GOP Senator Roy Blunt says Ketanji Brown Jackson will make history on the Supreme Court, but he won't vote for her

[basquebromance]

Blunt said Democrats have been voting against qualified Supreme Court nominees whose philosophies differed from theirs for decades

 

[pknopp]

It would be refreshing to see a politician say, "The other side has been voting against qualified candidates for years, but I'm going to be better than that".

 

[Mac1958]

We're devolving more and more into pure, blatant, transparent partisanship. There are now only a few in DC who have not gone down the rabbit hole.

What a shame. We used to be much better than this.

 

[Moonglow]

Blunt said Democrats have been voting against qualified Supreme Court nominees whose philosophies differed from theirs for decades

I don't support Roy Blunt so we have something in common.

 

[Moonglow]

We're devolving more and more into pure, blatant, transparent partisanship. There are now only a few in DC who have not gone down the rabbit hole.

What a shame. We used to be much better than this.

Yeah, like when Reagan and the GOP supported the Brady Bill which was a ban on assault weapons.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Not sure what candidates Blount is referring to. Thomas and Kavanaugh should have been gone once their bad behavior was uncovered and should have never even seen a confirmation vote. During the Trump years were all political...but the rest?
Robert Bork was the only one I can remember getting the heave ho in the Senate vote.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

_Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

www.senate.gov

 

[bodecea]

It would be refreshing to see a politician say, "The other side has been voting against qualified candidates for years, but I'm going to be better than that".

But they AREN'T better than that.

 

[iceberg]

We're devolving more and more into pure, blatant, transparent partisanship. There are now only a few in DC who have not gone down the rabbit hole.

What a shame. We used to be much better than this.

Yet you cheer one side and demonize the other.

how is that working out?

 

[iceberg]

Not sure what candidates Blount is referring to. Thomas and Kavanaugh should have been gone once their bad behavior was uncovered and should have never even seen a confirmation vote. During the Trump years were all political...but the rest?
Robert Bork was the only one I can remember getting the heave ho in the Senate vote.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

_Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

www.senate.gov

the left making shit up out of their ass doesn't make it true.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

the left making shit up out of their ass doesn't make it true.

It's right there in black and white, snowflake. The idea that votes didn't cross party lines for SC nominees before the Trump era is bullshit.

I didn't expect anything different out of the Senator from NC.
I expect there will be a few Republicans voting for Jackson.

 

[DGS49]

Being "qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court is a curious proposition. Any competent attorney could be a perfectly fine USSC Justice. The cases aren't that complicated, and they are briefed to hell and gone before the Justice has to decide how to vote. And they can have their clerks write the opinions based on just a bullet-point set of instructions, if they are not comfortable writing it themselves. The clerks are all top-rate legal minds.

The only real challenging task for a SC justice is to take a law and the Constitution, and write an opinion that actually turns them upside down to reach the conclusion that is desired. And this only applies to Leftists. For example when they made up a "right to privacy," and pretended that it was actually already in the Constitution. Conservatives just apply the facts to the law and compare the law to the Constitution, and the decision is usually quite obvious.

As for the ethics of participating Senators, one might note that the vote for RBGinsburg was 96-3, and she was a flaming Leftist activist. Scalia, 98-0. What happened? Bork. Game changer.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Reply

Being "qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court is a curious proposition. Any competent attorney could be a perfectly fine USSC Justice. The cases aren't that complicated, and they are briefed to hell and gone before the Justice has to decide how to vote. And they can have their clerks write the opinions based on just a bullet-point set of instructions, if they are not comfortable writing it themselves. The clerks are all top-rate legal minds.

The only real challenging task for a SC justice is to take a law and the Constitution, and write an opinion that actually turns them upside down to reach the conclusion that is desired. And this only applies to Leftists. For example when they made up a "right to privacy," and pretended that it was actually already in the Constitution. Conservatives just apply the facts to the law and compare the law to the Constitution, and the decision is usually quite obvious.

As for the ethics of participating Senators, one might note that the vote for RBGinsburg was 96-3, and she was a flaming Leftist activist. Scalia, 98-0. What happened? Bork. Game changer.

Bork came before Ginsburg so that game changer doesn't hold. And he was the only rejection (Thomas should have been but wasn't).

The game changer? Trump for putting Kavanaugh forth (also should have been rejected)...with an assist to McConnell for being a slimebag about the process..which tarnished both the Gorsuch and the ACB nominations.

 

[LeftofLeft]

It would be refreshing to see a politician say, "The other side has been voting against qualified candidates for years, but I'm going to be better than that".

Why? Justice nominees’ policies are at variance with the party out of power. What would be nice is the cease of smearing and lies.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Being "qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court is a curious proposition. Any competent attorney could be a perfectly fine USSC Justice. The cases aren't that complicated, and they are briefed to hell and gone before the Justice has to decide how to vote. And they can have their clerks write the opinions based on just a bullet-point set of instructions, if they are not comfortable writing it themselves. The clerks are all top-rate legal minds.

The only real challenging task for a SC justice is to take a law and the Constitution, and write an opinion that actually turns them upside down to reach the conclusion that is desired. And this only applies to Leftists. For example when they made up a "right to privacy," and pretended that it was actually already in the Constitution. Conservatives just apply the facts to the law and compare the law to the Constitution, and the decision is usually quite obvious.

As for the ethics of participating Senators, one might note that the vote for RBGinsburg was 96-3, and she was a flaming Leftist activist. Scalia, 98-0. What happened? Bork. Game changer.

The nation's first openly supportive justice for pedophile rights in the Supreme Court.
What a milestone. And not in a good way.

 

[Mac1958]

Yet you cheer one side and demonize the other.

how is that working out?

Only in your mind. Nothing I can do about that.

 

[22lcidw]

I don't support Roy Blunt so we have something in common.

When things get bad enough, many people will not follow the Supreme Court anymore.

 

[pknopp]

Why? Justice nominees’ policies are at variance with the party out of power. What would be nice is the cease of smearing and lies.

Just because a judge doesn't agree with everything you do doesnt mean they aren't qualified.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just because a judge doesn't agree with everything you do doesnt mean they aren't qualified.

No one is arguing if their qualified. But, I do think scrutiny should be applied to insure the justices’ leanings - conservative or liberal - will not influence their ability or willingness to interpret the law; not create nor enforce the law. They also should not be influenced nor use international law.

 

[pknopp]

No one is arguing if their qualified. But, I do think scrutiny should be applied to insure the justices’ leanings - conservative or liberal - will not influence their ability or willingness to interpret the law; not create nor enforce the law. They also should not be influenced nor use international law.

Whenever a judge rules in a way someone doesn't like they accuse them of interpreting the law, not ruling on it.