.

        2. Today at NATO, Biden also said there are “food shortages” coming!

          Maybe even WW3!

          Let’s Go Brandon!

    2. Must of hit a nerve with you now throwing out names, swear words and such. If you can stand the heat………..

    3. STFU. This was nothing compared to the garbage Democrat behavior for the last two constitutionalist appointees.

  9. “For the most part, the hearings remained respectful and civil.”
    The “questioning” by Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, and Graham, were neither respectful nor civil. Graham and Cruz in particular abused the rules and under a strong Chairman might have been thrown out. Many of the Republicans and now Turley, kept saying how much better they were than the Democrats. Saying it doesn’t make it so. Their tone and topics were quite similar to the questioning of Thurgood Marshall.

    1. When we see people from the right storming the hearings, only then will the right have descended to the apish levels of the left.

      1. Like people from the right stormed the recounts in Florida of Gore v Bush. Like they stormed the recounts in Arizona of Trump v Biden. Like they brought guns to the Michigan Capital to kidnap the Governor, stormed the Capital in Atlanta, That respectful group?

        1. There was an agitated left in Florida, You are making things up.

          Kidnap the governor? Most were FBI agents inciting people.

          1. None were FBI agents.

            Even if you think some were FBI informants, informants are not FBI agents. Sheesh.

    2. enigmainblack: Biden and all big-time lefties had to make this about race, just as you have here. I thought justice was supposed to be blind, which means it shouldn’t matter a bit if she’s black, purple, green or blue. That being said, I know it’s super important to you and Corey Booker types.

      1. Yeah, it was a coincidence that all of Trump’s nominees were white Christians.

        1. Yet you don’t provide any compliments for the appointment of Clarence Thomas. He’s black.

    3. I don’t think she’s been declared a rapist, a child murder, etc, so yes, these hearings are more civil and respectful that Kavanaugh and Barrett’s…. Can we not get someone that is more intelligent that the Senator from Hawaii? Review, reflect and then come up for air.

        1. The FBI did investigate. That is standard. The investigation you are talking about is the supplemental investigation. Blame the Democrats for withholding what they called evidence though most know they were lies.

          1. A supplemental investigation of a SCOTUS nominee is controlled by the WH. The FBI only investigated what the WH directed it to investigate.

        2. Stop it. Please stop repeating your nonsense. All those decades in government, as a judge, jurist, in the courts, etc, you can be sure that the FBI did extensive background and security clearance checks on Kav. Of course they did. The man is not a rapist, for pete’s sake, stop it. ALL of these flimsy accusations that came out of nowhere were bullsh*t. And everyone in DC knows it.

        3. Blasey Ford should be prosecuted for lying. As should each and every false accuser. Prosecute them all.

            1. Ha, ha, ha. Are you the one pushing that over and over again. You got beaten pretty bad so I don’t think I can trust you.

        4. “Since the FBI refused to investigate, we don’t really know Kavanaugh isn’t a rapist, or Trump for that matter.”
          ************************************
          By the same logic, I don’t know if you’re Mao Zedong, Jimmy Swaggert or Smoking Joe Frazier since the FBI hasn’t investigated you either. Guilt first; investigate later!

          1. The FBI claimed they would investigate after being presented with witnesses under oath testifying against him. The investigation was a sham and didn’t involve any of the witnesses. If someone testifies against me that I am any of those you named. Their would be cause to investigate if they had been accused of a crime.

            2. enigma………I posted an educational video for you, and am rather hurt that you’ve snubbed it.

              1. I’m sorry. I miossed it. Unless something is a direct reply to me, I rarely see it. Trying to have a life and all, What was I expected to have learned?

                1. enigma…….it’s in this comment section……the great musical number “Black Boys/White Boys” from the Broadway show “Hair”, 1968, and still relevant to day. Enjoy!

    4. Excuse us. Their tone and topics?

      She is being questioned for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court where her judgements will affect the lives of millions. She does not ‘deserve’ total deference just because her strategy was to simply say “I don’t know” or “I can’t say” and refusing to answer simple, entirely relevant queries into her record.

      It’s not like they pulled out her high school yearbook and starting asking questions, line by line, about things she did as a teenager. She was being cagey about answering relevant and legitimate questions. And her lack of candor and transparency was unacceptable for someone being elevated to the highest court in the land.

