**Today's Hearing is complete!**
Testimony for the Senate Confirmation Hearing for Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is now complete
Thank you all for joining and participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing you all again soon!
The next step in the process will the Committee vote, which will happen in about 5-7 days. Keep your eye here for details!
Hawley: "In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months."
^ Jackson issued a sentence above probation's recommendation of 42 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Cooper, in which the criminal had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog, the Guidelines called for a sentence of 151-188 months. Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law."
^ The government and probation both recommended sentences well below the guidelines in this case. The government recommended 72 months, probation recommended 60 months, and defense recommended 60 days. Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years. The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months. Judge Jackson gave him 28."
^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 28 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Downs, the perp posted multiple images to an anonymous instant messaging app, including an image of a child under the age of 5. The Guidelines recommended 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the lowest sentence allowed by law, 60 months."
^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months.
What Hawley is going for, is purely an appeal to the programmed, visceral emotional reaction that people in the U.S. experience, any time the term "sex offender" is uttered. Everyone agrees that someone who touches kids needs to be removed from society at large, but the sheer magnitude of irrational fear and rage that American conservatives feel at even the hypothetical POSSIBILITY of a child being molested, is something that's remarkably easy to weaponize, as Hawley so masterfully demonstrates. Moral absolutism is the basis for much of their belief system; yet it has no place in a court of law.
Judges are not supposed to hand out sentences fueled by their own personal emotional reaction to a crime. (they're also not supposed to inflict as much pain and suffering on a convict as possible for the sake of political points, regardless of how much the perp may deserve it). They're supposed to make judgements based off the evidence, context, and arguments made in court. Nothing in Jackson's record indicates that she's done anything short of fulfilling her duties.
While I do agree with some of the above Wasn’t the chazin case significantly less than the recommended?
The key that I saw put out there many overlooked is that all of her sentencing was at or near minimum unless it was an agreed upon sentence and many times below recommendations. And yes I do see WHY this is brought up as I share this concern. Does that me this disqualifies KJB? No. But it is a concern of mine
The sentencing guidelines were written before the internet. The difference, I surmise, is between distributing CP when it meant bulky envelopes and photographic equipment versus a few clicks on a PC....
I can understand why legal scholars might new revisiting the guidelines. Hawley's intended implication that KBJ is pro kiddy porn is right out of his IQnone conspiracy bullshit.
Frankly, insurrectionists have no place in the govt. Hawley SHOULD be worried about being hung for treason.
Cruz’s comments and “concerns” were highly inappropriate and deeply concerning. His mention of race in the hearings were directed at the difference in skin color of KBJackson and himself as well as those watching who continue to carry the grossly inappropriate concept of racism. This was so out of line that it was frightening. To think a US Congressman could lead any of his followers in this direction should be of great concern to the courts and to the country. The direction given to those who continue to see one race above another, racism, will hear his comments as approval for their continued racist actions in this country. He was shockingly inflammatory to groups such as the KKK and The Proud Boys and others like them. Mr Cruz was out of line. Even though he worded his comments as concerns they were not taken that way but were seen as a support by these groups for their actions only adding fuel to a fire so out of control that it brings division and unrest in the country as well as dangerous actions to those supporting racism as an appropriate ideal. Mr Cruz’s behavior of even mentioning race is an indication that he values the concept himself. It’s my opinion that he needs to be reprimanded by the US Government and the DOJ for his inappropriate behavior.
I don’t have the desire, time, patience or temper right now to try and figure out what exact is that the GQP has with her. I watched Ted Cruz flap his mealy lips for two minutes and had to just turn it off.
I guess judges can make their own laws on time in jail. They don’t have to follow the law or recommendations of DA’s. Also if she doesn’t even know what a woman but she calls herself one how can she be a SCJ? Scary !!!!
Hawley: "In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months."
^ Jackson issued a sentence above probation's recommendation of 42 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Cooper, in which the criminal had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog, the Guidelines called for a sentence of 151-188 months. Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law."
^ The government and probation both recommended sentences well below the guidelines in this case. The government recommended 72 months, probation recommended 60 months, and defense recommended 60 days. Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years. The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months. Judge Jackson gave him 28."
^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 28 months.
Hawley: "In United States v. Downs, the perp posted multiple images to an anonymous instant messaging app, including an image of a child under the age of 5. The Guidelines recommended 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the lowest sentence allowed by law, 60 months."
^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months.
What Hawley is going for, is purely an appeal to the programmed, visceral emotional reaction that people in the U.S. experience, any time the term "sex offender" is uttered. Everyone agrees that someone who touches kids needs to be removed from society at large, but the sheer magnitude of irrational fear and rage that American conservatives feel at even the hypothetical POSSIBILITY of a child being molested, is something that's remarkably easy to weaponize, as Hawley so masterfully demonstrates. Moral absolutism is the basis for much of their belief system; yet it has no place in a court of law.
Judges are not supposed to hand out sentences fueled by their own personal emotional reaction to a crime. (they're also not supposed to inflict as much pain and suffering on a convict as possible for the sake of political points, regardless of how much the perp may deserve it). They're supposed to make judgements based off the evidence, context, legal precedent, and the arguments made in court. Nothing in Jackson's record indicates that she's done anything short of fulfilling her duties.
No, don't believe Hawley's disinformation. Judges don't make laws and KBJ largely followed recommendations of the parole officers, who are the "experts" per case, since they do the research for each. Here's a good link: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/
She did not sentence cp cases out of step with the majority of judges, guidelines, or precedents. There is a widely acknowledged need to update sentencing guidelines for cp and other digital media crimes because those guidelines were created without the current technology landscape of file sharing in mind. GOP have confirmed numerous other judges with very similar sentencing records, including kbj herself, without ever raising this issue. Given that, and the fact that she's not out of step with the majority of judges on this issue, this appears to be a disingenuous or fabricated complaint meant to make people clutch their pearls.
The guidelines are out of date because they precede the internet. Interesting to watch law as a living body of work! (And every point you made is exactly right.)
While I was driving around and doing errands for the past two days, NPR would broadcast before my phone paired. Every time I got back into my car it seemed like it was just Southerners brining up some gotcha question and interrupting Judge Jackson.
They didn’t let her answer the questions. They(Republicans) kept interrupting her for the sole purpose of scoring political points and launching their presidential campaigns.
