Author Topic: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson  (Read 5230 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 25, 2022, 09:14:24 AM by Crafty_Dog »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2022, 04:34:54 PM »
“I would probably lean towards yes,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told CNN, when asked whether Breyer should retire. “I would give more thought to it, but I’m inclined to say yes.”

obviously this was crucial.  :wink:

and would anyone think she would have to think twice which is more than normal for her to start with .

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Lindsey
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2022, 07:43:17 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/politics/lindsey-graham-j-michelle-childs-supreme-court/index.html

while maybe righteous I just cannot imagine a Democrat doing the same.....

for a Repub choice.......

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Don't fire Ilya Shapiro
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2022, 12:02:27 PM »
Don’t Fire Ilya Shapiro
By THE EDITORS
January 29, 2022 10:25 AM


Twitter is not, obviously, a medium naturally given to carefully calibrated expression. Almost everyone who uses it has jumped to a conclusion too quickly, worded something poorly, or deleted tweets after thinking better of them.

So, it wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy that Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute fired off a couple of late-night tweets whose wording he regretted, except that he’s been hired for a position at Georgetown Law School and an outrage mob is demanding his preemptive firing.



If Georgetown allows itself to be bullied into going down this route, it will be perpetrating an outlandish injustice, trampling the values of free and open expression that are supposed to animate such institutions, and courting — deservedly — a fierce reaction from alumni.

Upon the news that Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring and President Biden is sticking by his pledge to nominate a black woman as a replacement, Shapiro tweeted that Sri Srinivasan, the Obama-appointed chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be Biden’s best pick. He noted that Srinivasan, who holds the job Merrick Garland held when he was nominated for the Supreme Court, is a very impressive progressive. Then, he said that Biden’s pledge meant that he’ll instead nominate a “lesser black woman.”

That’s a wince-inducing turn of phrase, especially in isolation, and Shapiro deleted the tweet. But it does not make Shapiro a racist and shouldn’t be used to negate all the qualities that led Georgetown to pick Shapiro to head its Center for the Constitution in the first place.


If Shapiro was airing his alleged racism in that tweet, he had a funny way of doing it — he was strongly endorsing an Indian-American jurist who is a Hindu. If Srinivasan ever makes it to the Supreme Court, he will make history a couple of different ways. In addition, Shapiro was enunciating a belief that Srinivasan is the best of all candidates — in other words better than all other candidates whatever their race or sex — and a principled opposition to elevating demographic considerations above the individual merits of possible nominees. If Biden had pledged to pick a white man, surely Shapiro would have rued this promise on exactly the same grounds. Moreover, Shapiro has previously cited a black woman (Janice Rogers Brown) as being someone he would nominate for the Court if he had the chance.


The fact is that there is absolutely nothing in Shapiro’s record to indicate any hint of racism and sexism. He has written about, discussed, and debated the Constitution for decades now, winning the admiration and respect of people across the ideological spectrum for his knowledge, passion, and civility. His sincerely and deeply held libertarianism has led him time and again to defend underdogs challenging state action regarding criminal justice, civil liberties, regulatory barriers to employment, and discrimination.

It’s now a further charge in the indictment against Shapiro that he questioned Sonia Sotomayor’s suitability for the Supreme Court, but so did Laurence Tribe and Jeffrey Rosen. Isn’t it suspicious, the critics ask, that he praised Amy Coney Barrett, a white woman? Well, no, as an originalist, he’d of course endorse her approach to the law, and Barrett impressed people on the right and the left during her rise to the Court.


But Shapiro shouldn’t need defending on any of this. It was obvious what he meant with his tweet, and he rapidly deleted it and apologized for the wording. In a rational world, that would be enough. From a faculty member who was staunchly progressive, it would be enough. The dean of the law school, William Treanor, has already denounced Shapiro in excessively harsh terms, and all indications are he is considering firing him. That would be a cowardly act signaling the school’s intellectual and moral inability to stand up for fairness, open speech, and minimal ideological diversity. If that comes to pass, Georgetown alumni should make their voices heard and close their wallets to the school.

Shapiro, unsurprisingly to anyone who knows him, has behaved honorably in this controversy. It remains to be seen if the same can be said of Georgetown Law.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2022, 02:12:37 PM »
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/politics/lindsey-graham-j-michelle-childs-supreme-court/index.html

while maybe righteous I just cannot imagine a Democrat doing the same.....

for a Repub choice.......

Hopefully he is trying to steer Biden to an acceptable choice.  I haven't looked at this candidate, but assume the odds overall of Biden picking someone acceptable (to us) is near zero.  Time will tell.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2022, 04:34:39 PM »
Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch
By NEAL K. KATYALJAN. 31, 2017

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.

There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.

I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.
 
Considerable doubts about the direction of the Supreme Court have emerged among Democrats in recent weeks, particularly given some of the names that have been floated by the administration for possible nomination. With environmental protection, reproductive rights, privacy, executive power and the rights of criminal defendants (including the death penalty) on the court’s docket, the stakes are tremendous. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice. But since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws?

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.

