Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
-
Cruz has said the Republicans on the committee will not go Kavanaugh on the appointee. They will go over her record thoroughly, however.
-
Cruz has said the Republicans on the committee will not go Kavanaugh on the appointee. They will go over her record thoroughly, however.
-
Her record features multiple rulings that were later overturned.
-
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Her record features multiple rulings that were later overturned.
In your book, is more “overturned” rulings good or bad?
How does her “overturned” ratio compare with (1) other Supreme Court judges, (2) other nominees for the Supreme Court bench?
-
You have hereby been appointed as an ad hoc committee of one, by the executive committee of TNCR, to ascertain the answers to these questions and report back to the committee at large, at a future date to be determined as events unfold, said date being determined by a two-thirds vote of the previously stated committee.
-
You have hereby been appointed as an ad hoc committee of one, by the executive committee of TNCR, to ascertain the answers to these questions and report back to the committee at large, at a future date to be determined as events unfold, said date being determined by a two-thirds vote of the previously stated committee.
@Jolly said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
You have hereby been appointed as an ad hoc committee of one, by the executive committee of TNCR, to ascertain the answers to these questions and report back to the committee at large, at a future date to be determined as events unfold, said date being determined by a two-thirds vote of the previously stated committee.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of diversity in this committee. And anybody who thinks Asians count as “diverse” is a racist.
-
-
Andy McCarthty has an interesting editorial. He talks about her qualifications, education, and how she will likely be confirmed. He mentions that the dynamic of SCOTUS will not change.
But then, he mentions Biden's approach:
it is regrettable that Biden made such an issue of Judge Jackson’s race and sex. There is no longer anything unusual in our country about black women being elected or appointed to powerful government posts. Biden did the process and Judge Jackson no favors by the way he went about this. Indeed, it was incompetent: All he needed to do, since the decision was all his, was first say he was going to pick the best nominee he could find, and then pick Jackson or one of the other highly accomplished black women who were under consideration. Instead, Biden being Biden, he elevated immutable characteristics over impressive achievements, leaving his nominee vulnerable to the criticism that she may not have been the best candidate available. This is unfair to Judge Jackson — I am not a fan of her jurisprudence (I’m firmly a Justice Clarence Thomas devotee), but on paper she is as qualified as anyone, regardless of race or sex.
Hopefully, Republicans will not fall into the trap Biden has tried to lay — i.e., making any opposition to Jackson a matter of racism and/or sexism rather than judicial philosophy. I sense that this was what Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was getting at when he recently said he had no problem with Biden’s predetermination to make a “long overdue” appointment of a black woman to the court. McConnell wants to take race and sex off the table as anything other than symbolic considerations. I’d translate his remarks as: “There’s no reason at this point for anyone to think a black woman would not be an excellent and highly fitting addition to the Supreme Court. Now, let’s get down to examining whether this particular black woman would be an excellent and highly fitting addition.”
-
G George K referenced this topic on
-
She should receive a proper vetting and then a quick confirmation. The GOP can only hurt themselves here.
Not that they won't.
@Mik said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
She should receive a proper vetting and then a quick confirmation. The GOP can only hurt themselves here.
Not that they won't.
I wonder if they would treat her as Biden treated Thomas during the confirmation hearings.
Nah, they wouldn't bethatstupid."Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Mik said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
She should receive a proper vetting and then a quick confirmation. The GOP can only hurt themselves here.
Not that they won't.
I wonder if they would treat her as Biden treated Thomas during the confirmation hearings.
Nah, they wouldn't bethatstupid.@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
@Mik said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
She should receive a proper vetting and then a quick confirmation. The GOP can only hurt themselves here.
Not that they won't.
I wonder if they would treat her as Biden treated Thomas during the confirmation hearings.
Nah, they wouldn't bethatstupid.No, they are not going to...She's going to be grilled on her record. There will be votes against her, but I think she'll pass with 60 votes or better.
-
it is regrettable that Biden made such an issue of Judge Jackson’s race and sex.
He wouldn't be doing his job if his messaging didn't concentrate on race and sex and how virtuous his party is within those issues. If he's not appealing directly to casually racist progressive whites, who is he supposed to appeal to?
-
Just looking at the top half of new federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s resume, it’s clear she has the pedigree of a Supreme Court justice contender.
It lists Harvard University undergrad, Harvard Law School, the Harvard Law Review, and clerkships with three federal judges, including retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.
But then, it stalls. For the next dozen years, she became a self-described “vagabond,” even toiling as a public defender, until then-President Barack Obama plucked her from obscurity for a district court judgeship.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said she handled 585 rulings, but little stands out. President Joe Biden elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit less than a year ago, but she’s written just two decisions.
Now, as White House and Senate aides pour over her record to figure out her philosophical and political leanings to ready for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, they have far less to review than typical court picks who’ve quickly moved up the judicial ladder.
And that’s becoming a problem for her supporters, who want to champion Jackson beyond just being the first black woman headed to the Supreme Court, and critics, who want something to sink their teeth into.
