The Jackson Hearings and the Death of the Confirmation Process

Below is my column in The Hill on the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and the death of the confirmation process as a meaningful and substantive process of review. The confirmation hearings continued a long trend towards superficiality and jingoism when it comes to the discussion judicial philosophy and doctrine. Nominees have long been prepped to refuse to answer substantive questions and evade direct responses on judicial philosophy. This did not start with Judge Jackson but it is clear now that our confirmation process is a scripted and shallow exercise for all parties.

Here is the column:

“This is not a normal day for America. We have never had this moment before.” Those 15 words from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) captured the historic confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court. In other respects, however, the hearing was an all-too-familiar moment, particularly in its lack of substantive legal discussion. The Jackson hearing continued the rapid reduction of the range of questions for nominees, leaving these hearings as little more than performance art for senators and an endurance test for nominees.

The hearing was impressive in the ability of senators to move effortlessly between diametrically opposing positions. For those with memories extending back to 2020, there were turns that were enough to snap your neck. In Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing, members like Sen. Chris Coons (D-R.I.) declared: “What’s at issue is her judicial philosophy.” Yesterday, during Jackson’s hearing (around the 6:30 mark), Coons declared: “I don’t believe that ‘a judicial philosophy’ is always all that meaningful.”

It was clear from the outset that Jackson would not discuss her judicial philosophy on interpreting the Constitution or statutes — the very issue Democratic senators cited in voting against Barrett in 2020. When asked about her judicial philosophy, Jackson responded with a discussion of her “judicial methodology.” Indeed, on the second day of questioning, Jackson told Sen. Grassley that “I do have a philosophy. My philosophy is my methodology.” It is akin to asking someone about their preferred clothing style and having them respond, “First, I put on my socks, then my pants, then my shirt, then my jacket … and then I am fully dressed.”

Given that evasion, it was not surprising that Coons felt compelled to say judicial philosophy was really not that important and the key all along was methodology. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) agreed. After labeling Barrett an unacceptable “originalist,” she now dismisses originalism and judicial philosophy questions for Jackson (around the 8:48 mark) because “I do not find labels particularly useful.”

In reality, it did not seem like any substantive answers were “particularly useful.” I have complained about that lack of substance in prior hearings where nominees discussed favorite movies and baseball but not long-held principles of constitutional interpretation. The Ginsburg Rule — enabling nominees to refuse to answer questions about their positions on particular rights — has reduced confirmation hearings to the nutritional value of a Slurpee.

That was evident, again, in this confirmation as Jackson refused to answer questions ranging from the scope of amendments to contemporary controversies. Some of those questions were, in my view, inappropriate, such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) demanding her view on the proper penalties for crimes ranging from murder to rape. She was right to refuse to answer such purely political questions (9:55).

Other questions, however, were related to the Court or her own approach to the law. While some again were immaterial to her confirmation, they were material to the senators tasked with giving “advice and consent” on her nomination.

The question is, what is the basis for a nominee to categorically refuse to answer?

Consider the repeated questions of how Jackson feels about court-packing schemes to add an instant liberal majority on the Court. I fail to see the relevance of that question for a nominee; Jackson’s personal support or opposition to court-packing would not establish her judicial philosophy.

Jackson invoked the Ginsburg Rule to say that she could not ethically answer the question. Justice Barrett also refused to answer that question. Yet, other justices (including Justice Stephen Breyer, who Jackson hopes to replace) have spoken publicly against the scheme; the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly condemned the plan. If Jackson is correct, these current and former justices all violated ethical rules by criticizing ethical rules. How so?

Jackson told Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) (at the 12:03 mark) that judges are not supposed to “form opinions in the ether” but must wait for such “issues being litigated in the courts” to come before them.

There is no ethical rule that prevents a nominee from expressing her opinions on legal issues in such a hearing. Congress can clearly expand the Court constitutionally; it did so in the past. There is no pending case on court-packing because no court-packing has been attempted by Congress.