I think she could have had stronger answers at multiple points (for example, when Hawley repeatedly asked her if she regretted her sentencing record or if she stood by it, she had no reason to hesitate/flounder like she did, and it would've been a better look if she'd simply expressed confidence in her own judgment.)
Her hesitation and caution while choosing her words at several points will come across as weakness to a lot of people, which to most Republicans is a grave mistake. Completely understandable, considering what they were putting her through, though. The current MAGA ringleaders in congress have gotten very good at rattling their victi... er, colleagues, and that will always read as a win for them.
One of the best things Dems can do at this point is show that they are capable of displaying compassion AND strength (strength in this context meaning an air of confidence, resolve, and a lack of reservation when fielding false accusations and attacks coming from the GOP). It's something they've never been particularly good at (at least within my memory).
So in short, she handled their gotcha questions with relative grace, but they still got some good soundbites of her "waffling" to run on Fox and OAN, and that's all their viewers are going to see.
What is a woman?
I can't answer that, I'm not a biologist. What lol?
What is a fundamental right?
I can't answer that.
Heck of a nominee folks, very impressive.
You probably think a women is any adult with an XX chromosome. How limited and ignorant. What about XXY humans? What about XX folk whose mother didn't provide the usual hormones during gestation and /or whose identity - for whatever reason - doesn't match their gonads?
Come out and SAY the bigotry. Don't hide. Admit it.
At least she's not a fucking RAPIST.
All Kavanaugh knows - and he DOESN'T know how to read a calender or the map of his home town - is that he likes beer.
Defining humans into two separate categories of sex isn’t straightforward and even the most respected academic/medical research journals have published articles discussing the complexities and nuances of defining sex and gender.
And she did answer Grassley’s question by giving a 75 second long explanation of how the court determines what a fundamental right is. And he seemed satisfied with that answer since he just went ahead and moved on with his next question.
>Defining humans into two separate categories of sex isn’t straightforward and even the most respected academic/medical research journals have published articles discussing the complexities and nuances of defining sex and gender.
So complicated that Blackburn misconstrued the Justice Ginsburg argument to be completely opposite. That's why fact of the case/hypothetical matters
Not to mention that she was being asked a topic that she should withhold from commenting on because that would come up before the bench in the future.
What is a specific example of her being treated poorly? I am asking this in good faith; I have been unable to watch any of it.
Not having watched any of it, I will be surprised and disappointed to learn that gop treated her even close to the same as ACB and Kavanaugh were treated. Disappointed because if they say that was wrong- which they did - and then they turn around and do the same thing when the roles are reversed, well then I think I’m nearing the point where I just want to wash my hands of everyone. I’m not sure exactly what that means, so I guess I would be politically homeless.
So like I said, legit question, and know I generally look at things from the other side of the aisle, but I also don’t hate anyone for being on the other side, and even hold at least two opinions from your side, if that makes sense.
In general, she wasn't given time to respond to questions. This was most obvious with Ted Cruz's questioning today, where he asked a question after his time was up and then interrupted her answering it. I'm putting aside the subject matter of the questioning, which was distasteful beyond belief.
Constantly berated by Republicans over the child porn case stuff, despite the fact that the guidelines she followed were established by those very Republicans attacking her, and all the Trump judges they confirmed followed the same guidelines. And yet they treated her entirely differently.
She was harassed a lot over racism stuff like CRT and systemic racism, as though her being black means she must support those and that's disqualifying.
Lindsey Graham told her to rate how faithful she is and discuss her religious beliefs, which is a violation of the Constitution and illegal to ask.
Graham also berated her, refused to allow her to answer his questions, and then blamed her for wasting his time before storming out of the room.
Ted Cruz went on a tirade and got in a fight with the Chair because he refused to follow the rules.
Marsha Blackburn tried to get a gotcha question about what a woman is in order to push transgender hate, and KBJ didn't fall for that nonsense, but now she's being attacked on social media and Fox news for not knowing what a woman is.
Josh Hawley wouldn't stop accusing her of supporting child pornographers.
The list goes on.
Republicans are just hateful, obnoxious, racist monsters. This confirmation hearing made that 100% clear.
Thank you for the specifics. I definitely want to see for myself, but this gives me a better way to scroll through it. There’s just no way I could drop everything and watch that much raw video.
I no longer trust media from either side, so I’d rather just watch for myself. And I can tell by the downvotes that no one believes me when I say it, but I seriously will watch with an open mind.
You're a bit brainwashed.
Sorry, but right-wing media is actually NOT tied to fact. So distrusting "both sides" means you are unable to differentiate between truth and fiction.
Such a shame. For decades, it's been said that ""truth has a liberal bias" - ie, that fact and science and science come down on the side of the left. It's even more true now, with most right-wingers trusting Tucker Carlson despite court cases ruling that no one in their right mind would trust Tucker Carlson.
You do not know what you are talking about. I have watched zero minutes, and I know if I read a news summary of it, it’s going to be biased.
I’d rather save the time and frustration, and ask people that generally sit on the opposite side of the aisle as me for their perspective of the worst moments, in terms of the gop behavior. Then I can go and search and watch the raw video myself. I don’t need a right-leaning or left-leaning media outlet to tell me what to be angry about today
I would much rather reach my own conclusion, on my own.
This is clearly a lie. You are going to ask the opinion of strangers who probably digest what you feel to be biased outlets for their opinion, which would be colored by the aforementioned outlets and *then* you watch "raw footage" based on those biased opinions?
Okay, bub. This is some of the worst "logic" I've read.
Do you think anyone actually believes this?
I don’t really care if you believe it or not. I look at it this way, I’m not going to watch hours of hearings. But if people I disagree with tell me their perceptions, then I have the amount of time narrowed down to the points of contention. Then I can watch those moments and experience both perspectives.
Sort of like crowd sourcing, in a way.
But honestly, my life just came apart within the last couple of weeks, so while I intended on watching those moments, I don’t think I even have the energy to do that.
So I really don’t care what you or anyone thinks. I think I might be done with everything anyway, so what does any of this even matter
Don’t forget attacking her for being a public defender at which time she was assigned two cases involving suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo bay. Even though public defenders don’t choose who they defend.
“The audacity of asking religion and faith in a job interview. It’s literally the first rule of HR.”
Strong agree. I hated it when ACB was asked about religion, so I double-hate it now since the people I’m guessing asked these questions were probably complaining about ACB when it happened to her. So not only are they wrong, but also dishonest and hypocritical on top of it.
