Senate Democrats May Be Further Harming Their November Election Chances With Supreme Court Nominee

[jbrownson0831]

Even if Thomas dies he would be a better justice than the filth democrats are trying to feed us.

I think Pelosi slipped him a mickey.....

 

[jwoodie]

Hahahahahahaha riiiggght. How about the fact that Poopeypants selected her.

Just look at his lapdog AG.

 

[lantern2814]

Her light sentences for criminals involved with child porn should be a big red flag as well. No doubt the hearings would degenerate into a clown show as Dems try to defend this. Ask her the same questions Kavanaugh and Barrett got asked and watch the cries of “Wacist!” Start up.

 

[protectionist]

And?

If you can flesh out for me why it would make one iota of difference for the gop put on a dem-like clown show I'm all ears.

If anything not doing so will show voters who the adults in the room really are.

Remember the gop needs to play to swing-vote blue-burb housefraus who they need, not voters like you and me as we already know the score....Vapid blue-burb housefraus, not so much so the quicker they rubber stamp her the quicker the housefraus can get back to bitching about high prices.

Believe me, Ms. Affirmative Action Hire will be well prepared in the "murder sessions" she has been through to avoid answering any questions on her judicial philosophy/leanings such as the reasoning behind her lighter than recommended pedo sentences.....It's what dems do.

She has been answering questions by piling on the rhetoric, lots of hot air, and not really saying anything. In short, she's answering the questions, by not answering the questions.

Biden's selection of her is another example of his ineptness, even as a politician. How many Democrats will lose congressional seats in November, by him putting this child porn loon on the court ?

 

[1srelluc]

She has been answering questions by piling on the rhetoric, lots of hot air, and not really saying anything. In short, she's answering the questions, by not answering the questions.

Biden's selection of her is another example of his ineptness, even as a politician. How many Democrats will lose congressional seats in November, by him putting this child porn loon on the court ?

Hopefully many.

As I expected it's pretty much turned into "I'm thinking about running for POTUS" clown show.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Biden chose Jackson because she is a radical and a racist.
She is a perfect match for the radical and racist Democrat Party's voter base.
She will undermine the constitution every chance that she gets.

She is pro-pedophile as well--so the dems love her.

 

[BWK]

I loved the part when Graham asked her an unconstitutional question about he religion. The SOB is dumb as shit.

 

[Clipper]

It's quite possible that Democrats in the Senate judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Joe Biden's quite radical nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. If/when they do, they will be further demonstrating to the American people that their party cannot be trusted to provide good leadership, and they will be further damaging their chances for Democrats to get elected this coming November. While they may celebrate Jackson's confirmation, if that becomes the case, they will be simultaneously be celebrating a major Republican promotional victory for November's elections.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a progressive favorite, with a troubling legal record, and well-documented allegiance to left-wing causes. Despite what some establishment-minded Republicans might think, Jackson’s nomination raises several serious causes for concern.

When it comes to judicial appointments, Democrats do not even attempt to abide by the impression that they care about fundamental constitutional rights, or will nominate jurists who render sound constitutional judgments. Jackson is the latest example of this trend: based on every available indication, a Justice Jackson would serve not as a neutral interpreter of the Constitution, but rather as a reliable rubber stamp for many of progressives’ most prized policy goals.

Thus, Senate Republicans should see Jackson for what she is: a politician in a black robe whose primary role on the Court will be to advance the radical woke agenda of the Democrat Party, and to undermine any remaining vestige of equal justice under the law.

From the very moment Breyer announced his retirement, a slate of far-left advocacy groups persistently encouraged Biden to consider Jackson as a replacement for Breyer. As NBC News reported, "Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement's agenda."

Although Jackson has bizarrely (and almost certainly dishonestly) claimed she has not developed "a view" on the "living Constitution" – the progressive theory that the written words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning – her resume puts her squarely in the living constitutionalist camp, and her previous legal rulings have consistently favored progressive priorities.

Since Jackson’s appointment as a federal judge, she blocked the Trump administration’s executive orders aimed at holding federal employees accountable (a decision that was unanimously reversed by the D.C. Circuit), stymied Trump’s ability to deport illegal aliens, and forced former White House Counsel Don McGahn to comply with a politically motivated subpoena from congressional Democrats.

A left-wing advocacy group has also praised Jackson for her refusal to use terms like "illegal" and "alien" in her decisions relating to immigration. Perhaps most concerningly, she upheld a program that established explicitly race-based preferences in the awarding of government contracts, giving the impression that she is a disciple of the left’s identity politics regime. Well, what a surprise that she, like most Democrats supports racist Affirmative Action.