      1. Anonymous,

        “ She is being questioned for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court where her judgements will affect the lives of millions. She does not ‘deserve’ total deference just because her strategy was to simply say “I don’t know” or “I can’t say” and refusing to answer simple, entirely relevant queries into her record.”

        The same can be said about Barrett and. Kavanaugh. Both also refused to answer “simple questions” or “simply said “I don’t know” or “ I can’t say”. Every nominee has gone through this kind of scrutiny.

        1. Not the same. Barrett and Kav were treated like circus freaks in the freakshow created by Dems and their media allies.

          Jackson was questioned “harshly” about relevant issues and that is the equivalent? Sorry, but no.

        2. Enigma was objecting to the “tone” and the “topics,” which is laughable. Nothing is off limits with a Republican nominee, nothing, but Jackson is not supposed to be asked questions in a “harsh” tone about her relevant record?

          Quite frankly, if Republican senators did not aggressively probe Jackson’s record, they would be committing political malpractice.

          Everything they did and how they did it was appropriate –and required– given the circumstances.

        3. Intellectually challenged comment by Svelaz, the wonder of wonders.

          Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Judge Barrett to explain in plain English what her judicial philosophy, known as originalism, means and the nominee replied:

          “In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. 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.”
          —
          Simple and direct as opposed to evasive and meaningless.

          1. If that’s what she believes, then she’d have to conclude that embryos and fetuses are not persons, because the Founders didn’t believe that an embryo or fetus was a person. Had they believed that embryos and fetuses were persons, they’d have counted them in the Census, which requires an enumeration of all persons.

    5. Enigma, Turley stated that, “ I criticized some of the questioning from Republican senators on relevance or tone, but the difference with the prior three nominations was striking in a number of respects.”

      The criticism was nothing more then a faint mention that he disagreed with the subjects those Republican legislators were bringing up. Turley essentially is stating the same “trivial” grievances about the treatment of the previous two nominees. Barrett’s religious leanings were so overly obvious and dominant that questioning regarding them were warranted. It was fair to scrutinize her beliefs in whether she would be using her faith as the basis for her decisions instead of the law. It’s just deeper scrutiny that she brought onto herself.

      With Kavanaugh it involved serious allegations of sexual harassment bought in by credible allegations. Not to mention the lying under oath. Kavanaugh’s performance itself was pitiful to the point that he had assert tearfully that “I like beer”.

      Those two confirmations were different because the nominees were highly controversial in character and because of how their nominations came to be. One withholding Garland until after the election and the other rushing it prior to an election. Turley’s criticism is as usual lacking on specifics.

      1. Barrett wrote a legal piece about how Roe could be circumvented without disturbing stare decisis, and THAT’s why she was nominated. I agree about there being credible allegations against Kavanaugh by a credible witness, and the criticism that Republicans blocked efforts dozens of witnesses who also wanted to testify about his character. So far, Republicans haven’t come up with anything comparable about Judge Jackson, so they resort to lying about her sentencing orders to the point that even the National Review called the lying and attacks “demagoguery”. Gorsuch is occupying Merrick Garland’s seat. That’s why the attacks on Judge Jackson are so pathetic, plus the fact that it’s all done for show, pandering to the base with racist dog whistles thrown in: the implication about her being “soft on crime” is that blacks are basically criminals and she’s sympathetic to their criminality because she is black, too. In fact she was accused of lying, and this misrepresentation about her has stuck. See the comment of “Anonymous” below, who accuses her of “lying by trying to pass herself off as some kind of unbiased neutral arbiter of the law. She’s not. She’s a leftie” I know exactly where this lie came from.

    6. btw, the best thing about her is her blackness and her lovely parents sitting there behind her. Most people want her to succeed. But she presents herself as all things to all people and that is a lie. She is lying by trying to pass herself off as some kind of unbiased neutral arbiter of the law. She’s not. She’s a leftie. And those deeply held beliefs WILL affect her judgments. She’s being dishonest and that is not acceptable when being considered for the highest court in the land. Just one of her decisions on the supreme court can affect people’s lives and for her to be so disingenuous is rightfully concerning.

    7. enigma – I saw the Chairman try to protect the judge from Cruz. Durbin kept testifying on her behalf. She wouldn’t. BTW, Nick Rieketa went thru the case that she sentenced the cp guy to 24 months. It is sicking. And he re-offended.

