What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Tumblin Tumbleweed

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
14,491
Reaction score
4,064
Points
170
t'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.
It's quite possible none of that shit is gonna happen.
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.
So what? The GOP retains power, making them free to fuck things up again, and thus, the cycle continues...
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
Concern trolling isn't new. America just doesn't care. It doesn't seem magaturd concern is all that groundbreaking to them. Or maybe, America is simply tired of their concern troll shit.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
10,440
Reaction score
4,087
Points
928
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.

Well.plagairised but its too late. She will be the new judge regardless if what the propagandists say.

It will have no bearing on the mid terms. If anything, it will cement democrats behind Biden for bringing the sc towards democratic and not stacked with republican lackeys and cronies.
 

BS Filter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
26,303
Reaction score
13,821
Points
1,415
Since this judge can't define what a woman is, how can she define what the Constitution is?
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
48,053
Reaction score
12,495
Points
2,180
:rolleyes:Well.plagairised but its too late. She will be the new judge regardless if what the propagandists say.

It will have no bearing on the mid terms. If anything, it will cement democrats behind Biden for bringing the sc towards democratic and not stacked with republican lackeys and cronies.

Well.plagairised but its too late. She will be the new judge regardless if what the propagandists say.

It will have no bearing on the mid terms. If anything, it will cement democrats behind Biden for bringing the sc towards democratic and not stacked with republican lackeys and cronies.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
26,274
Reaction score
6,560
Points
290
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 ?

She has done nothing different than what previous nominees have done. She has answered the questions to the best of her ability. There were a few where I would have leveled the Republican. Alan Dershowitz slammed his former student Ted Cruz by saying his questions were absurd. Andrew McCarthy is opposed to Jackson but has called your accusations demagoguery and a smear. You are the loon.

Kavanaugh lied in his hearings by claiming that Roe vs Wade was settled law.
 

justoffal

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
8,762
Points
1,255
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.

Yep big time...she uttered what will become the most remembered brain fart of all time in SCOTUS confirmation. Hearings. " I'm not a biologist"...
MASSIVELY DAMAGING...
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
48,053
Reaction score
12,495
Points
2,180
She has done nothing different than what previous nominees have done. She has answered the questions to the best of her ability. There were a few where I would have leveled the Republican. Alan Dershowitz slammed his former student Ted Cruz by saying his questions were absurd. Andrew McCarthy is opposed to Jackson but has called your accusations demagoguery and a smear. You are the loon.

Kavanaugh lied in his hearings by claiming that Roe vs Wade was settled law.
Do you know what a "woman" is ? HA HA HA HA.

Anybody backing this woke-joke, needs to be institutionalized.
 
OP
protectionist

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
48,053
Reaction score
12,495
Points
2,180
Yep big time...she uttered what will become the most remembered brain fart of all time in SCOTUS confirmation. Hearings. " I'm not a biologist"...
MASSIVELY DAMAGING...
The correct answer should have been > an adult human female. So, is she too stupid to know that, or is she too brain-fried with woke lunacy ? Either way, Miss Affirmative Action does not rate.
 

justoffal

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
8,762
Points
1,255
The correct answer should have been > an adult human female. So, is she too stupid to know that, or is she too brain-fried with woke lunacy ? Either way, Miss Affirmative Action does not rate.

Agreed
 

justoffal

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
8,762
Points
1,255

badbob85037

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
1,682
Points
1,938
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.

This is crazy. If there are humans that haven't figured out democRats are bad news all the way around they never will. This goes back to the Civil War. Only the idiots and the 'something for nothings' could support any of these criminals. China is suppose to be our enemy BUT YOU CAN THANK DEMOCRATS FOR GIVING AND SELLING THEM ALL THE NUCLEAR, MILITARY, AND ROCKET ADVANCEMENTS WE EVER HAD.
 

Big Bend Texas

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Messages
9,242
Reaction score
5,178
Points
893
This is crazy. If there are humans that haven't figured out democRats are bad news all the way around they never will. This goes back to the Civil War. Only the idiots and the 'something for nothings' could support any of these criminals. China is suppose to be our enemy BUT YOU CAN THANK DEMOCRATS FOR GIVING AND SELLING THEM ALL THE NUCLEAR, MILITARY, AND ROCKET ADVANCEMENTS WE EVER HAD.
We are our own worst enemy. The democrats are collapsing the US from within right now.

No foreign country could accomplish what they've done much less in such a short time.

In just 14 years we've become the "Disunited States" and the only thing left holding us together is force of arms.
 

otto105

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
18,902
Reaction score
4,938
Points
170
This is crazy. If there are humans that haven't figured out democRats are bad news all the way around they never will. This goes back to the Civil War. Only the idiots and the 'something for nothings' could support any of these criminals. China is suppose to be our enemy BUT YOU CAN THANK DEMOCRATS FOR GIVING AND SELLING THEM ALL THE NUCLEAR, MILITARY, AND ROCKET ADVANCEMENTS WE EVER HAD.
How so?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top