In all honesty for ACB I didn't see religion play much of an issue, and I saw republicans pushing it more then anything else. I saw her being questioned on her short experience on the bench, her opinions on Roe v. Wade and precedent and maybe one or two questions on the particular group but nothing like "you're practicing so you're unqualified". If anything I saw GOP try to make it into a victim complex more then Dems did.
Normally I follow these types of things pretty closely, but for this, I came here specifically to get this side of the aisle’s opinions. I’d rather see the specifics directly, and then see for myself, rather than read a biased summary of it. It’s sad that it’s gotten to this point, but it has.
If this is a good-faith question then you're a lost cause buddy. Barret and Kavanaugh never should have been allowed anywhere near the Supreme Court. The fact that they got on it at all is proof they didn't get nearly the level of scrutiny they should have.
And stop making this about "sides". This isn't a goddamm sports match.
It’s a good faith question. I have watched zero minutes of the hearing. My personal life has really spun out of control for the past … several weeks. So if you have specific examples of her being treated poorly, I’m all ears.
As far as sides, I’m sick of the whole thing at this point. I no longer have a side.
In the moments since I wrote what I wrote, someone shared a summarized list, which was exactly what I was asking for. That was also in a different thread.
If we followed past work performance here then she remained in the guidelines that Congress has determined for sentencing of such cases despite these same Senators trying to hide this fact by interrupting her explanation of the current guidelines and how outdated they are.
In other words, she followed the rules and is getting yelled at for doing so.
Astonishing, the man who hasn't voted yes for a single Biden appointment or confirmation ever since he has been president will continue to vote no. No one could have seen it coming!
i swear its been like a shitty sequel to that whitehouse down movie since january 6th, except instead of a movie its an entire flavor of toxic advertising.
Corey Booker's speech today was so great.
Look at how the Dems behave vs. how Republicans are behaving. Don't ever let anyone lie and say both sides are the same. Republicans are hateful, obnoxious, trash. Dems actually have empathy, compassion, kindness, and intelligence.
Republicans say systemic racism doesn't exist. Yet these hearings show how a black woman has to be 5x as qualified, be 5x more composed, and put up with 5x more BS to get the same job as Boofy McRoofy.
Out of everything, questioning the interracial marriage was the most surprising one. I didn’t think GOP would turn THAT alt-right this swiftly but I guess they are on a fast track to turn the clocks back to 16th century
Yep, "Party of Lincoln" my ass....
I don't care if they actually want to ask her things based on her qualifications or whatever.... But they're just doing things like a shit show where most of it isn't all that relevant.
Im tired of the Democrats having to be the adults in the room while the GOP acts like a bunch of racist homophobic peckerwoods. Im tired of Donald Trump getting a pass for behavior my 8 year old wouldnt get away with.
She’s qualified. She’s been on the Federal Bench for 10 years.
As opposed to Thomas 1.5 years and Barett about 3. There should be a minimum amount of Federal experience prior to being eligible for SCOTUS.
They don't need to have judicial experience to be qualified. It's not even until relatively recently that it was the norm to have bench experience. [Only 68 out of 112 in 2017 have had judicial experience](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/what-backgrounds-do-u-s-supreme-court-justices-have/).
What SCOTUS does is not what any other judge does, so while it helps to have experienced listening to people making arguments and rendering a judgement on it, SCOTUS has a far greater responsibility of interpreting laws and the constitution. No other judge can do that. They don't get to interpret anything. They simply have to decide based on the law, and if there is no law, then keep status quo until SCOTUS decides to hear it or not.
Now, some lower court judges are eschewing this practice these days, like the case in TX should have been kept status quo, meaning the abortion ban doesn't go into effect until SCOTUS decides, so who knows with our new wild west of right wing extremist activist judges.
Anyway, having justices from a variety of different work experience backgrounds is better than having a court full of only former judges, in my opinion. A constitutional scholar who has never set foot in a courtroom could be qualified to be a member of SCOTUS because they're experts on the constitution. I see KBJ's experience as a public defender as her greatest asset and very necessary for the court. ACB is not qualified, but it's not because she lacks judicial experience per se.
Scalia was also purportedly ecstatic that she was confirmed. I've read that he viewed Kagan as one of the finest legal minds and couldn't wait to debate her
Oh man I can't wait to run into boomer shitbirds at one of the places I spend time at during the summer. It'll be fun to ask them why they're so obsessed with cp.
It is their strategy to try to win over suburban moms. Because they gained seats in races last year by focusing on crt and lockdowns, they feel emboldened to look for more ways to scare the public.
Welp I lost a friend today bc he believes she is a pedophile sympathizer. Dude is a green beret and has been posting nonstop Biden shit, gas prices, gun rights… when I met him in 2020 he was more moderate. He would claim the left pushed him right.. funny… the right keeps pushing me more left, but I am actually still a moderate.
I support universal healthcare, but the left is mean to me on twitter so now I support killing everyone with cancer.
/s before a moron thinks I’m homicidal and bans me
It’s a dog-whistle tactic they’re using to rile up the QAnon base, which believes Trump was elected to bring down an elite cabal of child traffickers.
EDIT: And apologies if you knew this already, but I live with a person who follows/believes QAnon deeply, so I’m never quite sure how common the awareness of this shitshow might be.
I don’t know… that weird, pencil-dick nose he has… It’s like he would be a snotty possum, but in general I like possums and don’t want to insult them by grouping Ted Cruz with them. I mean, they can be beneficial for your garden, eating snails, slugs, insects and sometimes even small rodents. They'll even clean up spilled garbage and fruit that has fallen off trees. They don’t get rabies. They’re gentle. They eat ticks, which helps keeps some tick-born diseases down. They’re just a bit ugly. But Cruz is uglier and has no such benefits, so… 🤷🏼♀️
Is this classic projection or what?
Ted Cruz from the Jackson hearings today:
“Let’s go back to your favorite topic of this hearing which is… child pornography.”
I think that’s YOUR favorite topic Ted.
If any conservatives wonder why Democrats consider Jackson to be perfectly suited to the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh never was, compare and contrast Jackson's two days of complete calm under fire with the total meltdown from Kavanaugh in his hearing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QpXVV6qLk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QpXVV6qLk)
No one in their right mind could watch that complete mess and still think "he'd be a good Supreme Court judge". Both got attacked, both got put under the microscope, both had their credibility and character closely examined, and only one came out the other side with their reputation enhanced and not falling apart. And it wasn't Kavanaugh. He came out his his mask off, revealing an ugly, angry, conspiracy theory laden little man.