In a pair of immigration cases, De Niz Robles v. Lynch and Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch ruled against attempts by the government to retroactively interpret the law to disfavor immigrants. In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers. When judges defer to the executive about the law’s meaning, he wrote, they “are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.” In strong terms, Judge Gorsuch called that a “problem for the judiciary” and “a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired” by “an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.” That reflects a deep conviction about the role of the judiciary in preserving the rule of law.

That conviction will serve the court and the country well. Last week, The Denver Post encouraged the president to nominate Judge Gorsuch in part because “a justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.”

I couldn’t agree more. Right about now, the public could use some reassurance that no matter how chaotic our politics become, the members of the Supreme Court will uphold the oath they must take: to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise.

Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2022, 06:27:29 AM »
"and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court."

this alone would disqualify Harris

besides the fact  she is NOT brilliant.  :wink:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2022, 02:26:14 PM »
I wonder who told Breyer he was retiring.


"and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court."

this alone would disqualify Harris

besides the fact  she is NOT brilliant.  :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2022, 03:23:43 AM »
Biden accused of hypocrisy for filibustering judge

Voted twice in Senate to block Bush’s Black female nominee

BY VALERIE RICHARDSON THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Biden wasn’t always a supporter of Black women on the federal bench.

While serving in the Senate, Mr. Biden filibustered the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — twice — before she was finally approved in 2005 after a twoyear fight.

His staunch opposition to Judge Brown, the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, prompted allegations of hypocrisy after he reiterated last week his vow to nominate a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court following Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement announcement.

“If he wants to unite the country, Biden should nominate Janice Rogers Brown,” tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican.

A former California Supreme Court justice, Judge Brown was nominated by President George W. Bush and retired from the court in 2017. She was seen as a potential Supreme Court pick for the 2005 opening that was ultimately filled by Justice Samuel Alito.

Mr. Hawley described Judge Brown, now 72, as a “committed constitutionalist who is also an African-American woman. Sadly, Biden personally filibustered her historic nomination to DC Circuit twice when he was in [the] Senate. Now is the time to make amends.”

If he wants to unite the country, Biden should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. Committed constitutionalist who is also an African-American woman. Sadly, Biden personally filibustered her historic nomination to DC Circuit twice when he was in Senate. Now is the time to make amends — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 28, 2022 Mr. Biden voted in 2003 and 2005 to block efforts by Senate Republicans, who held the majority, to confirm the Brown nomination.

During the 2005 floor debate, the Delaware Democrat gave an impassioned defense of the filibuster and against the “nuclear option,” a speech reprinted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee on its website in March.

“The American people will soon learn that Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the nominees that we are not allowing to be passed, one of the ostensible reasons for this nuclear option being employed has decried the Supreme Court’s — quote — ‘socialist revolution of 1930,’” said Mr. Biden in his May 23, 2005, remarks.

He also said that “I think this is the single-most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate, and I suspect the senator [West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd] would agree with that.”

Fox News host Dana Perino, who served in the Bush White House, said that Democrats privately told media outlets that they opposed the Brown nomination because “they didn’t want the Republicans to have a shot at nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.”

“I would just like to take a quick trip down memory lane — if Democrats really wanted to see a Black woman elevated to the Supreme Court, why did they block Janice Rogers Brown back during the Bush administration?” she asked Monday on Fox’s “The Five.”

Mr. Biden’s decision to pick a Supreme Court justice based on race and sex isn’t polling well.

An ABC News/Ipsos Poll released Sunday found that 76% of Americans want the president to consider “all possible nominees,” while 23% want him to honor his 2020 campaign pledge.

Megan Wold, a constitutional lawyer and former law clerk to Justice Alito, said that Mr. Biden should consider eminently qualifi ed Black women “alongside every other eminently qualified potential nominee.”

She added that “Biden’s pledge makes him a hypocrite because no one has done more than Biden to thwart black women nominees to the federal bench,” citing his opposition to the Brown pick.

“As a United States Senator, Biden considered an eminently qualified black woman for appointment to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Ms. Wold in a statement. “That was Janice Rogers Brown and then-Senator Biden filibustered her — twice. President Biden should apologize to Judge Janice Rogers Brown before he attempts to play identity politics with this Supreme Court nomination.”

Justice Breyer, 83, plans to step down at the end of the court’s current term, which would be late June or early July.


Former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was considered for the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2005 and retired in 2017.


As a senator, President Biden argued against the Court of Appeals nomination of Judge Brown. His choice now to pick a Supreme Court justice based on race and sex isn’t polling well.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2022, 07:29:03 AM »
"and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court."

this alone would disqualify Harris

besides the fact  she is NOT brilliant.  :wink:

They are caught between a rock and a hard place.  They wanted, begged, likely pressured to get this opportunity to replace Breyer with someone (much) younger.  Putting Harris there would solve one problem and create many more.  She would be a horrible nominee and horrible Supreme Court Justice, and replacing her as VP would create a second fight.

If Biden picks a radical to the Court, and of course he will, he has the problem of the 50-50 Senate, (and the divided nation).  Joe Manchin who has basically been chased out of the party.  He could rebel. I can't imagine the voters of WV want a left wing radical.  Another is the questionable constitutionality of the VP having the tie breaker vote on the nomination.  Perhaps more importantly is the predicament it puts every moderate Dem Senator in.  Vote radical or join the R's in defeating her.