What was particularly incongruous is that Judge Jackson had no objection to discussing other issues, including possible legislation. When asked about possible mandates for cameras in the courtroom, she said she could give her opinion but wanted to get more information before taking a public position. Why can a nominee discuss court camera legislation but not court-packing legislation? Both controversies concern the Court’s internal functioning. Past justices have spoken publicly against cameras, as they have court-packing.

The Jackson hearings highlighted how completely nonsensical our confirmation process has become. Nominees are now prepped to say as little as possible and to refuse to answer any “issues” they do not want to address.

Even for those of us who are critics of the Ginsburg Rule, this is not what the famed justice meant when she said that “a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” It was a refusal to say, “how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.”

Ginsburg actually discussed many of the types of questions that Jackson declined to answer. For example, Jackson was pressed repeatedly on “substantive due process” but would only note that the Court has recognized various unenumerated rights under substantive due process. In contrast, Ginsburg spoke at length on the different lines of cases and her view of those lines. That includes answering how she viewed the scope of fundamental rights and the “tension” between different lines of cases.

For example, Ginsburg testified how abortion rights belong to women: “It is essential to the woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

Yet the rule has now become a shield for nominees to refuse to discuss “issues” generally, any “hypothetical” concern about the courts or the law — in other words, any substantive legal views. In what various senators described as a “job interview” for a lifetime appointment to the highest court, senators can ask any question except those that would substantially inform them of a nominee’s views or philosophy. Half of the senators ask questions that will not be answered, and the other half ask questions that offer little more than legal truisms or personal anecdotes.

Since its articulation in 1993, the Ginsburg Rule has grown like confirmation kudzu, strangling the life out of these hearings. The Framers were not known for superficial or superfluous exercises. Yet we have effectively replaced “advice and consent” under Article II with “evade and relent.” In reality, we have had “this moment before” and will have many more like it, unless we demand more from confirmations.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

164 thoughts on “The Jackson Hearings and the Death of the Confirmation Process”

  1. In Jackson’s defense, at least her answer has something to do with biology and didn’t say to ask a therapist or an energy healer (we’ll take what we can get). And: It is tricky to think of a good definition quickly if you are, as judges tend to be, sober, specific and cautious. Some women don’t have ovaries. Others can’t reproduce, and so on.

    But the idea that you need a biology degree to ascertain the obvious differences between males and females has become the new go-to response in the gender wars.

    Case in point: When two people got in an argument during a recent Lia Thomas swim meet, the line from the pro-Thomas camp to the anti-Thomas camp was: “Are you a biologist?” Retort: “I’m not a vet but I know what a dog is.”

    Birthing people is the new Latinx: As Hispanics head over toward the GOP, progressive activists have finally stopped trying to force them to identify as Latinx. But there’s a new language game in town, and it involves calling women anything but women. Here’s the New York City’s chief medical officer this week: “The urgency of this moment is clear. Mortality rates of birthing people are too high, and babies born to Black and Puerto Rican mothers in this city are three times more likely to die in their first year of life than babies born to non-Hispanic White birthing people.”

    So women, especially white women apparently, are chest-feeders, bleeders and vulva-havers. What of men? Men are just men! I’ve yet to see major public health announcements refer to phallus-bearers or sperm-swingers. I will accept being a vulva-haver when and only when I hear men called scrotum-attached-bodies.

    All of this is another reason, by the way, why so many heads are exploding about Jackson’s dodge of the woman question: It’s not happening in a vacuum.

    Case in point:

    1. Bezmenov famously called “ideological subversion.” This he defines as “the process of changing the perception of reality in the minds of millions of people.”

      Men are woman- woman are men and the masses buying into the lies or just plain afraid to tell the truth.

    2. Nellie, we’ve never seen your name before. And it isn’t completely clear what type of publication you’re getting this from.

      1. Nelly, we have seen you around here before and it is way past your era to come out of the closet. Tell Natacha to give you a pair of her high heel shoes and falsies

    3. Oh, come on now, we all know that Republicans were trying to stir the culture wars by getting Judge Jackson to say something that could be used as a sound bite on Fox (Non) News, and that Judge Jackson didn’t take the bait. The faithful don’t understand transsexualism (and don’t want to), because everyone knows that a child with a penis and scrotum at birth is male–right? Ask Kaitlin Jenner. She can explain it to you.