The Congressional Research Service even noted that much of her district court work was on procedural topics, not those the Supreme Court studies. “This uncertainty is especially pronounced when evaluating Judge Jackson because she has spent most of her judicial tenure as a district court judge,” the service said in a report reviewed by Secrets.
“Judge Jackson has resolved relatively few cases involving open constitutional questions, offering somewhat limited insight into what mode of constitutional interpretation she might follow in future cases,” the report added.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas, said Jackson’s path to the court was not only odd but provided little help in figuring out her philosophy.
“I've looked at her opinions," he said. "I don't see, you know, rock star. I don't see the superstar. She only had a couple of noteworthy opinions. I didn't hear her giving any sort of influential speeches. She didn't really write articles. There wasn't much that distinguished her. I mean, nothing. That's not a criticism. It wasn't bad, but it just wasn't that she was the greatest thing in the world."
What’s more, he added, is that she has no record of working with other judges to get them to agree with her view of constitutional law, a basic chore on the Supreme Court. “How is she going to persuade John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett in a case? She has no experience doing that,” Blackman said.
We asked Blackman, a constitutional law professor, if the nomination was similar to Harriet Miers, picked by then-President George W. Bush but scuttled when critics said her experience wasn’t deep.
“I think it's actually worse because Harriet Miers, for all the criticism, was actually a pretty well-known attorney in private practice in Texas. She had a good reputation. She was White House counsel. People actually had papers to go on, but she hadn’t decided on the bigger constitutional issues. Jackson just doesn't have much of a record at all,” he said.
“It's sort of weird. It's a very thin record. Her credentials up to the clerkship, up to the [Supreme Court] clerkship, were sterling, and then after that, it kind of petered out, like she never sort of lived up to the potential that she could have had with the Supreme Court clerkship,” Blackman said. “It's a weird resume.”
-
Just looking at the top half of new federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s resume, it’s clear she has the pedigree of a Supreme Court justice contender.
It lists Harvard University undergrad, Harvard Law School, the Harvard Law Review, and clerkships with three federal judges, including retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.
But then, it stalls. For the next dozen years, she became a self-described “vagabond,” even toiling as a public defender, until then-President Barack Obama plucked her from obscurity for a district court judgeship.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said she handled 585 rulings, but little stands out. President Joe Biden elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit less than a year ago, but she’s written just two decisions.
Now, as White House and Senate aides pour over her record to figure out her philosophical and political leanings to ready for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, they have far less to review than typical court picks who’ve quickly moved up the judicial ladder.
And that’s becoming a problem for her supporters, who want to champion Jackson beyond just being the first black woman headed to the Supreme Court, and critics, who want something to sink their teeth into.
The Congressional Research Service even noted that much of her district court work was on procedural topics, not those the Supreme Court studies. “This uncertainty is especially pronounced when evaluating Judge Jackson because she has spent most of her judicial tenure as a district court judge,” the service said in a report reviewed by Secrets.
“Judge Jackson has resolved relatively few cases involving open constitutional questions, offering somewhat limited insight into what mode of constitutional interpretation she might follow in future cases,” the report added.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas, said Jackson’s path to the court was not only odd but provided little help in figuring out her philosophy.
“I've looked at her opinions," he said. "I don't see, you know, rock star. I don't see the superstar. She only had a couple of noteworthy opinions. I didn't hear her giving any sort of influential speeches. She didn't really write articles. There wasn't much that distinguished her. I mean, nothing. That's not a criticism. It wasn't bad, but it just wasn't that she was the greatest thing in the world."
What’s more, he added, is that she has no record of working with other judges to get them to agree with her view of constitutional law, a basic chore on the Supreme Court. “How is she going to persuade John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett in a case? She has no experience doing that,” Blackman said.
We asked Blackman, a constitutional law professor, if the nomination was similar to Harriet Miers, picked by then-President George W. Bush but scuttled when critics said her experience wasn’t deep.
“I think it's actually worse because Harriet Miers, for all the criticism, was actually a pretty well-known attorney in private practice in Texas. She had a good reputation. She was White House counsel. People actually had papers to go on, but she hadn’t decided on the bigger constitutional issues. Jackson just doesn't have much of a record at all,” he said.
“It's sort of weird. It's a very thin record. Her credentials up to the clerkship, up to the [Supreme Court] clerkship, were sterling, and then after that, it kind of petered out, like she never sort of lived up to the potential that she could have had with the Supreme Court clerkship,” Blackman said. “It's a weird resume.”
-
@George-K said in Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court:
Jackson just doesn't have much of a record at all,” he said.
“It's a weird resume.”
She has the skin color, the rest is just window dressing.
@Copper Yup, maybe that is why she was picked. Tough to vote against someone who has no opinions.
The problem for the democrats is that she may not turn out to be the judge they thought she would be.
-
She will be. Look at her background. I think she will be to the Left of Bryer.
This is why many people who voted for Biden should be dragged out behind the barn and bored for simples. It's the Court, stupid.
Congress and the White House change folks on a regular basis. The Supremes are there for decades.
-
Wow!!! President Obama wasnt even a Senator in 2003!!! 555