This raises another point in my mind. I'd really like to know if any (if not all) of her advances, from entering undergraduate college all the way to her last judge position, were obtained by means of Affirmative Action discrimination in her favor. If it could be found that she got a single one of these from AA, I'd say that should be grounds to reject her just on that alone (not that there aren't plenty of other reasons).

As Ed Whelan wrote for National Review, Jackson "is not highly regarded as a judge" and "has a striking record of reversals by the D.C. Circuit – including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings." This pattern indicates that Jackson is vulnerable to challenges based on the merits of her rulings and legal acumen, rather than merely just her political leanings – a troubling sign for any Supreme Court nominee.

Jackson also defended terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay (including a likely Taliban leader) in a way that has been described as "zealous" and "ideological." And to top it all off, prior to her appointment as a federal judge, Jackson was part of an amicus brief filed by pro-abortion groups – including NARAL – in support of a so-called "buffer zone" around abortion clinics that sought to impede the right of pro-life Americans to peacefully assemble.

In the age of Big Tech dominance and free speech suppression, should the American people – particularly those with pro-life and other conservative views – really trust that Jackson will stand up for their First Amendment rights?

Following the left’s shameful hysterics throughout the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – in which they slandered Kavanaugh as a serial rapist, and suggested that Barrett was not qualified to serve on the court because of her Catholic faith – no Republican senator should feel in any way inclined to lend their support to Jackson, who unlike Trump’s appointees, is almost universally regarded as a partisan tool of the radical left, without any respect for the Constitution, or regard for the rule of law.

For decades, the left has perceived the Supreme Court not as an independent guardian of the United States Constitution, but instead as a mini legislature whose sole purpose is to ram through extreme policies that the American people do not support.

Judge Jackson is a pitch-perfect exemplar of this dangerous vision: because Democrats know their far-left policies cannot win the popular support of the American people, they must rely on the veiled radicalism of judicial nominees like Jackson to legislate their Marxist policies from the bench.

In writing this article I have copied some parts of the link article by former Attorney General of the United States, Matthew Whittaker. Be sure to watch the short video in the link, since it contains valuable factual information regarding Judge Jackson's record.

MSN

Whaitaker's claim to fame is what? Being another one of Trump asseater's?

 

[BWK]

Graham, Blackburn, and Cruz asked some of the dumbest questions imaginable. It was embarrassing.

 

[BWK]

It's quite possible that Democrats in the Senate judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Joe Biden's quite radical nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. If/when they do, they will be further demonstrating to the American people that their party cannot be trusted to provide good leadership, and they will be further damaging their chances for Democrats to get elected this coming November. While they may celebrate Jackson's confirmation, if that becomes the case, they will be simultaneously be celebrating a major Republican promotional victory for November's elections.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a progressive favorite, with a troubling legal record, and well-documented allegiance to left-wing causes. Despite what some establishment-minded Republicans might think, Jackson’s nomination raises several serious causes for concern.

When it comes to judicial appointments, Democrats do not even attempt to abide by the impression that they care about fundamental constitutional rights, or will nominate jurists who render sound constitutional judgments. Jackson is the latest example of this trend: based on every available indication, a Justice Jackson would serve not as a neutral interpreter of the Constitution, but rather as a reliable rubber stamp for many of progressives’ most prized policy goals.

Thus, Senate Republicans should see Jackson for what she is: a politician in a black robe whose primary role on the Court will be to advance the radical woke agenda of the Democrat Party, and to undermine any remaining vestige of equal justice under the law.

From the very moment Breyer announced his retirement, a slate of far-left advocacy groups persistently encouraged Biden to consider Jackson as a replacement for Breyer. As NBC News reported, "Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement's agenda."

Although Jackson has bizarrely (and almost certainly dishonestly) claimed she has not developed "a view" on the "living Constitution" – the progressive theory that the written words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning – her resume puts her squarely in the living constitutionalist camp, and her previous legal rulings have consistently favored progressive priorities.

Since Jackson’s appointment as a federal judge, she blocked the Trump administration’s executive orders aimed at holding federal employees accountable (a decision that was unanimously reversed by the D.C. Circuit), stymied Trump’s ability to deport illegal aliens, and forced former White House Counsel Don McGahn to comply with a politically motivated subpoena from congressional Democrats.