  2. Jonathan: After years of sometimes contentious hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett suddenly the hearing on Judge Jackson’s confirmation signifies, in your words, “the death of the confirmation process as a meaningful and substantive process of review” and a “scripted and shallow exercise for all parties”. Funny, this coincidental change has occurred with the first nomination of a Black woman to the Court. But first we should discuss some other issues you raised.

    First, I don’t think there is any question Judge Jackson clearly laid out her judicial philosophy/methodology. Now as an “originalist” one would think you would applaud Jackson. While she not clearly state she is an “originalist”, like Justice Barrett, she basically takes a conservative approach to deciding cases. Jackson is acutely aware of the limits to her authority. She leaves policy making to the legislature. As she told Sen. Grassley: “I do not believe that there is a living constitution…”. She looks to the original founders and the “original public meaning” of the Constitution. Jackson’s views are so “conservative” that she has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police” and conservative retired jurists like Thomas Griffith, J. Michael Luttig and David Levi. Seems like this would appeal to your “conservative” sensibilities”. I guess not.

    Second, and what you don’t even mention in your post, is that “advice and consent” was not very evident in the “gotcha” show by Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Lindsey Graham in their questioning. The “Four Horsemen” of the radical far-right wing of the GOP engaged in mostly racist character assassination–accusing Jackson of being soft-on-crime, child predator-enabling, CRT believing, etc. Cruz turned what was to be “advice and consent” into a shouting match with the Chair. In a Politico op ed by Sheryll Cashin, professor of law at Georgetown University, (3/24/22) she said it best: “[T]hey offered the disturbing optics of mainly southern, white men lecturing, interrupting and sometimes yelling at the gracious, poised Black woman”. Cruz never misses a chance to get the spotlight, to play to his base–even if it makes him look like a racist, stupid and silly.

    Finally, your post and the preceding ones on Judge Jackson are a pretty feeble attempt to provide some justification for most GOP Senators to vote “No”–without appearing to be overtly racist. It won’t work with the “Four Horsemen” who have openly displayed their racist opposition to Jackson. In the end it won’t matter. A Black woman will sit on the Supreme Court–the first in American history.

    1. “accusing Jackson of being soft-on-crime, child predator-enabling, CRT believing”

      Yes, they were questioning all of these things. Because why?

      Because her record demonstrates all of the above.

      She advocated for lighter sentences for pedos. She defended terrorists. She is not opposed to the teachings in CRT. She is outside the mainstream on her beliefs. She is posing as a ‘centrist’ when she is not.

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

    – Barack Hussein Obama

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

    – Ben Franklin

    You couldn’t.

    In Ukraine, the people are fighting and dying, as we write, to keep their people, their culture and their country, as the American Actual Forefathers and Founders did 246 years ago.

    Who gets elected to GIVE AWAY their country?

    Will you be held responsible?

    That is the question.

    “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

  4. I very much enjoyed your article on nominee Jackson. I’m reminded that if confirmed, she won’t be the first Jackson to become a member of SCOTUS. Robert H. Jackson was an associate member of the Supreme Court from 1941-1954 and was quite a figure in American History. I believe he was the last member to serve on the court without a law degree. I’m wondering what he would think about the confirmation process now?

  5. Now Turley’s grasping at straws, trying to find some way, any way, to criticize Judge Jackson as a deflection away from the shameful performances of those Republicans. Judges are not supposed to answer hypothetical questions about how they might vote in any given case because they are supposed to review the facts of the case and apply the law. Cases that come before the SCOTUS have already been to a district or local court, an intermediate court, and then the SCOTUS, which evaluates the prior opinions and decides whether to affirm or reverse.. How could a judge take a position on a case in which she hasn’t even seen the facts or prior court rulings? You know that, Turley, but the disciples don’t. You needed to write something that made Judge Jackson look like she was being sneaky or evasive. That was your assignment. She was really holding to the principles of the judiciary not to comment on cases that have not yet come before them, because doing so could be construed as having a bias against or in favor of one party or the other, instead of deciding the case on the merits. Judges are supposed to set aside personal opinions and biases and are not supposed to use the bench as a stump for politics or as a pulpit to express their personal beliefs. So, she doesn’t answer, and alt-right media uses that against her. It’s all they have.