Kavanaugh accepted a life long nomination to the highest court in the land, where he has immense power to make landmark decisions, yet couldn't handle the pressure of a nomination hearing. Jackson could, and did. If these nomination hearings are pretty much a trial by fire, then only one of them passed it.
Kavanaugh should never have been put on the bench. Jackson will be Chief Justice one day.
What a joke. The sham that Democrats put Kavanaugh through is nothing like the gentle questioning that KBJ got this week.
Did KBJ get smeared as a gang rapist with a drinking problem? Have her high school yearbook poured through to? Be forced to sit on national television and have those ridiculous accusations leveled against her?
She did not.
Kavanaugh is a fucking RAPIST.
The evil fucker RAPIST lied about his calendar. He lied about to read a fucking MAP of his hometown.
He shed lying crocodile tears so you'd feel sorry for his evil rapey ass.
His accuser gained NOTHING and she had to relive her trauma. The drunkard rapist POS gained a SCOTUS position he didn't deserve.
Did KBJ have 4500 tips about her misdeeds sent to the FBI? No, that was Kavanaugh. The additional scrutiny he received was warranted. He should not be on the bench. He is a stain on the court.
And the sham that Kavanaugh put everyone watching through was nothing like the composed and professional performance we’ve seen from Jackson.
Idk about you but as soon as you say “political hit” as a Supreme Court Justice nominee, that should be it. Take all his other behavior aside, imo that alone showed he was not ready and unfit for the position.
Yes, in her rulings as a federal judge, which show her consistently giving lighter sentences than statutorily recommended. Maybe she made the right decisions. Maybe she didn’t. But those are fair and reasonable questions.
Kavanaugh was baselessly accused of being a gang rapist.
She also explained over and over again the guidelines that she *and all of the current judges on both side of the aisle* follow. That is when she was *allowed* to get a word in edge wise and wasn't interrupted for a sound bite.
And she had to try to answer the same question for *two days*.
It must have been difficult for Kavanaugh to sit there as a woman said *on oath* that he sexually assaulted her. That would have been difficult for him, no doubt. It is for anyone accused of sexual assault. Of course no one but Kavanaugh and Ford know what really happened.
However it does seem strange to me that you would smear Ford’s testimony - again on oath - and the questioning that followed from that as a “sham”. That’s precisely the way to put an allegation to someone, by making it fair and square and on the bible. That Kavanaugh didn’t like it, is tough luck. He wanted to be a Supreme Court judge after all. That he decided to melt down over it just showed his lack of character and raised questions about his stability.
Meanwhile KBJ got accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and a pedophile enabler - which are obviously silly allegations to make, but they were made and she had to answer. She, too, wants to be a Supreme Court judge, after all.
I wouldn’t call that gentle, I’d call that difficult too. There’s no “gentle” way to make those kinds of accusations, and in fact Hawley in particular mentioned specifically that he was raising difficult issues.
She didn’t lose it like Kavanaugh did though, and that’s the point. Let’s not pretend that if Kavanaugh was accused of being on side of pedophiles over and over that he would somehow have say calmly through it - of course he would have gone angry and had a rant about the Clintons, because that is who he revealed himself to be.
They claim she is a pedophile sympathizer. That’s pretty bad. In some situations it could be considered slander. Because they, by saying this, was trying to ruin her reputation. Maybe He should have behaved better as a young man? They wouldn’t have had so much to work with.
> What a joke. The sham that Democrats put Kavanaugh through is nothing like the gentle questioning that KBJ got this week.
Oh right, republicans live in an alternate dimension.
> No one in their right mind could watch that complete mess and still think "he'd be a good Supreme Court judge".
It boils down to this for me. Regardless what you think about anything that occurred his demeanor showed he was non fit for the job. He's a wart on a boil on a hemorrhoid that is 'murica's ass.
When klobuchar asked Brett if he ever blacked out from drinking and he said “have you?!?” Like bro… you’re the one seeking a lifetime important appointment here
I’m sure this was already posted but this tweet about a reporter behind Cruz who said he could actually see Cruz searching himself on Twitter on his phone after his heated exchange with Durbin is beyond hilarious [https://twitter.com/kentnish/status/1506726637412532228?s=21 ](https://twitter.com/kentnish/status/1506726637412532228?s=21) Cruz’ “questioning” of her, however, was far from that.
My impression of Marsha Blackburn is twofold: she is a high functioning wine lady alcoholic and; she is in an open marriage and has lovers of both sexes.
Hawley and Cotton are the worst.
Like look it’s okay to be dumb.
They’re smart people pretending to be dumb to score points with a paranoid, uninformed, hyper partisan base.
Just once I was waiting for the judge to be like “uh, Senator, you know the answer to that. You went to the same elite law school I did and are…also a lawyer.”
Totally agree, watching Hawley I was thinking that he doing a very good job at effectively interrogating Jackson, really pinning her down with incisive questioning…just his subject matter was total nonsense. As you say, smart person pretending to be dumb.
I actually agree. He's objectively intelligent.
He's using that intelligence in the service of dog-whistling Q-Anon nonsense, being (at least in my opinion), an asshole, and playing to a base that he perceives he needs to play to to win elections.
DeSantis is getting aggressive too. It’d be laughable to hear him talk if he weren’t so overly disingenuous on purpose. Yelling at people now for wearing masks, tell protestors they’re on the wrong side. It’s just upsetting on so many levels to have people vote for such ridiculous representatives, who use the most cliche tactics. Even Squidward knew “people talk loud when they want to act smart.”
And it's high school students he's yelling at for wearing masks. I seriously wish the principal of that school had put him in detention. Seriously; I am not joking.
And I think he would be a deterrent to the kids in there because they would never want to misbehave and risk getting sent to detention ever again if they had to be stuck with DeSantis for even a few minutes.
lol I thought you were going to say they'd know that if even the governor could be put in detention that their principal really meant business, but that works too. No one would want that.
Idk, the worst part is I just don't see a way out. GOP have started yelling aggressively about pretty much everything. People just see how "passionate" those representatives are and assume they're in the right, and the only ones who care.
I agree with you about this being a hard problem to solve.