If Biden makes a thoughtful, reasonable, responsible pick of a solid constitutionalist (not possible), he risks losing (what's left of) his left wing support.

Pres. Biden wanted this moment to change the subject, but a Supreme Court pick isn't the Democrats best subject either.  America doesn't want left wing political radicals on the Court and the Democrats don't know how to pick anyone else.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 07:34:15 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Reagan stating he will choose woman for SCOTUS
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2022, 09:35:30 AM »
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-02-01/biden-reagan-supreme-court-politics

for political reasons.

 :-o

puts a real damper on arguing against  today's
Biden announcements about picking a Black woman for the SCOTUS

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Reagan stating he will choose woman for SCOTUS
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2022, 02:43:31 PM »
A big mistake by Reagan, making a political pick instead of picking the best constitutional Justice. 

My understanding: this was Nancy's influence and should not have happened.

Where in the constitution does it say race-based discrimination, aka affirmative action, is okay for 25 years but not after that.

Principle-less politician, AZ Republican, synonym for RINO, not jurist.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2022, 05:20:26 PM »
".“Three guys in pick-up trucks came up to me and said she ‘seems like a nice lady. I’m tired of this Harvard-Yale stuff.’ The great equalizer is the garbage dump because everybody’s got to throw out garbage,” Graham said in an interview Tuesday. “I was just struck by what they thought.”

obviously an allegory

yes, I agree with it is high  time to rid the nation of this Harvard Yale shit.....

but I disagree with the rest.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Replacing Breyer:, Did Lefty Larry get one right?
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2022, 06:11:43 AM »
VP breaking a Senate tie is to break a logjam in legislation, not to cross over into the advise and consent role of a co-equal branch of government.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/23/opinion/no-hiding-behind-pences-skirt-supreme-court-nomination/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Replacing Breyer: Biden pledge already backfired
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2022, 06:43:27 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-biden-s-vow-to-name-a-black-woman-to-the-supreme-court-backfired/ar-AATl2W0

75% think that's wrong.  This is not a right wing source.  Some think it is illegal and unconstitutional to exclude from consideration based on  race and gender.  How does that help blacks and women?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2022, 09:07:58 AM »
VA's new Lt. Gov (forget name, one I should know) was on FOX and commented that Marshall was appointed for his race, and O'Connor for her sex, but noted that Biden voted against first black woman (nominated by Bush 43?)

In the back and forth of these things, not a bad political positioning , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2022, 04:55:52 PM »
VA's new Lt. Gov (forget name, one I should know) was on FOX and commented that Marshall was appointed for his race, and O'Connor for her sex, but noted that Biden voted against first black woman (nominated by Bush 43?)

In the back and forth of these things, not a bad political positioning , , ,

Winsome Sears.

Janice Rodgers Brown.  Isn't that weird.  The President who intends to appoint the first Black woman to the Court, BLOCKED the first Black woman nominated to the acourt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/
Paywall blocked.

If you ain't liberal, radical Left, you ain't a Black woman.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 06:35:24 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2022, 02:37:24 AM »
Opinion: Biden blocked the first Black woman from the Supreme Court

California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown speaks in a San Francisco courtroom on May 24, 2005. Brown, a Republican, was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2003 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Paul Sakuma/AP)
Image without a caption
By Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist
February 1, 2022 at 2:13 p.m. EST



President Biden wants credit for nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. But here is the shameful irony: As a senator, Biden warned President George W. Bush that if he nominated the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, he would filibuster and kill her nomination.

The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Brown was immediately hailed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. She was highly qualified, having served for seven years as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court — the first Black woman to do so. She was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, and grew up in rural Alabama during the dark days of segregation, when her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for Black customers. She rose from poverty and put herself through college and UCLA law school as a working single mother. She was a self-made African American legal star. But she was an outspoken conservative — so Biden set out to destroy her.

Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.” Democrats argued that she was out of the legal mainstream, but Republicans responded that she had written more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court — and she was reelected with 76 percent of the vote, the highest percentage of all the justices on the ballot.

When Democrats derailed her nomination, Bush renominated her in 2005. Brown was eventually confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43 — after Democrats released her and several other Bush nominees in exchange for Republican agreement not to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Biden voted a second time against her nomination. He never explained why, if Brown was so radical, Democrats let her through but killed 10 other Bush nominees.

Jennifer Rubin: Biden’s critics are clueless about his pledge to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court

The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said. Asked by moderator John Roberts “Wasn’t she just confirmed?,” Biden replied that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ballgame” because “a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don’t get to make new law.”


The carping over Biden’s Supreme Court pledge is historically inaccurate and racially tinged

What Biden threatened was unprecedented. There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic. Biden wanted to make a Black woman the first in history to have her nomination killed by filibuster. Bush eventually nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr.


Today, Biden calls the filibuster a “relic of the Jim Crow era.” But he threatened to use that relic as a tool to keep a Black woman who actually lived under Jim Crow off the highest court in the land. The irony is that now he wants to get rid of the filibuster, and claim credit for putting the first Black woman on the court.