      1. So Cruz didn’t defy the rules and prevent her from answering questions by interrupting? Cruz showed what his purpose was by checking his Twitter reviews after arguing with the chairman.

        1. enigma – show me in the rules where the Senator cannot interrupt?

            1. Bill – Jackson was dodging the question and eating up time. Cruz was making her look bad.

              1. Which question, as he interrupted every answer to every question? Those predisposed to think she was soft on crime or a friend to child pornographers will probably never think otherwise, though her sentencing record seems to be similar to other Judges.

                  1. She answered questions in the same manner as every nominee I’ve watched since Clarence Thomas. She was being asked questions designed to paint her as something she wasn’t. She was called a liar to her face by a group just waiting for her to respond with anger so they could condemn her for that.

                    1. Because she is lying. She was exposed after she lied to Cruz about her knowledge of CRT. The Dems and WH are hiding her full record where it shows her advocating for lighter sentences for pedos. She’s lying about who she is and what she believes. Unacceptable.

                    2. Bill – she was asked to explain why she was cutting sentences by 47% of the recommendation.

                    3. Of which recommendation? The Prosecutor, the sentencing guidelines, or the probation department sentencing recommendation which she generally followed sometimes exceeded and is in line with other judges across the country.?

                    5. Yes for CP, there were cases above, below, and the same as the probation department sentencing guidelines. For all the talk about her being soft on child pornographers, you know who Republican Congressman are soft on, their own members accused of sexual harassment. rape, child trafficking, et al. How is Gym Jordan doing, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump? The list is pretty long.

                    7. I did see that. I don’t know the reasoning for the decision, she had a shady lawyer acting on her behalf which can’t bode well for his clients. I didn’t take it to mean Trump didn’t cheat on his wife with her.

                    8. enigma – Stormy is claiming she will go to jail rather than pay the 300k. However, her ex-lawyer owes her 300k.

                    10. “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.”

                      You need to listen again to the entire exchange.

                      And try really hard to accept the FACT that she was treated entirely fairly. It is a confirmation process for a lifetime appointment and she was not treated poorly in any of the exhanges. SHE came across as not fully prepared, she lied, she was exposed and SHE was less than forthcoming.

                      It is exasperating listening to you drone on the same baloney you hear on MSLSD.

            2. Not when she is filibustering and not responding to the question asked.

          2. BTW, if you’re keeping track, does it still seem like I’m the one trolling? I accidentally responded to him once, I’ll try not to let that happen again.

  10. I’ll believe this signals a new day when the next republican nominee is treated as respectfully and civilly. As I remember the free for alls at the Bork and Thomas hearings were followed by 2 fairly amicable hearings for RGB and Breyer. Then it got less civil with Roberts and Alito and then fairly quiet with Kagan and Sotomayor, and then built up again to a near brawl with the last 2 republican nominees. There seems to be a pattern there. I will bide my time about new days and such.

  11. During the Kavanaugh hearings the LIBERALS invited like minded America-haters into the hearing room, we don’t see that now do we?

    During and after the Kavanaugh hearings LEFTISTS stormed the Capitol even entering the Senator’s elevator to scream at senators with whom they disagree. Is this not a little insurctiony? Imagine if right wing folks stormed into the capitol to demand something…oh, never mind as we still have trespassers sitting in prison 13 months later. (In blue states rapists get bail, guys involved in gun crimes get bail, drug dealers get bail and rioters get bail. But if you are a right wing rioter you rot in jail. I could live with long sentences for rioters, BUT MAKE IT FOR ALL RIOTERS, NOT JUST RIOTERS THAT ARE AGAINST DEMOCRATS.

    1. The people who interrupted the Kavanaugh hearings were arrested and charged. They did not break into the Capitol, they did not cause damages to the Capitol, they did not steal, they did not attack the Capitol Police.

  12. Meanwhile, Turley, your premature victory lap regarding resignations of the Manhattan DA Office attorneys completely got it wrong as to the reasons:

    “An ex-Manhattan prosecutor who was investigating former President Donald Trump’s business dealings said in his February resignation letter that he believes Trump is “guilty of numerous felony violations.”

    In the letter, published Thursday by the New York Times, Mark Pomerantz wrote that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would not authorize prosecution of the case he and another attorney, Carey Dunne, had built against the former president — a decision Pomerantz called a “grave failure of justice.”