A left-wing advocacy group has also praised Jackson for her refusal to use terms like "illegal" and "alien" in her decisions relating to immigration. Perhaps most concerningly, she upheld a program that established explicitly race-based preferences in the awarding of government contracts, giving the impression that she is a disciple of the left’s identity politics regime. Well, what a surprise that she, like most Democrats supports racist Affirmative Action.

This raises another point in my mind. I'd really like to know if any (if not all) of her advances, from entering undergraduate college all the way to her last judge position, were obtained by means of Affirmative Action discrimination in her favor. If it could be found that she got a single one of these from AA, I'd say that should be grounds to reject her just on that alone (not that there aren't plenty of other reasons).

As Ed Whelan wrote for National Review, Jackson "is not highly regarded as a judge" and "has a striking record of reversals by the D.C. Circuit – including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings." This pattern indicates that Jackson is vulnerable to challenges based on the merits of her rulings and legal acumen, rather than merely just her political leanings – a troubling sign for any Supreme Court nominee.

Jackson also defended terrorists detained at Guantánamo Bay (including a likely Taliban leader) in a way that has been described as "zealous" and "ideological." And to top it all off, prior to her appointment as a federal judge, Jackson was part of an amicus brief filed by pro-abortion groups – including NARAL – in support of a so-called "buffer zone" around abortion clinics that sought to impede the right of pro-life Americans to peacefully assemble.

In the age of Big Tech dominance and free speech suppression, should the American people – particularly those with pro-life and other conservative views – really trust that Jackson will stand up for their First Amendment rights?

Following the left’s shameful hysterics throughout the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – in which they slandered Kavanaugh as a serial rapist, and suggested that Barrett was not qualified to serve on the court because of her Catholic faith – no Republican senator should feel in any way inclined to lend their support to Jackson, who unlike Trump’s appointees, is almost universally regarded as a partisan tool of the radical left, without any respect for the Constitution, or regard for the rule of law.

For decades, the left has perceived the Supreme Court not as an independent guardian of the United States Constitution, but instead as a mini legislature whose sole purpose is to ram through extreme policies that the American people do not support.

Judge Jackson is a pitch-perfect exemplar of this dangerous vision: because Democrats know their far-left policies cannot win the popular support of the American people, they must rely on the veiled radicalism of judicial nominees like Jackson to legislate their Marxist policies from the bench.

In writing this article I have copied some parts of the link article by former Attorney General of the United States, Matthew Whittaker. Be sure to watch the short video in the link, since it contains valuable factual information regarding Judge Jackson's record.

MSN

Constitutional rights? Graham asked her an unconstitutional religious question. Are fucking high?

 

[Clipper]

She is pro-pedophile as well--so the dems love her.

I see Cruz, Cotton & the gang succeded in further brainwashing you MAGA louts which was the purpose of those questions in order to lead you morons right by the nose.

How many right wing judges appointed by Republicans use discretion in sentencing?

Answer: every goddam one of them, idiot.

 

[BS Filter]

Where's the proof she's a radical?

Study her history.

 

[BS Filter]

Constitutional rights? Graham asked her an unconstitutional religious question. Are fucking high?

He was showing an example of what the left did to Amy Barrett. You the one that's high. What the hell was Feinstein doing asking Barret about her religion? Get honest about what he was doing.

 

[BWK]

He was showing an example of what the left did to Amy Barrett. You the one that's high.

WHAT FAITH ARE YO BY THE WAY were Grahams exact quotes. Had nothing to do with Barrett.

 

[BWK]

The GOP is sick.

 

[BWK]

Study her history.

Tell us all about it, because I'm afraid we won't find any, because you never have.

 

[BWK]

She is pro-pedophile as well--so the dems love her.

Your proof of that is?

 

[BWK]

She has been answering questions by piling on the rhetoric, lots of hot air, and not really saying anything. In short, she's answering the questions, by not answering the questions.

Biden's selection of her is another example of his ineptness, even as a politician. How many Democrats will lose congressional seats in November, by him putting this child porn loon on the court ?

You should hear the GOP, if you want to hear folks say nothing. You ask stupid nothing questions, take a wild guess what you get back?

 

[BS Filter]

WHAT FAITH ARE YO BY THE WAY were Grahams exact quotes. Had nothing to do with Barrett.

Read this, you lying stupid fuck.

Graham gets combative with Jackson: ‘What faith are you, by the way?’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday grew increasingly combative in his line of questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson, asking President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee about her religious faith, he…

thehill.com

 

[BWK]

America was the envy of the world for it's first 150 years. And back then we weren't worried that we didn't have enough women or blacks on the Supreme Court. Liberals are ruining America.

You are a racist and a misogynist.