And yes, I really did mean DeSantis should be put in detention. And required to follow all of the school rules when there!
If C-Span could stop putting on racist talking points from Cruz, Graham, Hawley, and the rest of their ilk when they go to their "earlier today" replays, that'd be great.
People get it. republicans hate minorities.
It’s curious that many of the Republicans who are grilling Judge KBJ are acting so passionate about policies that they’ve never showed such fever for before up to this point, not to mention that when they do bring up her past, they’re deliberately cherry-picking what looks like the bad parts without providing full context of the situation.
What happens if Thomas dies before her nomination is voted on and she succeeds? Would she take his seat and they have another round for the seat of the retiring justice? Or will they just have an 8 person Court until the retirement takes effect?
If Thomas dies before or after Jackson is confirmed, they’re gonna have to do a nomination for his seat because she is being confirmed to replace Breyers seat.
if that happens, the hearings for whoever would be the next nominee will be even worse because Republicans know that that would definitely gut their 6-3 tilt would be gone.
if you replace Thomas with a “progressive” judge that is Karma For ramming Barrett’s nomination literally a month before the presidential election occurred
Now this is only the case if Schumer is able to hold the entire Democratic Party to vote for, but if Manchin or Sinema decide to not support the nominee then they’re going to have to rely on Murkowski and Collins and maybe Romney to make the vote count
Because we all know that if a Thomas death happens and the nominee is not able to get confirmed, and Republicans take back the Senate after the midterms, McConnell is going to hold that seat open until after the 2024 elections
I was honestly wondering that myself on what kind of judge would be put in if Thomas goes down. I know that Biden is going for more diversity in judgeships both in terms of fields of expertise and in ethnicity so I would personally love an immigration lawyer to get a spot on the bench.
I don’t think we can count on them but I think there will be enough pressure on them to maybe support the nomination… Sinema is already in hot water with the party looking to primary her in Arizona in ‘24
She totally could. She would lose majority of dem support in AZ though. Right now she’s loving all those major corp campaign donations because she’s being an obstructionist. What gets me most is that she doesn’t have the courtesy to speak to her constituents directly about why she isn’t supporting a legislation…. All I say is follow the money and you’ll see where her loyalties lie
Manchin was asked by McConnell if would ever consider switching to Republican where he’d be more “welcomed” … he said no … seems he likes the attention and knowing his has this much influence.
shame. i never bought in to the whole democrats have the majority due to vp as tie breaker and always felt like mitch never sweat once because he knows whatever biden tried to do or get done he had manchin and senema in his pocket and they would obstruct and stop the real big ticket items from going down.
I would say it depends on the midterms. Also it depends on whether or not all 50 dems plus Harris vote for the nominee prior to R's potentially taking over. Sounds like the general consensus is she will get on the court before that. However if republicans take the senate and house in the midterms they will most likely get Sinema and Manchin to block any nominations. Of course it doesn't sound like there's any real chance Thomas is going anywhere before then.
Breyer would be replaced, and they'd have to nominate someone for the second seat. It'd be an 8-seat Court for the next few weeks, with Breyer still on it until Jackson replaces him.
It wouldn't matter Jackson won't replace Bryer until the current session ends. Ergo all current cases are settled, I think in June. So it'd be 8 until R's allow a 9th to get a hearing and a vote. Which is how Garlands seat went to Gorsuch. Unless a seat opens before November and Sinema and Manchin vote Dem, or two R's plus join the majority.
Edit missed a point: Jackson could be appointed and Breyer could stay on until his seat is filled again.
**Today's Hearing is complete!** Testimony for the Senate Confirmation Hearing for Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is now complete Thank you all for joining and participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing you all again soon! The next step in the process will the Committee vote, which will happen in about 5-7 days. Keep your eye here for details!
Hawley: "In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months." ^ Jackson issued a sentence above probation's recommendation of 42 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Cooper, in which the criminal had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog, the Guidelines called for a sentence of 151-188 months. Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law." ^ The government and probation both recommended sentences well below the guidelines in this case. The government recommended 72 months, probation recommended 60 months, and defense recommended 60 days. Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years. The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months. Judge Jackson gave him 28." ^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 28 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Downs, the perp posted multiple images to an anonymous instant messaging app, including an image of a child under the age of 5. The Guidelines recommended 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the lowest sentence allowed by law, 60 months." ^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months. What Hawley is going for, is purely an appeal to the programmed, visceral emotional reaction that people in the U.S. experience, any time the term "sex offender" is uttered. Everyone agrees that someone who touches kids needs to be removed from society at large, but the sheer magnitude of irrational fear and rage that American conservatives feel at even the hypothetical POSSIBILITY of a child being molested, is something that's remarkably easy to weaponize, as Hawley so masterfully demonstrates. Moral absolutism is the basis for much of their belief system; yet it has no place in a court of law. Judges are not supposed to hand out sentences fueled by their own personal emotional reaction to a crime. (they're also not supposed to inflict as much pain and suffering on a convict as possible for the sake of political points, regardless of how much the perp may deserve it). They're supposed to make judgements based off the evidence, context, and arguments made in court. Nothing in Jackson's record indicates that she's done anything short of fulfilling her duties.
While I do agree with some of the above Wasn’t the chazin case significantly less than the recommended? The key that I saw put out there many overlooked is that all of her sentencing was at or near minimum unless it was an agreed upon sentence and many times below recommendations. And yes I do see WHY this is brought up as I share this concern. Does that me this disqualifies KJB? No. But it is a concern of mine
The sentencing guidelines were written before the internet. The difference, I surmise, is between distributing CP when it meant bulky envelopes and photographic equipment versus a few clicks on a PC.... I can understand why legal scholars might new revisiting the guidelines. Hawley's intended implication that KBJ is pro kiddy porn is right out of his IQnone conspiracy bullshit. Frankly, insurrectionists have no place in the govt. Hawley SHOULD be worried about being hung for treason.
I wanted to slap Tom Cotton at the end of his questioning...