There were many conservatives on Bush’s shortlist whose legal philosophy Biden opposed. But Biden only promised to filibuster the one Black woman. Why? Perhaps a clue lies in another confirmation fight that Biden helped wage. In 2001, Democrats blocked the nomination of Miguel Estrada to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they targeted Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” They did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. So, Biden and his fellow Democrats killed Estrada’s nomination — the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It paid off when President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice.

The Ranking Committee: The 11 likeliest people to get Biden’s Supreme Court nomination

Democrats’ commitment to diversity is a ruse. Biden was willing to destroy the careers of an accomplished Latino lawyer and a respected Black female judge, and stop Republicans from putting either on the Supreme Court. For Democrats, it’s all about identity politics. Indeed, Biden might not have become president had he not made the pledge to nominate a Black woman. That promise helped secure the endorsement of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) — which won Biden the South Carolina primary and rescued his faltering campaign.

So, when Biden tries to bask in the glory of his historic nomination, remember Janice Rogers Brown — the Black woman who does not sit on the Supreme Court today because of Biden’s disgraceful obstruction.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2022, 06:34:10 AM »
"If you ain't liberal, radical Left, you ain't a Black woman."

or if you ain't a Democrat you ain't black.

Just like he voted against Clarence Thomas the same way

I don't know why Biden is given this reputation of reaching across the aisle.

so he voted for Clinton's crime that now he runs away from as fast as possible

and voted for W's invasion of Iraq

to me he has always been a dirty partisan.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2022, 08:43:14 AM »
"Just like he voted against Clarence Thomas the same way"
 ....................lynched.............

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
POTH on Leondra Kruger
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2022, 03:30:40 AM »
California’s Supreme Court Was Split. Leondra Kruger Found the Center.
Known for her ‘elegant’ mind, the moderate judge, now on President Biden’s short list of potential high court nominees, could be a mediating force in Washington.

Leondra R. Kruger, 45, who could become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, is regarded by colleagues as a consensus builder.Credit...Cayce Clifford for The New York Times


By Shawn Hubler and Katie Benner
Feb. 6, 2022



SACRAMENTO — In 2014, when then-Governor Jerry Brown nominated Leondra R. Kruger to the California Supreme Court, the immediate reaction in her home state was: Leondra who?

She was just 38. While she was born and brought up in California, her career had been in Washington, D.C., as a government lawyer. A retired veteran of the state appellate bench complained that her nomination was a “slap in the face” because she had “never been a judge at any level.” Willie Brown, a former mayor of San Francisco, asked in The San Francisco Chronicle “why the governor had to go all the way to the East Coast” for a new justice.

“Were there no qualified African Americans in California?” wrote the mayor, who is African American.

Within weeks, however, Justice Kruger was unanimously confirmed; the hearing was so deferential and swift that the court’s chief justice was still asking who was in favor when the confirmation panel — which included the state’s then-attorney general, Kamala Harris — interrupted with “aye” votes. Eight years later, she has forged a reputation as one of the most influential voices on the highest court in the nation’s most populous state.


It is an achievement that now could prove as consequential as any Beltway credential. If selected from President Biden’s short list of candidates to succeed Justice Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court, she could become not only the first Black female justice, but also a mediating force on an institution notable for its polarization.

Senate Republican leaders have warned that they will oppose “radical left” nominees. But jurists across the political spectrum say that, like the president, Justice Kruger’s hallmark is moderation.


“She’s a consensus builder,” said Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who was appointed in 2011 by a Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Beyond her obviously glittering Ivy League education and her brilliant mind is this incredibly humble, self-effacing personality who is very persuasive in bringing groups together on different legal arcs.”

That instinct for reasoned persuasion has made Justice Kruger, 45, a powerful backstage force on a split court whose majority has shifted from right to left during her tenure. Since her arrival, California’s high court — notorious as recently as a decade ago for its partisanship and division — has voted unanimously in nearly nine out of 10 decisions, a rate that far outstrips the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimity.

David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley, said Justice Kruger has been “a key factor” in that shift, working behind the scenes to craft decisions that keep to the letter of the law and transcend ideological viewpoints. In a recently published analysis, Mr. Carrillo found that she rarely dissents, “and when she does it’s usually to argue that the court has gone too far.”

Her opinions on occasion have evoked sharp dissents from liberal colleagues. In 2018, for instance, she authored a 4-3 ruling upholding a state requirement that felony arrestees — even before they are convicted — surrender DNA samples, a law that dissenting liberal justices decried as an unconstitutional “biological dragnet.”

Joined by the court’s Republican appointees, she relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent to determine that a DNA swab was legitimately taken from an accused arsonist, but deliberately left open the larger constitutional question. The dissenting justices argued the court should have been bolder in protecting privacy rights given California’s own laws, with one deriding the majority opinion as “in tension even with its own logic.”

Another dissent warned that the ruling meant “it is not that far a step for the state to collect and retain DNA from law-abiding people in general.”

But Justice Kruger’s defenders note that, by drawing the decision narrowly, she arguably prevented the U.S. Supreme Court from subsequently overturning the ruling.

Many liberal jurists in the state are still smarting.

