Ketanji Brown Jackson Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Good grief! She keeps showing us who and what she is. ANd what she is isn't inside the judicial norm in any sense.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.” (See p. 79 of her response to written questions.)​

​

Jackson’s answer comes immediately after this Q&A:​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Thus, by her own account, Jackson doesn’t embrace the basic American creed set forth in that passage from the Declaration.​

​

As one friend commented to me, since Jackson can’t say what a woman is, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t believe that human beings have natural rights.​

​

​

KBJ Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights | National Review

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: ‘I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.’

www.nationalreview.com

She's just an African, not an AMERICAN
Totally unqualified for the job Mr Potatohead appointed her to

 

[scruffy]

Sigh. Once in a while I wake up in the Twilight Zone. This is one of those times. I have to agree with the lefties on this one.

Our Constitution is about political rights, not natural rights. It is wholly irrelevant where those rights come from. The fact is, they're written down and the Justices are sworn to uphold and defend what's written down.

 

[rightwinger]

Uhhhh, . . .

Let me try to get your rights theory straight in my head . . .

You claim the people only have rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution.

But then I see the Constitution say the people possess a wide swath of undefined / unquantified rights specifically NOT stated in the Constitution and that we possess these unenumerated rights because the people "retained" them.

AMENDMENT IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

What does that word, "retained" tell us about the previous condition of those unenumenrated rights?

Who possessed those rights before they were specifically NOT stated in the Constitution, in order for the people to retain them and be recognized as possessing them in the 9th Amendment?

Does not apply to any supposed Natural Rights

 

[Desperado]

Her answer on page 79 as linked above.

​

16. Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?​

​

RESPONSE: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.​

​

a. If yes, what is your position?​

​

RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 16.​

The majority should never yield to the minority

 

[Resnic]

Even if a white Republican male said that, or anything she has said really, I would vote against her. She should not be a supreme court judge.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said he will not vote to support President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson for her historic confirmation to the nation’s highest court, citing disagreements with her judicial philosophy.

“I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it’ll be a high point for the country to see her go on the court,” Blunt told “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos exclusively on Sunday. “But I don’t think she’s the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the court. And I won’t be supporting her, but I’ll be joining others and understanding the importance of this moment.”

In other words we need to keep the Court Lily White.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Even if a white Republican male said that, or anything she has said really, I would vote against her. She should not be a supreme court judge.

Tough shit, she is going to be a SC Justice.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Founding Fathers did not apply natural rights to all people in the US.

Which does not invalidate the concept of natural rights of individuals. Instead it points to one of the many flaws of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Judge Jackson cannot commit to believing that individuals possess inalienable rights. Alienating the rights of individuals is one of the central tenants of her political/economic/moral philosophy.

 

[Moonglow]

Which does not invalidate the concept of natural rights of individuals. Instead it points to one of the many flaws of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Judge Jackson cannot commit to believing that individuals possess inalienable rights. Alienating the rights of individuals is one of the central tenants of her political/economic/moral philosophy.

natural rights is a liberal philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.

 

[rightwinger]

Which does not invalidate the concept of natural rights of individuals. Instead it points to one of the many flaws of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Judge Jackson cannot commit to believing that individuals possess inalienable rights. Alienating the rights of individuals is one of the central tenants of her political/economic/moral philosophy.

Judges cannot rule on undefined “Natural Laws”or inalienable rights
Judge Jackson was correct in restricting her decisions to the law

 

[Seymour Flops]

natural rights is a liberal philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.

I'm not conservative, I'm libertarian, which used to be called "liberal," until American socialists (who hate individual rights), expropriated the term.

 

[Sandisk]

Blah, blah, blah.

You Righties just hate her because Biden put her up.
If Trump had - you would LOVE her.

And the reverse goes for the lefties.

All I care about is will she follow the Constitution - as written - in ALL her decisions.
Because that is - in essence - what the SCOTUS justices are sworn to do.
And over the last few decades - they have been doing a shitty job of it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Judges cannot rule on undefined “Natural Laws”or inalienable rights
Judge Jackson was correct in restricting her decisions to the law

If her goal was to avoid admitting her true feelings, yes.

If her goal was to give informative answers so Senators can fairly decide whether to confirm her for the USSC, not so much.

In every other court, the jurists are actually expected to blindly follow the law, including precedents. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded. On the USSC, they have seen fit to substitute their political opinions for the written law. Both Democratic and Republican USSC justices have done this.

So, it was a perfectly fair question, that deserved a straight answer.

 

[rightwinger]

If her goal was to avoid admitting her true feelings, yes.

If her goal was to give informative answers so Senators can fairly decide whether to confirm her for the USSC, not so much.

In every other court, the jurists are actually expected to blindly follow the law, including precedents. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded. On the USSC, they have seen fit to substitute their political opinions for the written law. Both Democratic and Republican USSC justices have done this.

So, it was a perfectly fair question, that deserved a straight answer.

Judge Jackson is doing exactly what Conservatives are demanding.

Follow the law, not some “feel good” explanation of natural law

 

[Ringtone]

Bullshit!

It is NOT law and is not part of any law in these United States. I keep listening to you uneducated folks talk as thought it was, when nothing could be further from the truth! How can it be law when it predates the United States of America by 13 years?

And as I have told you before, your failure to grasp the historical connection between the theoretical and literal stems from ignorance!

See post #69 and #71.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Judge Jackson is doing exactly what Conservatives are demanding.

Follow the law, not some “feel good” explanation of

Judge Jackson is doing exactly what Conservatives are demanding.

Follow the law, not some “feel good” explanation of natural law

The law clearly states that the enumeration of certain rights does not diminish other rights.

 

[Abatis]

natural rights is a liberal philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.

Classical liberal, as in Lockean Enlightened liberal, not today's authoritarian, statist, collectivist leftist who has corrupted the term liberal.

 

[Abatis]

Does not apply to any supposed Natural Rights

You have no clue. You couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

 

[scruffy]

You have no clue. You couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

He has a clue.

He's almost there.

Here, I will expound, in the next couple of posts.

 

[scruffy]

Judges cannot rule on undefined “Natural Laws”or inalienable rights
Judge Jackson was correct in restricting her decisions to the law

Yes. Sentence #1 is correct. The Natural Rights are vague and entirely uncodified. If a Justice rules on the basis of a natural right, it's tantamount to legislating from the bench. HOWEVER - I will expound further, see below in reply to Moonglow.

Sentence #2 is also correct. Unless you're trying to change the law, your decisions must be within the law.