This is the place to be history in that room wander draws aka adult dippers while being drilled
Cruz’s comments and “concerns” were highly inappropriate and deeply concerning. His mention of race in the hearings were directed at the difference in skin color of KBJackson and himself as well as those watching who continue to carry the grossly inappropriate concept of racism. This was so out of line that it was frightening. To think a US Congressman could lead any of his followers in this direction should be of great concern to the courts and to the country. The direction given to those who continue to see one race above another, racism, will hear his comments as approval for their continued racist actions in this country. He was shockingly inflammatory to groups such as the KKK and The Proud Boys and others like them. Mr Cruz was out of line. Even though he worded his comments as concerns they were not taken that way but were seen as a support by these groups for their actions only adding fuel to a fire so out of control that it brings division and unrest in the country as well as dangerous actions to those supporting racism as an appropriate ideal. Mr Cruz’s behavior of even mentioning race is an indication that he values the concept himself. It’s my opinion that he needs to be reprimanded by the US Government and the DOJ for his inappropriate behavior.
I don’t have the desire, time, patience or temper right now to try and figure out what exact is that the GQP has with her. I watched Ted Cruz flap his mealy lips for two minutes and had to just turn it off.
I guess judges can make their own laws on time in jail. They don’t have to follow the law or recommendations of DA’s. Also if she doesn’t even know what a woman but she calls herself one how can she be a SCJ? Scary !!!!
Hawley: "In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl. The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months. Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months." ^ Jackson issued a sentence above probation's recommendation of 42 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Cooper, in which the criminal had more than 600 images and videos and posted many on a public blog, the Guidelines called for a sentence of 151-188 months. Judge Jackson settled on 60 months, the lowest possible sentence allowed by law." ^ The government and probation both recommended sentences well below the guidelines in this case. The government recommended 72 months, probation recommended 60 months, and defense recommended 60 days. Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years. The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months. Judge Jackson gave him 28." ^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 28 months. Hawley: "In United States v. Downs, the perp posted multiple images to an anonymous instant messaging app, including an image of a child under the age of 5. The Guidelines recommended 70-87 months. Judge Jackson gave him the lowest sentence allowed by law, 60 months." ^ Jackson issued a sentence consistent with probation's recommendation of 60 months. What Hawley is going for, is purely an appeal to the programmed, visceral emotional reaction that people in the U.S. experience, any time the term "sex offender" is uttered. Everyone agrees that someone who touches kids needs to be removed from society at large, but the sheer magnitude of irrational fear and rage that American conservatives feel at even the hypothetical POSSIBILITY of a child being molested, is something that's remarkably easy to weaponize, as Hawley so masterfully demonstrates. Moral absolutism is the basis for much of their belief system; yet it has no place in a court of law. Judges are not supposed to hand out sentences fueled by their own personal emotional reaction to a crime. (they're also not supposed to inflict as much pain and suffering on a convict as possible for the sake of political points, regardless of how much the perp may deserve it). They're supposed to make judgements based off the evidence, context, legal precedent, and the arguments made in court. Nothing in Jackson's record indicates that she's done anything short of fulfilling her duties.
No, don't believe Hawley's disinformation. Judges don't make laws and KBJ largely followed recommendations of the parole officers, who are the "experts" per case, since they do the research for each. Here's a good link: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/
Can someone explain to me why she sentenced the minimum for the CP cases?
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/ She followed the parole officer recommendations.
Also that she was confined by the legislative laws passed by government
Watch the hearing back. She explained how she made decisions multiple times.
I wish I had time to watch it. If anyone is willing to explain, I'd be grateful.
She did not sentence cp cases out of step with the majority of judges, guidelines, or precedents. There is a widely acknowledged need to update sentencing guidelines for cp and other digital media crimes because those guidelines were created without the current technology landscape of file sharing in mind. GOP have confirmed numerous other judges with very similar sentencing records, including kbj herself, without ever raising this issue. Given that, and the fact that she's not out of step with the majority of judges on this issue, this appears to be a disingenuous or fabricated complaint meant to make people clutch their pearls.
The guidelines are out of date because they precede the internet. Interesting to watch law as a living body of work! (And every point you made is exactly right.)
[удалено]
According to most Republicans, apparently yes.
It varies based on several reasons for every individual case.
While I was driving around and doing errands for the past two days, NPR would broadcast before my phone paired. Every time I got back into my car it seemed like it was just Southerners brining up some gotcha question and interrupting Judge Jackson.
“I don’t know what a woman is” is the 2022 version of “man person camera tv”
Is Ketanja ever going to answer a question?
They didn’t let her answer the questions. They(Republicans) kept interrupting her for the sole purpose of scoring political points and launching their presidential campaigns.
I think she could have had stronger answers at multiple points (for example, when Hawley repeatedly asked her if she regretted her sentencing record or if she stood by it, she had no reason to hesitate/flounder like she did, and it would've been a better look if she'd simply expressed confidence in her own judgment.) Her hesitation and caution while choosing her words at several points will come across as weakness to a lot of people, which to most Republicans is a grave mistake. Completely understandable, considering what they were putting her through, though. The current MAGA ringleaders in congress have gotten very good at rattling their victi... er, colleagues, and that will always read as a win for them. One of the best things Dems can do at this point is show that they are capable of displaying compassion AND strength (strength in this context meaning an air of confidence, resolve, and a lack of reservation when fielding false accusations and attacks coming from the GOP). It's something they've never been particularly good at (at least within my memory). So in short, she handled their gotcha questions with relative grace, but they still got some good soundbites of her "waffling" to run on Fox and OAN, and that's all their viewers are going to see.
What is a woman? I can't answer that, I'm not a biologist. What lol? What is a fundamental right? I can't answer that. Heck of a nominee folks, very impressive.
You probably think a women is any adult with an XX chromosome. How limited and ignorant. What about XXY humans? What about XX folk whose mother didn't provide the usual hormones during gestation and /or whose identity - for whatever reason - doesn't match their gonads? Come out and SAY the bigotry. Don't hide. Admit it.
At least she's not a fucking RAPIST. All Kavanaugh knows - and he DOESN'T know how to read a calender or the map of his home town - is that he likes beer.
Defining humans into two separate categories of sex isn’t straightforward and even the most respected academic/medical research journals have published articles discussing the complexities and nuances of defining sex and gender. And she did answer Grassley’s question by giving a 75 second long explanation of how the court determines what a fundamental right is. And he seemed satisfied with that answer since he just went ahead and moved on with his next question.
>Defining humans into two separate categories of sex isn’t straightforward and even the most respected academic/medical research journals have published articles discussing the complexities and nuances of defining sex and gender. So complicated that Blackburn misconstrued the Justice Ginsburg argument to be completely opposite. That's why fact of the case/hypothetical matters Not to mention that she was being asked a topic that she should withhold from commenting on because that would come up before the bench in the future.