“Some may see what she did as a cop-out, but others might see it as a pragmatic way to view the issue,” said the California Court of Appeal Justice J. Anthony Kline, adding that he still disagrees.

In a profession that is noisy with self promotion, Justice Kruger declined President Biden’s offer last year to make her solicitor general, a prestigious appointment, preferring to remain on the bench. Friends and colleagues describe her as “chill” and “measured,” a homebody whose leisure pastime in law school was reality TV.


Then-Governor Jerry Brown, right, explained his choice to nominate Leondra Kruger to the California Supreme Court by saying he wanted a judge “who could not just make a decision but fit it into the longer intellectual tradition in the law — the wider sweep, the larger view.”
Then-Governor Jerry Brown, right, explained his choice to nominate Leondra Kruger to the California Supreme Court by saying he wanted a judge “who could not just make a decision but fit it into the longer intellectual tradition in the law — the wider sweep, the larger view.” Credit...Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press
The daughter of pediatricians — her father white and Jewish, her mother Black and Jamaican-born — she maintains ties with a sprawling extended family that includes half-siblings who grew up while her father was running clinics in the late 1960s for underserved Black communities in Florida and Mississippi.


Her husband, Brian Hauck, a partner at Jenner & Block who works in the firm’s San Francisco office, is a regulatory lawyer from Wisconsin; they met as summer associates in Washington, D.C., were married in Jamaica and host an annual Jamaican feast to celebrate their anniversary. Justice Kruger’s son was a toddler when she joined the California Supreme Court, and her daughter’s arrival made her the first member to give birth while on the court.

“We had our first ever baby shower at the court,” Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said. “With a diaper cake.”

A month later, Justice Kruger flew with the nursing infant to Los Angeles to preside over hearings, pulling on her black robe and leaving the baby in chambers with her mother-in-law during courtroom arguments. The two children now attend public school in Oakland, near her home.

The justice and her husband, colleagues say, pack their lunches for work. They drive an electric car, not for the political statement, but because, she advises friends, EVs can use car pool lanes on California freeways, cutting commute times. Co-workers talk about her rowdy laugh and her modesty.

“She’s not a fancy person,” said Kathleen Hartnett, a lawyer and decades-long friend who lives nearby, and with whom the justice periodically shares hand-me-downs for Ms. Hartnett’s children. “People here will socialize with her or talk to her at birthday parties and be surprised to later realize they were talking to a California Supreme Court justice.”

Recordings of cases she has argued and heard reveal an easy, conversational style — less like a debate than an invitation to solve a problem together.


“If you test her in an argument, she doesn’t take you on in a confrontational way. Rather, she questions your premises, very kindly,” Justice Kline said. “She’s remarkably effective. And her relationships are good. She’s careful with people.”

Recently, one of her former law clerks, now an associate at a Washington, D.C., law firm, wrote an open letter on Twitter to the White House, detailing “Justice Kruger’s exceptional kindness and decency” — taking meetings in the offices of clerks, rather than summoning them to chambers, and insisting that family come first when his wife developed a pregnancy complication.

“With Justice Kruger,” the clerk wrote, “the United States Supreme Court will be more wise and more just.”

At her court confirmation, Justice Kruger credited her approach to her mother, Dr. Audrey Reid, who is 80 and still practicing part time in Southern California.

“I learned through her example of reaching out to people from all walks of life that what unites us is far more important than anything that might divide us,” she said, adding her mother also prized being “of service.”

Service was a priority as well for her father, who died in 2005. In 1967, long before she was born, Dr. Leon Kruger, a Boston physician, joined the Civil Rights movement and moved his then-wife and three of their four children to an impoverished, all-Black town in the Mississippi Delta, where he and Tufts University physicians established a clinic.

A transformative pick. The decision by Justice Stephen G. Breyer to retire will give President Biden the chance to make good on his pledge to name the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Here’s who could be in the running:

Ketanji Brown Jackson. Judge Jackson, who clerked for Justice Breyer early in her peripatetic legal career, underwent a Senate confirmation last year when Mr. Biden elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was confirmed by a bipartisan 53-to-44 vote.

Leondra R. Kruger. The California Supreme Court justice has many of the qualifications typical of nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court, but she is anomalous in at least one way: She serves on a state court. Justice Kruger’s moderation could make her a mediating force in Washington.

J. Michelle Childs. Representative James Clyburn, a Biden ally, has pushed for the federal district court judge in South Carolina, in part because of her humble background. Unlike many court nominees, who tend to have an Ivy League pedigree, Judge Childs is a product of public universities.

The episode shaped and traumatized the family, according to memoirs and blog posts by the justice’s half-siblings, Jo Ivester and Charles Kruger. The experience led their parents to similar activism in Florida and California but also eventually ended their marriage. They said they are intensely proud of Justice Kruger but otherwise declined to comment. Their parents divorced in 1974, records show, and a year later, Dr. Kruger married Dr. Reid, who had an adolescent child.


Leondra, their only offspring, grew up in South Pasadena, a leafy Los Angeles suburb so old-fashioned that the movie “Back to the Future” was filmed there. A National Merit Scholar, she attended the elite Polytechnic School nearby, working on the school newspaper and doing homework at her mother’s office after class.