    “I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest,” Pomerantz said.”

    Are you going to apologize, Turley, or at least admit you were wrong?

      1. The NY Times retracted its comment about Hunter Biden owning the laptop. The orange one you worship constantly lies and has NEVER apologized about it.

        1. Nor should he. Never apologize. Never bow to the Democrat mob.

          btw, speaking of telling lies. Where are the NYT fact checking reporters?
          Biden was over in his NATO meeting today telling his lies yet again, on the world stage.
          He falsely claimed police officers were killed in the Capitol riot. That’s a lie.
          And he repeated the “very fine people on both sides” lie.
          Will no one call Biden on his lies?
          He just keeps repeating them, seeming to believe the lies he tells are true.
          They are true only in his mixed up mind.

          1. Does this sh*t ever end with you disciples? Trump DID say there were “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville riot, AFTER Heater Heyer was murdered, then, after it made him look bad, he tried to walk it back, as did Kellyanne Conway . At least one Capitol Policeman died of a stroke brought on by his injuries at the hands of Trumpsters. These are FACTS which are lied about on the alt-right media you faithfully watch constantly.

            Trump refuses to apologize because: 1. he is a sociopath and malignant narcissist, so he can never be wrong; 2. his greatest nightmare is the fear of being branded “loser”, which is why no amount of evidence will ever get him to admit that the lies about his “landslide victory” being “stolen” will ever get him to stop lying about it; 3. he’s NO patriot. The awesome responsibilities and opportunities to make history by working for the benefit of America that come with the office of the POTUS never fazed him, because it was always about HIM first: the power, adulation, attention and praise. He has NO interest in being a role model or advocate for the best things in America, because all he has ever cared about his himself, getting praise, attention, and adulation, and he will tell whatever lies he has to get the faithful to cheer for him. It would have been in the best interests of America for him to: 1. stop lying about losing; he DID lose, both in 2016 and 2020, and he cannot litigate, bully or riot his way past the will of the American people; 2. respect the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power by graciously conceding, congratulating Biden on his victory, wishing him success, welcoming his family to the White House (like Barak and Michelle Obama did) and attending his inauguration. Instead, like the loser he is, he slinked out of town, and still won’t shut up. He keeps trying to stay involved in politics, tries to undermine President Biden by criticizing everything he does, and his lies and rhetoric, as well as those of his personal media enablers, are being used as Russian propaganda. And, he still holds rallies because his fragile ego needs the attention and praise, charging the faithful money to cheer for him, but refuses to declare his candidacy. Taking money in this manner is a violation of federal election law. because if you are officially a candidate, there are laws that govern how the money must be applied.

            Your hero keeps stirring the pot, keeps on dividing America and giving aid and comfort to Russians, who helped him cheat in 2016, by undermining President Biden. But you say it is a “Democrat mob” that opposes Trump? Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but MOST Americans voted against him in 2020, and not all of them are Democrats. Most Americans are proud of the peaceful transfer of power that is a hallmark of American democracy, and are disturbed by his refusal to simply shut up, go away, and stop trying to pretend that he is the President. It’s time for Americans to pull together, but Trump is like a sore that won’t heal.

            1. Let’s do a fact check, shall we?

              Here is the exact quote from Biden’s remarks today in Brussels:

              “That’s a ridiculous comparison,” Biden said. “It’s one thing for literally criminals to break through cordon, go into the Capitol, kill a police officer, and be held unaccountable than it is for people objecting and marching on the Capitol and saying, ‘You are not allowing me to speak freely. You are not allowing me to do A, B, C, or D.'”

            3. “Your hero keeps stirring the pot…”

              Good!

              If Biden is “restoring the soul of America” ……and we have bare shelves, out of control gas prices, out of control inflation, food shortages coming, more division than ever, War is back, WW3, nuclear war?? Holy crap.

              Let’s Go Brandon!

              MAGA!

            4. The Biden White House is the biggest spreader of mis and dis information.

            5. Natacha, I would challenge you on your facts but each time I provide verifiable data you run away knowing that your facts last as long as an ice cube in the middle of the Sahara desert.