    Meanwhile, while we’re discussing the SCOTUS, Judges and ethics, what about Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who actively participated in and supported the insurrection on Jan 6th, proven by e-mails she sent to Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows? She was even present at the insurrection. When the appeal of the lower court order to produce e-mails to the Jan. 6th Commission came before the SCOTUS, there was only ONE dissenting voice. Three guesses as to who dissented. He should have recused himself. Why not comment about that, Turley?

    And, Turley, we’re still waiting for you to retract the victory lap you took when the Special Prosecutors in the Manhattan DA’s office resigned: you claimed they resigned becasue they opposed investigating Trump because he didn’t do anything wrong, which is the exact opposite of what really happened: they resigned over the reluctance of the local DA to prosecute Trump, whom they determined had committed multiple crimes, and that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the reason you haven’t retracted because you haven’t come up with some way to spin this one, Turley?

  6. Judicial Philosophy As Practiced By Clarence And Ginni Thomas

    The call to action was titled “Election Results and Legal Battles: What Now?” Shared in the days after the 2020 presidential election, it urged the members of an influential if secretive right-wing group to contact legislators in three of the swing states that tipped the balance for Joe Biden — Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. The aim was audacious: Keep President Donald J. Trump in power.

    As Trump insisted, without evidence, that fraud had cheated him of victory, conservative groups rushed to rally behind him. The council stood out, however, not only because of its pedigree but also because one of its newest leaders was Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas and a longtime activist in right-wing circles. She had taken on a prominent role at the council during the Trump years and by 2019 had joined the nine-member board of C.N.P. Action, an arm of the council organized as a 501(c)4 under a provision of the tax code that allows for direct political advocacy. It was C.N.P. Action that circulated the November “action steps” document, the existence of which has not been widely known. It instructed members to pressure Republican lawmakers into challenging the election results and appointing alternate slates of electors: “Demand that they not abandon their Constitutional responsibilities during a time such as this.”

    Such a plan, if carried out successfully, would have almost certainly landed before the Supreme Court — and Ginni Thomas’s husband. In fact, Trump was already calling for that to happen. In a Dec. 2 speech at the White House, the president falsely claimed that “millions of votes were cast illegally in swing states alone” and said he hoped “the Supreme Court of the United States will see it” and “will do what’s right for our country, because our country cannot live with this kind of an election.”

    Edited From:

    “The Long Crusade Of Clarence And Ginni Thomas”

    Today’s New York Times

    This lengthy features story compliments a CBS investigation that is all over mainstream media today. It seems that Ginni Thomas is an extremely active activist on behalf of far-right causes. And she took an extremely active role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

  7. Since the Senate must “Advise and Consent” for a justice to be confirmed, then I would suggest the senate set the rules on what is required to be answered and what is not.
    If this is a job interview I find it a very strange one where the applicant refuses to answer questions about the essentials of the job they are interviewing for. I’m sure that many of us have had job interviews and also interviewed people applying for jobs whether it’s a CEO of a multi million dollar corporation all the way down to the lowest worker. I wonder how many of us would have won the job by refusing to answer questions about how we would approach or perform the job. Even more so, would we have recommended a person win an appointment to a job even they would not answer our basic questions.

  8. “Death of the Confirmation Process”

    You need to be honest. America is dead as we once knew it. It no longer exists. None of us recognize our country anymore. Democrats did this. Democrats and their apparatchiks in our very own Pravda media, killed our US elections. Like the USSR, the legacy media has become the enemy of the people, and like former Russian Tzars, capitalist wh0res like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse with his bottomless dark money sources, and too many other politicians to count, have made US politics their Ponzi scheme, luring American voters with lies to make them powerful and richer.