She attended Harvard University, where she covered local news for The Harvard Crimson, and, in a rare dip into opinion, once tweaked East Coast biases against California. (“Earthquakes! Fires! Mudslides! Riots! You’re going to fall into the ocean and die!”)


Adriane Lentz-Smith, a history professor at Duke University who was a college roommate, said that even then, “she was a different creature from the rest of us,” volunteering on the night shift at a homeless shelter and at Boston public schools, teaching civics.

She became the first Black woman to serve as editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal, and in 2002, clerked for Judge David S. Tatel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who then recommended her as a clerk for then-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

There, in 2003, a fellow clerk recalled, her instant mastery of the behemoth McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which was before the court that session, established her as a star.

She spent two years with Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, a Washington law firm, and a year teaching at the University of Chicago law school before joining the solicitor general’s office in 2007, eventually becoming the first Black woman to serve as the acting deputy solicitor general. She has argued more cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any Black woman in history, winning the majority.

But even in defeat, colleagues recalled, she displayed remarkable composure.

Called upon to argue a high-profile 2012 case that opened the Obama administration up to accusations that it was antagonistic toward religious freedom, for example, she faced down nearly 30 blistering minutes of rapid-fire questioning from the full court.

The case, involving a Lutheran church, Hosanna-Tabor, that fired one of its teachers after she violated church prohibitions against suing over workplace matters, tested a federal rule that allows churches to make personnel decisions without government interference.

Ms. Kruger, then a 35-year-old career civil servant, was still completing her opening remarks, arguing that the teacher should not have been fired, when Chief Justice John Roberts pressed her on the government’s position, triggering the onslaught.

“Leondra took some of the heat for that, but it was my decision,” said Donald B. Verrilli, who was then the solicitor general. He said he now regrets the government’s position in the case, which he called tone deaf on issues of religious liberty.

When a cluster of vacancies on the California Supreme Court gave then-Governor Brown an opportunity to remake it, her reviews were glowing, from Mr. Brown’s fellow Yale Law School alumni to the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, he said.

“We started to talk, and within 10 or 15 minutes I was fairly sure I was going to appoint her,” Mr. Brown recalled in an interview from his home in rural California, citing her “elegant” thinking. “I wanted people who could not just make a decision but fit it into the longer intellectual tradition in the law — the wider sweep, the larger view.”

Her youth did not concern him, he said: “Superior people are noticeable and unusual if you have the eyes to see it.” How the narrowly divided Senate might see Justice Kruger, however, is another question, the governor noted.

“I don’t know if all this stuff matters,” Mr. Brown said. “Isn’t it going to just be politics?”


Shawn Hubler is a California correspondent based in Sacramento. Before joining The Times in 2020 she spent nearly two decades covering the state for The Los Angeles Times as a roving reporter, columnist and magazine writer, and shared three Pulitzer Prizes won by the paper's Metro staff.  @ShawnHubler

Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Matteo Godi
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2022, 08:42:16 AM »
Ex-Clerk For Biden SCOTUS Hopeful Edited Wikipedia Pages To Make Her Look Better, Rivals Worse:

https://www.paulweiss.com/professionals/associates/matteo-godi


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
I see that
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2022, 05:13:14 AM »
one of the four ladies is

tadah!:

Stacy Abrams sister !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Abrams_Gardner

 :-o :-o :-o :-o


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2022, 09:06:48 AM »
I read that Wikipedia on Abrams sister-- what a staggering absence of qualification!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2022, 09:19:07 AM »
".I read that Wikipedia on Abrams sister-- what a staggering absence of qualification!"

graduate of Brown AND OF COURSE YALE

what else should I be looking for
for qualifications ; isn't this nearly always the first thing : those who did not go to Harvard or Yale need apply.

honestly I don't know what else would be evidence of qualifications

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2022, 09:51:34 AM »
"honestly I don't know what else would be evidence of qualifications"

what I meant
is that since I am not a lawyer what else should I be looking for?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2022, 01:43:46 PM »
"Gardner received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1997 from Brown University. She received a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Yale Law School. She began her career serving as a law clerk for Judge Marvin J. Garbis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. She served as an associate at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP, from 2003 to 2006 and again from 2007 to 2010. She served as an associate at the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, from 2006 to 2007. From 2010 to 2014, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia.[4][5]"

No law review.  Clerking for a District Judge?  Not bad, but again one expects more out of a SCOTUS nominee, clerking at the Appellate level is good, clerking for a justice is much better.

Never made partner-- no surprise with only five years in the private sector.  IIRC partner usually comes around 8 years.  Maybe she was given a heads up she was not likely to make partner? 

Assistant US Attorney?  OK, but not the sort of peak pre-judicial accomplishment that one would expect to see for a SCOTUS nominee. 



