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

[BWK]

Agree. So tell Democrats to stop the questions about someone's religion.

And visa versa right?

 

[Mac-7]

Where's the proof she's a radical?

She will be the first vote to legalize sex with children

 

[BS Filter]

And visa versa right?

Republicans don't do it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Where's the proof she's a radical?

how much time do you have? How about her views that pedos face too harsh of a sentance......sentence......How do you have this view let alone state it publicly?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

what was it, they asked religious questions of Coney barrett

 

[BS Filter]

This nominee is playing dumb on CRT. She's a race hustler, and she's not really very smart. The democrats are once again lowering the bar.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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

They have to know it's political suicide for the party to confirm her but with the beating they know they're going to take in November as it is they may well have decided it's worth some additional fallout to get one of their own on the court with the potential to serve 40 years or more.

What gets me is why they could not find a better candidate? I mean is this really the best "black woman" they have to offer? What an insult to black women and dem's if that's the case.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

Perhaps someone should sue Biden for racial bias/discrimination in hiring.

Her only qualification is her race and gender, she's probably the most unqualified candidate ever to be offered by any administration for a seat on the SCOTUS.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I am more concerned about Justice Thomas' health.

We should all be concerned about both.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Where's the proof she's a radical?

You can start with the rather high rate her cases have been overturned and then move to everything she's said or written since starting law school.

Refusing for example to use words such as "Alien" and "Illegal" in reference to illegal aliens is a really good clue.

Consistently giving minimal sentences, mostly probation to child porn traffickers and opposing sex offender lists makes it abundantly clear to any objective mind.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

He's alive.

No kidding. If he were dead his health would not be an issue anymore would it?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

She will actually center the other libs on the bench....
BLM is dying...
Abolish police is dying...
And defund cops is dying...
once again Biden is late to the sock hop.....

What the hell? She's as far radical left as it gets in the judiciary, how does that "center" anything?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I say rubber stamp her and move on as there is no use giving the dems nary a bit more media exposure than you have to.

I mean one radical dem shit-stain affirmative action hire is about the same as the next and that is all you will get from Tater and his band-o-turds.

In fact the gop could make a better case just by boycotting the hearing altogether. There's shit-all to be gained other than some POTUS hopeful like Cruz grandstanding.

Bad plan, expose it all without the filter of the talking heads. Run her hearings 8 hours a day online with no commentators.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

~~~~~~
I have no problem with people of color or women on the SCOTUS, It's their ideology and refusal to follow the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in their decisions. When politics and ideology become the rule in our Judiciary the government is lost.

What about hiring on the basis of race and sex?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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.

If they approve her, those democratic Senators will have to go home and explain to the voters why they did so.

That's not going to be pretty.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

No you god damn moron. She gave sentences a LOT lower than what prosecutors asked for. Gave these child predators the lowest possible sentences. All readily available to see. And you applaud. Tells us all we need to know about you....

 

[lantern2814]

You can't be this fucking stupid. Years ago, the GOP would have taken their own out to the woodshed just for bringing it up. You don't bring it up under any circumstances. You are as retarded as Graham.

Too bad you assholes did the same thing to Barrett. They should also ask about any sexual assaults she may have committed and how much she drank in school. The same questions asked of Barrett and Kavanaugh.

 

[22lcidw]

And visa versa right?

Does anyone question all the teenagers getting pregnant and having babies? In African American communities this is a pandemic and has been for many decades. This by definition is rape. This by definition is a pedophile event. All of those below legal age girls impregnated with no questions asked. Do you notice? Where are all the reports of who the daddy is from the ghetto areas? There are none. So this woman who is from the Village and has the mindset of the Bronze Age, logically has views of the same.

 

[beautress]

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

The Democrats demand that everybody just close their eyes, take a nice pill, drop their drawers, and get screwed. I think they believe they will be getting away with giving Republicans 10 minutes to read a 2-reams-of-paper laws that puts bread on the socialist's messy table expects Republicans to vote her in without knowing what her future plans to screw the Republicans is all about yet. All the Demmies want is our freedoms on their little chopping block along with history, the Constitution, and put all the heros in Arlington into a mass grave to burn them up and forget it.

I'm glad the Republicans are putting up a fight. The Democrats need to be slugged as they have slugged the entire country into their little commie plans for patriotic Americans with the founders' recommendations that made our ragtag colonial forbears beloved givers of a New Nation created in liberty and dedicated to God's principles of brotherly love, equality, and justice for all. I'm sick of pissy abortion-pushers in Congress who want to take away parents' rights and sluff everything off to athiest ways that will destroy what Arlington Cemetery tells about sacrifice. And I'm pretty sick of the press patting itself on the back for supporting chaos seekers who have smitten wealthy people into squandering wealth on footshoots created by the chaotic leftists who are not satisfied with representative power for the wanton total power they didn't earn honestly. They think God is watching them from a distance, and will allow them to wipe out all that's good about helping hand America with endless wealth cheated the treasury out of through extorting cash from foreign aid packages to third world countries and splitting the bonanza among themselves to pay for buying votes with vacuous promises.

 

[beautress]

As for the Demmie nominee, she seemed to think lying her ass off would go over with the majority of representatives and senators who rolled in on the most corrupt power grab dressed up in cheating the American voters out of their true choice{s}. I think the American people are sick of the main strong point of Democrats was pushing lies for self-enrichment morning, noon, and night. They seem to find liars appealing to their sense of omeurta by hiding her records so that no one can know exactly how unjust lletting off criminals who would destroy America if let out of jail for free as their deep state lusts for chaos which puts them in the driver's seat. Meh.