  13. Professor……Although I deeply appreciate your honorable writings, I wish, just once, you would break character, abandon civility and call your damn Democrats something akin to “fascist pig thugs that deserve to burn in hell” for what they’re doing to the Constitution and good people of our country! We appreciate your recognition that the Dems are deeply flawed, but they need serious thrashing by revered members of their own party……. like yourself.
    Please, sir, being a gentleman didn’t work for Chamberlain, and it’s not effective now against these sinister soul-less, agents of evil. You’re Catholic, so you would be able ask forgiveness in the confessional.

    3. Cindy Bragg: Huh, keep in mind that a piece of writing is likely to be read by people across the ideological spectrum. If the piece uses tough language, it is not likely to cause anyone to re-think a position, but would just be seen as a partisan hit piece.

      1. Some people on the left are starting to see their folly in voting for Biden. They see it when they fill up their cars or buy food at a restaurant or grocery store. Some are made fearful when they hear of war and nuclear weapons, a war that would not have occurred but for Biden’s ineptness and corruption. Parents might soon start to think that their children might fight a war.

        The left is starting to think those very words Cindy has spoken. Of course, there are those on the blog who are faithful leftists and fly the leftist flag while talking the leftist talking points.

      2. Antoninus Pius…..LOL…….I’m a housewife, a Granny in a wheelchair, a retired public school music teacher, and will turn 80 in 4 years. With these credentials, I could not possibly produce enough drama that would be considered a partisan “hit piece”..LOL. But thanks for the laugh.

        1. Ciondy Bragg – even in a wheel chair, you are a tough broad. 😉

            1. Cindy Bragg – I am sure Mr Bragg is scared sh**less of you and that wheelchair. 🙂

              1. Paul.Schulte… Oh yeah…..Miz Bragg , known as “wheels” among the gangsta elite, is a force to be dealt with……so much so that Mr Bragg, 1971 Peace Corps survivor, sleeps with his trusty Boy Scout slingshot, and one eye open.

          2. …And she knows she is a woman. That is something leftist XX genders lack (along with the XY). They aren’t sure what their permanent gender is. It can change at any moment.

    4. Cindy Bragg asks:

      “Professor……Although I deeply appreciate your honorable writings, I wish, just once, you would break character, abandon civility and call your damn Democrats something akin to “fascist pig thugs that deserve to burn in hell” for what they’re doing to the Constitution and good people of our country!”

      Sorry, sweetie, but Turley is a NeverTrumper. He’ll never be like you. Forget it. That’s why I defend him against Trumpists like you who suppose he is on your side of things. He’s not. He’s on my side- an educated, elite Liberal legal scholar. He has never voted for Trump and disparaged him as a “carnival snake charmer.”

      1. You don’t even know what a Never Trumper is. Keep insulting Turley, but watch out because they take the garbage out on Saturday.

          1. In other words, you are like one of those that uses four-letter words all the time and is too dumb to realize he is cursing.

  14. For the most part, the hearings remained respectful and civil.

    There were no disruptions because only guests of Senators were allowed to attend. Let that sink into your noggin. Democrats did this. Democrats have been the purveyors of unhinged violent crime, almost as violent as their blood lust for terminating life of an unborn defenseless baby. The lynching of Kavanaugh compared to fairly temperate hearings here are stark. Violent protest is effective when supported by the tech billionaire owned media.

    The only way a white male will breeze through going forward is if he chops his balls off or converts to Islam kinda like Jeff Silberman and Dennis McIntyre respectively speaking

  15. I agree that we never had a moment like this before. The Republican appointments have been abused. There is another reason. This is the first time the Supreme Court judge retiring would not have qualified for the position he was retiring from. There were only two qualifications. The judge had to be a women and a women of color. Jackson was in a polite way revealed to be shallow.

  16. This is all kabuki theater. People supporting the constitution know she doesn’t belong anywhere near a courtroom and agenda-driven partisans will do anything to get her seated regardless. It is as sickening to watch as the Bork and Thomas hearings.

  18. what is it they say about Nice Guys?
    Until Republicans fight(and purge RINOS) with the same scorched earth the Democrat do…the USA is in FREE FALL!

  19. Supports my belief that leftties are dirty fighters.

    Imagine if Republicans had stooped to using Sen. Biden tactics in this confirmation?

    We are doing the right thing.

      1. Alma——that was true in the past, today, however, “nice guys” don’t finish at all because they’re cancelled before they can even start!

  20. As my old professor used to day in class, “Oh come now.”

    Are you just becoming aware of hypocrisy and mendacity on the hallowed halls of Congress?

Comments are closed.