    It is all so obscene, just as having a female judge SCOTUS nominee who refuses to define the word woman. Such a disgrace she is, a modern day slave for the Democrats who, as LBJ said, “I’ll Have Those n******* Voting Democratic for 200 Years”

    “Burying the Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was Journalistic Malpractice”

    “Many of the same media outlets had spent years spreading accounts about Donald Trump colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, which turned out to be false. But journalists and Silicon Valley oligarchs were united in their determination to prevent Trump from winning again and openly boasted of their willingness to put their finger on the electoral scale to defeat him.”

    Jonathan Tobin

    1. “…she is a modern day slave for the Democrats who, as LBJ said, “I’ll Have Those n******* Voting Democratic for 200 Years”


      “If you don’t vote Democrat, you ain’t black!” ~Joe Biden

      Same energy as LBJ. It’s the essence of who Democrats *are* and how they *think*…..

      It is the party of hate and intolerance. Progressive tribalism. No free thinking on the Democrat plantation! Step out of line and you will be punished. Democrats fear the wrath of Pelosi. Repubs do not fear their leadership. Free thinking happens only on one side of the aisle. Ask Kanye which side it is.

  9. Make potential candidates take a 2 week test on Constitutional law and case law, locked up without outside help. The questions should be provided by JT as he seems to be the only professor currently willing to call balls and strikes accurately. Then after JT grades the answers the top scoring candidate goes before the senate. This eliminates party favorites, color, race and creed. Oxims Razor.

      1. Anonymous – The Senate decides its rules and this includes rules for the Judiciary Comm. It would be constitutional if you got enough votes.

        1. Paul, did you even read what Margot wrote?!?

          The Senate cannot choose rules that conflict with the Constitution. The Senate does not choose “potential candidates.” The President does. The Senate cannot lock anyone up. Do you really need me to quote what the Constitution says about these things?

    1. What do you object to in Bork’s hearings? Even though the SJC didn’t recommend that he be confirmed, they voted to send his nomination to the entire Senate for a vote, where he was rejected with a bipartisan vote.

      1. such a terrible thing to be numb nuts, no balls, no identity, no public affirmation of engaging the public square with an identity so that others can engage you. Such is the landscape of the left: all bark, no balls.

        1. Can’t answer the question right? He was rejected by a bipartisan vote, that’s a fact.

          1. Act Blue needs to jumble their talking points. You are recycling old retorts.
            Apparently Trolls Inc is paying their trolls more than Act Blue or Media Matters. They do have an IQ test threshold though which sucks for your kind


              1. Stop using my talking points, Comrade. We have little material provided to us by Mr Soros and we were told that we must be discrete with our word salad.

    2. Absolutely correct!

      But who cares about the “confirmation process” when the Constitution and American constitutional freedom died after 71 years under Lincoln.

      The forcible imposition of the “Reconstruction Amendments” after “…the reconstruction of a social world,” as written by Karl Marx to Lincoln.

      You got a whole lotta “corrective action” on your plate, Mr. America.

      1. S. meyer – I would mention a type of 19th century burlesque that would be fitting. 😉

    3. Paul, don’t You think Ted Kennedy was fair and just with nominee Bork. Isn’t that where the term “Borked” came from.

  10. That the confirmation hearings are shams makes the Federalist Society a more important institution. FS membership signals something about the likely judicial philosophy of a FS member.

    Most FS members have adopted the “originalist” and “textualist” philosophy, while most non-FS members have not.

    It’s not perfect, obviously. But if you want a “living Constitutionalist” then, then it is less likely you will get one if you nominate a FS member.

      1. Originalist like in gun ammo is hard to find these days due to blacks and hispanics buying them by the truck load.

  11. These are politicians interviewing a SCOTUS nominee. Of course it’s going to be political theater. It would be better to have SCOTUS interview the nominee and then Senate Judiciary Committee votes based on the interview.

  12. I might have thought the end came when Republican Senators refused to consider a Democratic nominee based on there only being a year before the election, then rushed through a Republican nominee with weeks to go before an election. Not that it wasn’t already but it became pure politics. If there was a Republican majority in the Senate right now, would it be possible for Biden to get anyone confirmed?