"Federal judicial service

"On March 11, 2014, President Barack Obama nominated Gardner to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, to the seat being vacated by Judge W. Louis Sands, who took senior status on April 12, 2014.[6] She received a hearing before the full panel of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 13, 2014.[7] On June 19, 2014, her nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[8] On November 12, 2014, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on her nomination. On Monday, November 17, 2014 cloture was invoked by a vote of 68–28.[9] On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 the Senate confirmed her by a vote of 100–0.[10] She received her judicial commission on November 20, 2014.[5]"

No clerkships at the appellate or SCOTUS level.  Eight years as District Judge is nice, but for SCOTUS one should be seeing a goodly number of years at the Appellate level-- which means there is a paper trail to research for the quality and integrity needed on the SCOTUS.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 02:26:41 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2022, 02:25:15 PM »
thank you
for the information


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2022, 06:56:32 AM »
Conservatives targeting Jackson as worst choice

Say judge lacks judicial temperament

BY ALEX SWOYER THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, believed to be on President Biden’s short list for nomination to the Supreme Court, is coming under fire from conservatives who say she is too liberal and lacks the judicial temperament necessary for the high court.

Conservative court watchers don’t view Mr. Biden’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees as being too different from ret i ring Justice Stephen G. Breyer, saying each cand idate would be a reliable liberal vote on hotbutton issues, just as Justice Breyer was during his time on the court.

But Judge Jackson, whom Mr. Biden appointed to the prestigious U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia last June, is being criticized by conservatives who claim she has a record of reaching beyond her authority as a judge.

“People on the right don’t think Brown Jackson is stellar intellectually,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. “Certainly, people on the left think she is brilliant.”

Prior to joining the D.C. Circuit, Judge Jackson spent eight years on the U.S. District Court in D.C., where she issued more than 500 opinions.

During that time, Judge Jackson wowed liberals with her rulings in cases against former President Donald Trump.

She ruled against Mr. Trump’s attempt to conceal White House records concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. She also sided with congressional Democrats in their attempt to get Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Don McGahn, to testify in their impeachment inquiries against the former president.

In 2017, Judge Jackson sentenced the “pizzagate” shooter to four years in prison. The infamous case involved a pizza parlor in Washington where a man from North Carolina opened fire after a false right-wing conspiracy theory was circulated online, claiming the restaurant was at the center of a child-sex abuse ring involving influential Democrats.

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said that in the case involving Mr. Mc-Gahn’s testimony, Judge Jackson suggested Mr. Trump was trying to be a king — language that Mrs. Severino said was “intemperate” for a judge.

Nevertheless, she’s been viewed as a potential high court nominee by court watchers even before Justice Breyer announced his plans to retire.

Shortly after the president announced he would fill a vacancy on the high court with a Black woman, Mr. Biden elevated Judge Jackson from the district court to the circuit court. The appellate court is considered a steppingstone to the high court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas — a third of the current justices on the bench — all sat on the D.C. Circuit before being elevated.

Dan Goldberg, legal director at the liberal Alliance for Justice, said Judge Jackson has a record that should receive bipartisan support during the confirmation process. He said she was confi rmed to her district judgeship and her appellate court seat with support from both Democrat and Republican senators.

“The breadth of her experience — it’s no surprise she is on the short list,” he said.

Mr. Biden told NBC News on Thursday that he and his advisers are doing a “deep dive” on four potential nominees.

Two other potential picks who have received attention in Washington are South Carolina U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger.

Judge Childs has received praise from liberal court watchers for her record on voting rights.

“At a time when the Supreme Court is sadly undermining the Voting Rights Act … Childs had a case dealing with South Carolina rules that made it very difficult for people to vote by absentee ballot in the middle of the pandemic,” said Mr. Goldberg.

In that dispute, Judge Childs struck down a witness requirement for voting by absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Liberals also view her as being an advocate for LGBTQ rights, pointing to a 2014 case where she said it was unconstitutional for South Carolina not to recognize the same-sex marriage of two women from another state.

Her opinion in that case was issued prior to the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015.

Judge Kruger, meanwhile, is seen as a potentially more moderate pick by some conservatives. Mr. Levey said that she’s been a moderate liberal during her time on the California Supreme Court.

Progressives have cheered her time working in the solicitor general’s office during the Obama administration, defending the Affordable Care Act. “I think it is a testament to Joe Biden that somebody on his short list is somebody who was fighting to ensure quality access of health care to millions,” said Mr. Goldberg.

Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow at People for the American Way, said it’s important to remember that Mr. Biden could be looking at other potential nominees — but all three judges would bring a unique perspective as a Black woman.

“They are all frankly very impressive,” he said.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer:
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2022, 09:14:10 AM »
Biden Nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
By Zachary Stieber
Zachary Stieber
Zachary Stieber
REPORTER
Zachary Stieber covers U.S. news and stories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. He is based in Maryland.
View profileFollowing
 February 25, 2022 Updated: February 25, 2022biggersmaller Print
President Joe Biden has nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

Biden, a Democrat, announced the nomination on Feb. 25. If confirmed, Jackson will fill a seat that is set to be vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Jackson, 51, was confirmed by the Senate in June 2021 to the post she now holds after being nominated by Biden. Before that, she was unanimously confirmed by the upper chamber to serve as a U.S. District Court judge in Washington.

Biden in a statement called Jackson “one of our nation’s brightest legal minds” and said she’ll be “an exceptional justice.”

Biden was scheduled to deliver remarks and introduce Jackson at 2 p.m. Eastern in Washington after meeting with NATO leaders and receiving the president’s daily brief.

