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

[Lisa558]

Wrong. She was simply asked to define what a woman is, and she said she can't because she isn't a biologist. Can you define what a woman is? I can.

I can. a woman has an innie and a man has an outie, and they are born that way. (Rare exception with hermaphrodites.)

 

[jknowgood]

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

et t

Lol, what they are proving they don't care about experience for the job.
Obama first black president. Not very good.
Kamala first black woman vice president. Worst choice they could of made. Absolutely horrible.
Jackson fist black woman to be a Supreme Court Judge. Soft on pedophiles, another horrible choice.

 

[BS Filter]

Maybe she shouldn't try ----- this is the kind of case she will be likely to hear if she is confirmed. Which is why the question was asked, of course, but the candidates usually avoid those.

She wasn't asked about a case. She was simply asked what is the definition of a woman.

 

[Circe]

And what is with this auto thing capitalizing black? It doesn’t happen with white. Are we supposed to be applying an honorific of some type to black people, and not white people? Either capitalize them both, or neither. Jeez.

Yes. For about two years now the AP Style Guide has capped black and left white lowercase. And crazy newspapers, even the Wall Street Journal, have gone along with that! Some are backtracking now, I notice. Of course I never, never cap black. Shocking behavior. I can't imagine what they are thinking of.

 

[Lisa558]

Link it, liar.

It was posted elsewhere weeks ago, racist.

 

[bendog]

Wrong. She was simply asked to define what a woman is, and she said she can't because she isn't a biologist. Can you define what a woman is? I can.

no, you're wrong. You'd have to read the entire exchange. Marsha Marsha was asking about the trans swimmer.

MSN

And the answer was not in the context of potential litigation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No black woman can be believed to be qualified when she is working within a purely affirmative action preferences system like this, which was explicitly announced by the president as being a racial and gender preference. No ANYONE for ANYTHING can be assumed to be qualified within an added-points racial preference system. That's the fundamental problem with affirmative action: they won't be qualified and everyone knows it.

There is no “ purely affirmative action preferences system”.
You have absolutely no way of knowing if she benefitted from affirmative action.
The very fact that you assume so reveals your ill intention and bigoted proclivities.

 

[surada]

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.

Colin Powell has died of COVID.

 

[Lisa558]

Colin Powell has died of COVID.

That was sad, but it happened last year.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was posted elsewhere weeks ago, racist.

It’s your assertion. Link it.

 

[surada]

C

She has been answering questions by piling on the rhetoric, lots of hot air, and not really saying anything. Icn 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 ?

Colin Powell has died of COVID.

 

[Lisa558]

It’s your assertion. Link it.

Someone else did weeks ago.

The odds are that she got into Harvard due to AA racist preferences.

 

[Lisa558]

C
Colin Powell has died of COVID.

Sad, but last year’s news - and off topic.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Someone else did weeks ago.

The odds are that she got into Harvard due to AA racist preferences.

Odds are, you’re a liar.

 

[bendog]

There is no “ purely affirmative action preferences system”.
You have absolutely no way of knowing if she benefitted from affirmative action.
The very fact that you assume so reveals your ill intention and bigoted proclivities.

Lisa is inconsistent in that she only objects to affirm action "hires" when dems make them, apparently.

I suppose one could rationally oppose any "hire" when it was not some kind of "blind" choice .... in which gender or race doesn't play a role. And does anyone really think ABC wasn't picked to fill RBG's seat on a "blind" test. BS. But no one can claim any moral high ground when only opposing dems, or gopers for that matter.

 

[Lisa558]

Odds are, you’re a liar.

Odds are, you never worked in higher ed admissions and saw first-hand how many blacks get in who would have been rejected if they were white. It’s EXTREME.

 

[bendog]

Odds are, you’re a liar.

Well who would care, rationally, anyway? Does Lisa object to legacy admissions. No she does not. LOL It should be obvious to a blind wombat that KJB succeeded at Harvard and was qualified for the jobs she got after that.

 

[Lisa558]

Lisa is inconsistent in that she only objects to affirm action "hires" when dems make them, apparently.

I suppose one could rationally oppose any "hire" when it was not some kind of "blind" choice .... in which gender or race doesn't play a role. And does anyone really think ABC wasn't picked to fill RBG's seat on a "blind" test. BS. But no one can claim any moral high ground when only opposing dems, or gopers for that matter.

I oppose when a sitting US president announces he will apply racist parameters to nominating a Supreme Court justice and will not consider any whites.

 

[bendog]

I oppose when a sitting US president announces he will apply racist parameters to nominating a Supreme Court justice and will not consider any whites.

Did you oppose it when Reagan and both Bushes did? No you did not. So your opinion isn't worth shit because you're more biased than you accuse Biden of being.

 

[Lisa558]

Well who would care, rationally, anyway? Does Lisa object to legacy admissions. No she does not. LOL It should be obvious to a blind wombat that KJB succeeded at Harvard and was qualified for the jobs she got after that.

Why do you say I do not? I’ve said before I do. But the overall qualifications of legacy admits is still higher than those of blacks, overall.

And what is obvious to me, hearing Brown fumble and hesitate through her answers, giving lots of “fluff” language, is that she is the beneficiary of special advantages due to her race. And besides, Biden told us as much - he was only going to pick a black woman..She would never have been considered otherwise.