      1. Bork was rejected in a bipartisan vote after his nomination was advanced out of the SJC (unlike Merrick Garland), and then Kennedy was unanimously confirmed. Neither Brown nor Estrada were ever nominated for SCOTUS.

        1. You are correct on the latter two. But look back – they filibustered a black woman for a federal judgeship. Ni hues and cries then. I admit that both parties display some degree of hypocrisy, but the D’s take the cake

          1. No one takes the cake better than Mitch McConnell. Can’t have a hearing for a year, because of a election, but we can have one weeks before an election right?

            1. You seriously think that Schumer wouldn’t that, assuming he is capable of independent thought?

      2. Brown was threatened with a fillibuster and Bush pulled her. Bush could have nominated her and she would have gotten a hearing. Estrada got a hearing before the Jjudiciary Committee. When ever in the history of the nation has the Senate refused to hold a hearing for someone put forward by a President? Democrats have had to pull nominees or not put them forward because they didn’t have the support needed. Never to my knowledge did the Senate just refuse to consider someone, based on a made-up rule the same people abandoned the next term when it suited them.

        1. There you go again with facts enigmainblackcom, you know they pay no attention to those here.

          1. They don’t even want to know. Dozens of conservatives have written in conservative places like the Wall Street Journal and the National Review about how unfair the allegations are against Judge Jackson. They either don’t want to read or heaven forbid, can’t read?

            1. enigma – maybe they are watching the hearings and believing their lying eyes and ears.

              1. “their lying eyes and ears” didn’t read Judge Jackson’s opinions and the sentences she handed down that Hawley, Cotton, Graham and Blackburn lied about. They also didn’t read the exhaustive study done by the ABA that appointed teams to read every opinion of hers and interviewed about 2,800 judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and others, seeking their input. They all gave Judge Jackson the highest-possible score for a jurist. These are facts, but your lying eyes and ears don’t want to hear them.

                1. enigma………….From a brilliant, leading, black academIcian, describing his organization: “We don’t look at what people have done to us. We look at what we have done for ourselves.”
                  Please consider reading about these positive open minded black activists.. Your life might become a happier one if you do.. When people are set in their ways, they miss out on half of the positive, uplifing aspects of life, in my opinion. Don’t be afraid to try reading and studying something new.

                  1. p.s. enigma—I wrote the paragraph beneath the link. I’m sincere about that, and hope you’ll think about it.

                  2. ” Your life might become a happier one if you do.. ”
                    What makes you believe I’m not happy? My live is full of joy. The comments from people (not necessarily you) that presume to know me and have a need to pigeon-hole my beliefs and motivations so that they can dismiss the truth’s they don’t want to hear continue to amaze me. You have no idea how much I read including the material people keep shoving at me here from the six Black people they dem worthy that happen to be saying what they want to hear. At least they have yet to present Herschel Walker as an intellectual (admit it, he got hit a few many times and is unstable to the point where he might attack someone again).
                    With the exception of the troll that follows me night and day, I enjoy engaging in conversation here. What most of you are unable to receive is that discrimination, racism, and hatred isn’t just a thing of the past but a not even disguised fixture in the present. People with self-induced blindness say voter suppression doesn’t exist while the same methods employed in the past are being rolled out across the country. My state just got a special election police in control of the Governor that longs to be a monarch. The comments section here is full of racism. You argue with me but never George. Squeeky is funny but equally racist and she is well-loved. Young spends his time belittling the Black race and saying they have accomplished nothing but goes unchallenged. Challenge them when they espouse racism, ignoring it is accepting it and encouraging it. Worry about them being happier, I’m good.

                    1. “My state just got a special election police in control of the Governor that longs to be a monarch.”

                      You are angry that Gillium didn’t win the governor’s election in Florida. It demonstrates you are not interested in the people of Florida rather the pigeonhole ideology and hate you live by.
                      Andrew Gillum allegedly found inebriated in hotel room where cops found meth

                      Things get worse from there.

            2. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command” Orwell 1984………..

              1. “If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.” – George Orwell, 1984

    1. Oh, my, yes!

      Let’s talk law.

      Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (Four Iterations) – Extant January 1, 1863

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

      1. Yes, George. I know what the Founders, the Constitution, the DOI, the original Supreme Court, and Congress originally intended for me and mine. Perhaps you can finally convince the rest of those here that America did indeed want to be a racist (and sexist and class-driven nation)?

        1. The DOI said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

          That is the combined wisdom of the founders, even though some had slaves while others persecuted Jews, etc. That many blacks today would persecute Jews doesn’t mean all blacks feel that way. Maybe you do, I don’t know, but if you don’t, perhaps you can see my point.

          1. Ask yourself, who did Jefferson leave out of “all men?” He didn’t intend for the DOI to apply to all men, nor did the Constitution mean much to “all other persons.” Whatever any individual Founder professed to believe, they all compromised to allow for slavery and took steps to ensure it couldn’t easily be rooted out. Jeffersomn was arguably the worst but it would be a waste of energy telling you why. I’m sure Hitler said some nice things over his lifetime but it doesn’t erase who he was and what he did.

            1. “He didn’t intend for the DOI to apply to all men” Actually, he did.

              Slavery is a stain on America, but America ended slavery at great cost and a war where over a half a million young people died. Did slavery cease in the black nations? No. Did it stop all over the world? No. The English-speaking people were the first to attempt to abolish this terrible practice worldwide.

              Stop complaining. Work to make this world a better place. Look at your brothers and sisters to see how they deal with their lives. You tell them to live in the past and hate, which causes positive progress to cease. You are your own worst enemy.

            2. Enigma, FWIW, the 9:44pm and 10:05 comments were posted by Meyer. He is not a good faith discussant.

              1. posted by Meyer. He is not a good faith discussant.
                Copy that and translate as : “Meyer is smarter than Aninny.” In fact, most all of us are “not good faith discussant(s)” by that standard.

                1. No, mespo, it means that he’s regularly dishonest, abusive, insincere, resorts to fallacies, has a mind closed to facts and views that contradict what he wishes to believe. I am smarter than he is, not that you’d admit it.

                  1. Really, Anonymous the Stupid? In every one of those discussions, you have had a chance to promote your opinion and yourself, but you failed. Do you know why? Because you were dishonest with the facts and tried to twist things rather than use your mind to push your opinion.

                    I can see you are in a pis-ing war over who is smarter. I don’t need to comment on that because our records on this blog speak for themselves. I think you have an ego problem that neither Mespo nor I have. We both are very accomplished in our own worlds. You are trying to be accomplished in this second world of Internet debate. You don’t have what it takes, and that is why you use the generic anonymous.

              2. “He is not a good faith discussant.”

                Anonymous the Stupid, is the writer, not a good faith discussant because that post was written by a generic anonymous? Isn’t that the name you are posting under? That makes you not a good faith discussant. Everyone should throw out all anonymous replies and probably any response without an identifiable icon.

                There, I solved the problem for you.

    2. EIB,

      I believe that District Judge Michelle Childs would have a great shot at a SCOTUS nomination. In addition, many from SC would be very proud for one of our own to be the first black woman appointed to the Supreme Court.

      1. As far as I know she would have been a highly qualified candidate, and been attacked by Republicans for anything they could find or make up. The hearings would have gone pretty much the same way.

        1. Yeah Democrats don’t do that, do they? Dems don’t ‘attack’ for anything they could find or make up. Come on, man.

        2. The same way? Meaning with civility and order, as compared to the Democrat chaos circus sh*t show they always create?

  13. Linsey Graham Cracker sounded dumb on tv last night.
    All southerners are not dumb. But he is a cracker.
    Sing the song “Rednecks” in his favor. He don’t know his arse from a hole in the ground.

  14. Proves the socialist fascist left has nothing to do with our Constitutional Republic and is pro sexist, racist. The proponent Biden could have just made the nomination then shut up. Socialists have that built in failure.

    Racism and sexism long supported by the Socialist Party who are in no way democratic should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. It’s pure bigotry.

        1. The mob, which were lied to and supported by Trump, tried to stop a democratic process. They failed.

          1. FishWings – somewhere in the Constitution there is something about Freedom of Speech. And I saw video of Capitol guards letting the protestors on the grounds.