Biden restricted his search to black women, a choice supported by many Democrats but described as racist by Republicans. Biden conducted “a rigorous process” to identify Breyer’s replacement, according to the White House.

If confirmed, Jackson would be the first black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, the sixth woman, and Biden’s first nominee.

Democrats hold a thin majority in the 50–50 Senate because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast tiebreaking votes as president of the body.

But Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) suffered a stroke in January, leaving him unable to perform all of his duties. Without Lujan, Democrats would need at least one Republican to join them in voting for Jackson, or the Senate could wait until Lujan recovers and returns to the Senate.

Democrats have said they want to move quickly to confirm Biden’s nominee. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nominee will happen in “the coming weeks” and that after the panel finishes its work, he would ask the Senate to immediately confirm Jackson.

No Republicans have yet said they’ll vote for the judge, and at least one who voted for her in the past indicated he would not this time.

Jackson’s nomination “means the radical Left has won President Biden over yet again,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the top GOP member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. Graham, who supported Jackson in 2021, expressed his displeasure that the president didn’t pick U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs, who hails from South Carolina.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate must perform an exhaustive review of the nominee, calling it “especially crucial as Americans families face major crises that connect directly to our legal system, such as skyrocketing violent crime and open borders.”

Jackson’s nomination drew praise from some, including NARAL, a group that supports widespread access to abortions.

“We need a justice on the bench who will uphold reproductive freedom. This historic nomination is a chance to shape the Court for decades to come,” the organization said on Twitter.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Jackson “embodies President Biden’s commitment to ensuring that the federal judiciary is representative of America as a whole.”

Breyer, 83, is the oldest justice on the Supreme Court. He was nominated by former President Bill Clinton. Breyer plans to step down in the summer, after the current term ends.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2022, 10:18:22 AM »
It will be interesting to examine her record to see if uphold the constitution, as promised, is what she does.  If so, she will be confirmed easily.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2022, 10:56:00 AM »
Appointed to DC Circuit one year ago.  Not much of a paper trail.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
joe and nominee
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2022, 11:29:01 AM »

"Appointed to DC Circuit one year ago.  Not much of a paper trail."

Well Joe just told us she has a huge background
and she has the temperament.   :wink:

that said did I not hear him give credit to Harris for this?
kamala picked the next SC Justice?    :-o

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/biden-nominate-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-rcna15941


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2022, 06:19:51 PM »
https://heavy.com/news/patrick-graves-jackson-ketanji-brown-jackson-husband/

the husband is the twin brother of Paul Ryan's brother in law
or this guy is married to Ryan's wife's sister

got that ?

  :-o




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Replacing Breyer: Radical Activist Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2022, 05:56:21 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2022, 06:06:27 AM »
"Senate Republicans Must Oppose Radical Nomination"

I would be shocked if there are at least a couple of turn coats on this

OTOH Kamala holds tie breaking vote

so nomination is almost assured

one can hear the screams in the headlines and all the lib stations
about white supremacy , racism sexism blah blah blah


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18234
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2022, 08:24:46 AM »
"...OTOH Kamala holds tie breaking vote"

   - I'm not sure about that. 

"so nomination is almost assured"

   - True

I'd like to see examples of where she voted against 'her side', she is a liberal activist, and in favor of a strict interpretation of the constitution.  Senate defenders of a nominee generally try to find those to show fairness.

On the other side of it, what are the most contorted examples of her bending or reinventing the "living constitution" to make it fit her preferred outcome?  Can anyone land a punch there?

She has enough education and experience, and her work providing vigorous defense of terrorist is easily explained.  Opponents would have to win over Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and maybe Joe Manchin to take this down.  The benefit of the doubt goes to Jackson confirmed.  She will win 65 confirmation votes unless any real anti-constitutionalism can be demonstrated in her struck-down decisions.







ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18493
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2022, 08:30:40 AM »
yes

Harris tie breaking vote if all repubs voted against

which I agree
WILL NEVER HAPPEN
anyway


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Deep State Andy does his thing!
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2022, 10:07:45 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69372
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2022, 08:14:35 PM »
Inquiring minds want to know:

If Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't know who a woman is, how does President Biden know he picked one?

"As we now know, biology has nothing to do with being a woman, so even from a Marxist/nihilist perspective, this is the wrong answer."

In a similar vein:

"Pardon me, but "I'm not a biologist" suggest she believes biology defines gender, rather than subjective human perception?"

Defense counsel: “Security guard, at the time did you say it was a man, or a woman, driving the getaway car?”
Witness: “I’m not a biologist."

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2022, 08:43:51 PM »
Inquiring minds want to know:

If Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't know who a woman is, how does President Biden know he picked one?

"As we now know, biology has nothing to do with being a woman, so even from a Marxist/nihilist perspective, this is the wrong answer."

In a similar vein:

"Pardon me, but "I'm not a biologist" suggest she believes biology defines gender, rather than subjective human perception?"

Defense counsel: “Security guard, at the time did you say it was a man, or a woman, driving the getaway car?”
Witness: “I’m not a biologist."

Is an undergraduate degree sufficient, or is a postgraduate degree required to make the determination?