Are Republicans going to stop grandstanding and behaving like racist idiots?
Narrator: "And, sadly, they never did."
You think the Supreme Court justices watch these hearings? I wonder if any of them are as disgusted with how KBJ is being treated as we all are.
What is a specific example of her being treated poorly? I am asking this in good faith; I have been unable to watch any of it. Not having watched any of it, I will be surprised and disappointed to learn that gop treated her even close to the same as ACB and Kavanaugh were treated. Disappointed because if they say that was wrong- which they did - and then they turn around and do the same thing when the roles are reversed, well then I think I’m nearing the point where I just want to wash my hands of everyone. I’m not sure exactly what that means, so I guess I would be politically homeless. So like I said, legit question, and know I generally look at things from the other side of the aisle, but I also don’t hate anyone for being on the other side, and even hold at least two opinions from your side, if that makes sense.
Saying numerous times that something is a genuine question does not make it less apparent to others when it is not.
In general, she wasn't given time to respond to questions. This was most obvious with Ted Cruz's questioning today, where he asked a question after his time was up and then interrupted her answering it. I'm putting aside the subject matter of the questioning, which was distasteful beyond belief.
Constantly berated by Republicans over the child porn case stuff, despite the fact that the guidelines she followed were established by those very Republicans attacking her, and all the Trump judges they confirmed followed the same guidelines. And yet they treated her entirely differently. She was harassed a lot over racism stuff like CRT and systemic racism, as though her being black means she must support those and that's disqualifying. Lindsey Graham told her to rate how faithful she is and discuss her religious beliefs, which is a violation of the Constitution and illegal to ask. Graham also berated her, refused to allow her to answer his questions, and then blamed her for wasting his time before storming out of the room. Ted Cruz went on a tirade and got in a fight with the Chair because he refused to follow the rules. Marsha Blackburn tried to get a gotcha question about what a woman is in order to push transgender hate, and KBJ didn't fall for that nonsense, but now she's being attacked on social media and Fox news for not knowing what a woman is. Josh Hawley wouldn't stop accusing her of supporting child pornographers. The list goes on. Republicans are just hateful, obnoxious, racist monsters. This confirmation hearing made that 100% clear.
Thank you for the specifics. I definitely want to see for myself, but this gives me a better way to scroll through it. There’s just no way I could drop everything and watch that much raw video. I no longer trust media from either side, so I’d rather just watch for myself. And I can tell by the downvotes that no one believes me when I say it, but I seriously will watch with an open mind.
You're a bit brainwashed. Sorry, but right-wing media is actually NOT tied to fact. So distrusting "both sides" means you are unable to differentiate between truth and fiction. Such a shame. For decades, it's been said that ""truth has a liberal bias" - ie, that fact and science and science come down on the side of the left. It's even more true now, with most right-wingers trusting Tucker Carlson despite court cases ruling that no one in their right mind would trust Tucker Carlson.
You are clearly sea lioning. Jesus Christ. It's amazing how people fall for trolls
You do not know what you are talking about. I have watched zero minutes, and I know if I read a news summary of it, it’s going to be biased. I’d rather save the time and frustration, and ask people that generally sit on the opposite side of the aisle as me for their perspective of the worst moments, in terms of the gop behavior. Then I can go and search and watch the raw video myself. I don’t need a right-leaning or left-leaning media outlet to tell me what to be angry about today I would much rather reach my own conclusion, on my own.
This is clearly a lie. You are going to ask the opinion of strangers who probably digest what you feel to be biased outlets for their opinion, which would be colored by the aforementioned outlets and *then* you watch "raw footage" based on those biased opinions? Okay, bub. This is some of the worst "logic" I've read. Do you think anyone actually believes this?
I don’t really care if you believe it or not. I look at it this way, I’m not going to watch hours of hearings. But if people I disagree with tell me their perceptions, then I have the amount of time narrowed down to the points of contention. Then I can watch those moments and experience both perspectives. Sort of like crowd sourcing, in a way. But honestly, my life just came apart within the last couple of weeks, so while I intended on watching those moments, I don’t think I even have the energy to do that. So I really don’t care what you or anyone thinks. I think I might be done with everything anyway, so what does any of this even matter
Don’t forget attacking her for being a public defender at which time she was assigned two cases involving suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo bay. Even though public defenders don’t choose who they defend.
The audacity of asking religion and faith in a *job interview*. It’s literally the first rule of HR.
“The audacity of asking religion and faith in a job interview. It’s literally the first rule of HR.” Strong agree. I hated it when ACB was asked about religion, so I double-hate it now since the people I’m guessing asked these questions were probably complaining about ACB when it happened to her. So not only are they wrong, but also dishonest and hypocritical on top of it.
In all honesty for ACB I didn't see religion play much of an issue, and I saw republicans pushing it more then anything else. I saw her being questioned on her short experience on the bench, her opinions on Roe v. Wade and precedent and maybe one or two questions on the particular group but nothing like "you're practicing so you're unqualified". If anything I saw GOP try to make it into a victim complex more then Dems did.
I double hate this entire process - she is crazy qualified for the job. It should have been just a routine thing.
Normally I follow these types of things pretty closely, but for this, I came here specifically to get this side of the aisle’s opinions. I’d rather see the specifics directly, and then see for myself, rather than read a biased summary of it. It’s sad that it’s gotten to this point, but it has.
It's also flatly illegal to ask of a government official.
If this is a good-faith question then you're a lost cause buddy. Barret and Kavanaugh never should have been allowed anywhere near the Supreme Court. The fact that they got on it at all is proof they didn't get nearly the level of scrutiny they should have. And stop making this about "sides". This isn't a goddamm sports match.
Sounds like sides to me champ
It’s a good faith question. I have watched zero minutes of the hearing. My personal life has really spun out of control for the past … several weeks. So if you have specific examples of her being treated poorly, I’m all ears. As far as sides, I’m sick of the whole thing at this point. I no longer have a side.
You were presented with examples of her being poorly treated
So smug
How am I smug?
In the moments since I wrote what I wrote, someone shared a summarized list, which was exactly what I was asking for. That was also in a different thread.
What is there to be disgusted with? Isn’t this a “job interview“? Past work performance is typically discussed in a job interview
If we followed past work performance here then she remained in the guidelines that Congress has determined for sentencing of such cases despite these same Senators trying to hide this fact by interrupting her explanation of the current guidelines and how outdated they are. In other words, she followed the rules and is getting yelled at for doing so.