            1. You are free to speak, including carrying signs, wearing t-shirts and hats and sing songs. You are NOT free to smash windows, break down doors, batter police officers, urinate and defecate on the floors, walls and carpets of the Capitol, deface the John Lewis Memorial, enter Congressional offices and rifle through and steal papers and laptops, smash a window to gain access to the Speaker’s Lobby or enter the floor of the House and go through desks of members of Congress. I saw videos of your ilk doing all of the above. Your compatriots were incited to go there because your hero lied to them about his “landslide victory” being “stolen” by rampant voter fraud. All well-proven to be complete and total lies. As Fish Wings says, they “tried to stop a democratic process. They failed”.

              1. “You are NOT free to smash windows, break down doors, batter police officers, urinate and defecate on the floors . . .”

                Tell that to your “mostly peaceful protestors,” to the “homeless” ones occupying our city streets, and to the smash-and-grab criminals terrorizing businesses and citizens.

                When the Left gets serious about protecting the innocent from criminals, I’ll believe that they’re serious about protecting the Capitol from criminals.

      1. Jan6 represented the failure of Democracy, but one needs more than you have to understand why.

  15. Only a passing reference to the embarrassing slobber-fest that was the Corey Booker soliloquy. Cringe-worthy is giving it way too much credit. Truly, I am embarrassed for America considering his diatribe was all about her skin color and privileged life like he has had.

  16. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) demanding her view on the proper penalties for crimes ranging from murder to rape…Why is that political Judge? I would love to hear her struggle to maintain her progressive position to destroy this once great nation.

    Court-packing schemes; I fail to see the relevance of that question for a nominee…I don’t Judge Turley, I would love to hear her evade again and again. e.g. BLM CRT

    In reality, we have had “this moment before” and will have many more like it, unless we demand more from confirmations…I agree judge, you have a large audience of liberal and conservative, you don’t need to yell to the conservative base but to your liberal base you may need to get to the mountain top or higher to let that sink in.

  17. Supreme Court justices are the ultimate political appointees. Congress might as well hold the “job interview” on a New York fashion house runway.

  18. A bunkum-buster truth bomb, this. One might make similar observations about the hollow, medicine-show farces that pass for “presidential debates.” Read transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and weep for the death of reasoned discourse and civility.

  19. The confirmation process died when McConnell unilaterally blocked any confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland.

      1. Judging from Merrick Garland’s actions as the AG, it appears we may have “saved” the legitimacy of the court.

          1. Ordering the full power of the federal govt to investigate people attending a LOCAL school board meeting, is such an abuse of enumerated rights.
            The federal govt has no jurisdiction over local matters. From there it gets worse. A supreme court justice condoning that would be the end of civil protections.

            1. The federal govt has no jurisdiction over local matters.

              James O’Keefe and Project Veritas approve of that statement. Especially concerning a lost diary they turned over to local law enforcement and didn’t publish.

    1. False, this process was murdered, in a slow, excruciating process by one joe biden with both the Bork and Thomas hearings. And to have that miscreant villain nominate this sad puppet of the extreme left is a notable insult that should cap his hapless career.

      1. Bork was 10000 years ago, build a bridge and get over it. If Thomas’ hearing was embarrassing maybe he should’ve spent more time studying starre decisis and less time watching Long Dong Silver videos. I’m glad you interpret Jackson’s appointment as an insult though- that I enjoy. Stay mad!

        1. Whether yesterday or 10,000 years ago the central binding factor is one slimy creature now occupying our White House. Deflecting to my anger” or an aspersion on Thomas does not negate the vile behavior of one slow joe. Face it, slow joe is the representative sample of a dem creature.

      1. He was rejected with a bipartisan vote. Unlike McConnell’s unilateral decision to prevant hearings for Garland, Bork had hearings, and the SJC voted to advance his consideration to the entire Senate.

    2. Confirmation was close to death, but when we look at the reason, we can see a string of them all caused by Democrats. Harry Reid was the most proximate, but among the worst were Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Garland meant nothing, but following what he has done since one knows he should not have been on the court.

Leave a Reply