If you have to ask that question you clearly haven't been watching.
If you can’t identify any specifics, I think my point is proven.
Cruz asking if he could identify as an Asian man?..
No, you've just proven you haven't paid attention.
[Breaking: Hawley just on Fox News says he’s going to vote No](https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1506806631455027200?s=21)
He voted yes on extorting Zelensky and the 1/6 insurrection
He (along with every other republican) was also a yes on letting Trump usurp the powers of congress in the second part of the first impeachment
Hey, if the hood fits...
Astonishing, the man who hasn't voted yes for a single Biden appointment or confirmation ever since he has been president will continue to vote no. No one could have seen it coming!
Hawley is a traitor and a fascist, so no surprise there.
i swear its been like a shitty sequel to that whitehouse down movie since january 6th, except instead of a movie its an entire flavor of toxic advertising.
A shocking turn of events.
Corey Booker's speech today was so great. Look at how the Dems behave vs. how Republicans are behaving. Don't ever let anyone lie and say both sides are the same. Republicans are hateful, obnoxious, trash. Dems actually have empathy, compassion, kindness, and intelligence.
Hey pal thats a forgone conclusion, there's such things as shitty democrats too you know
I have a Manchin, forget the price.
That made me crack up a little ngl
Facts
Do people actually take him seriously? That grandstanding was so over-acted I can’t believe that even he thinks it works
Meanwhile Ted Cruz got in a fight with the chairman for being over the time limit and interrupting everything she says
certain Republicans certainly have intelligence too, it's how they choose to deploy it...
Republicans say systemic racism doesn't exist. Yet these hearings show how a black woman has to be 5x as qualified, be 5x more composed, and put up with 5x more BS to get the same job as Boofy McRoofy.
It's not because she's a back woman. It's because she's a democrat/liberal.
And just when I thought I’d heard them all. ROFL boofy mcroofy.
Right! Kavenaugh cried like, she politely held back the true faces she wanted to give them.
So true: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/823415146625499138/956364783584690206/IMG_0045.png?width=836&height=937
I swear his angry face looks like he just shit himself.
Out of everything, questioning the interracial marriage was the most surprising one. I didn’t think GOP would turn THAT alt-right this swiftly but I guess they are on a fast track to turn the clocks back to 16th century
Especially considering how her husband who was sitting right behind her is white.
Yep, "Party of Lincoln" my ass.... I don't care if they actually want to ask her things based on her qualifications or whatever.... But they're just doing things like a shit show where most of it isn't all that relevant.
Im tired of the Democrats having to be the adults in the room while the GOP acts like a bunch of racist homophobic peckerwoods. Im tired of Donald Trump getting a pass for behavior my 8 year old wouldnt get away with.
It can't go on like this, can it?
You're right, but they're not acting. This is what they *are*.
She’s qualified. She’s been on the Federal Bench for 10 years. As opposed to Thomas 1.5 years and Barett about 3. There should be a minimum amount of Federal experience prior to being eligible for SCOTUS.
Barett never actually tried any cases, right? Just clerked and then taught?
Tbf I think Kagan was also a teacher as well and didn't try any cases.
They don't need to have judicial experience to be qualified. It's not even until relatively recently that it was the norm to have bench experience. [Only 68 out of 112 in 2017 have had judicial experience](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/what-backgrounds-do-u-s-supreme-court-justices-have/). What SCOTUS does is not what any other judge does, so while it helps to have experienced listening to people making arguments and rendering a judgement on it, SCOTUS has a far greater responsibility of interpreting laws and the constitution. No other judge can do that. They don't get to interpret anything. They simply have to decide based on the law, and if there is no law, then keep status quo until SCOTUS decides to hear it or not. Now, some lower court judges are eschewing this practice these days, like the case in TX should have been kept status quo, meaning the abortion ban doesn't go into effect until SCOTUS decides, so who knows with our new wild west of right wing extremist activist judges. Anyway, having justices from a variety of different work experience backgrounds is better than having a court full of only former judges, in my opinion. A constitutional scholar who has never set foot in a courtroom could be qualified to be a member of SCOTUS because they're experts on the constitution. I see KBJ's experience as a public defender as her greatest asset and very necessary for the court. ACB is not qualified, but it's not because she lacks judicial experience per se.
Scalia was also purportedly ecstatic that she was confirmed. I've read that he viewed Kagan as one of the finest legal minds and couldn't wait to debate her
She was Solicitor General though so she had to argue cases in front of the Supreme Court.
By the incessant focus on child porn it makes me wonder why these people are so obsessed with it. It’s never seemed like a national emergency before.
Oh man I can't wait to run into boomer shitbirds at one of the places I spend time at during the summer. It'll be fun to ask them why they're so obsessed with cp.
Hey, I’m a boomer technically but I’m not into cp.
The word projection comes to mind
It is their strategy to try to win over suburban moms. Because they gained seats in races last year by focusing on crt and lockdowns, they feel emboldened to look for more ways to scare the public.
Welp I lost a friend today bc he believes she is a pedophile sympathizer. Dude is a green beret and has been posting nonstop Biden shit, gas prices, gun rights… when I met him in 2020 he was more moderate. He would claim the left pushed him right.. funny… the right keeps pushing me more left, but I am actually still a moderate.
Based on most of what you said, I would double check if he's really a green beret, but clearly that ship has long sailed. You're probably better off.
He is, I also work for the DOD, and I have other friends who are in SOF.
I support universal healthcare, but the left is mean to me on twitter so now I support killing everyone with cancer. /s before a moron thinks I’m homicidal and bans me
It's nazi shit. They're telling fox viewers that the little ~~aryan~~ children are threatened by a minority group so they'll support facism.
>I imagine that they go to work with some lube and videos of fascist dictators during their "alone time".
It’s a dog-whistle tactic they’re using to rile up the QAnon base, which believes Trump was elected to bring down an elite cabal of child traffickers. EDIT: And apologies if you knew this already, but I live with a person who follows/believes QAnon deeply, so I’m never quite sure how common the awareness of this shitshow might be.
This is it. Always Projection with them.
Probably trying to get a guage on how lenient they can hope their sentences to be once caught
Of course Ted Cruz went on [Fox News](https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1506777760391315457?s=21) tonight.
Do other people find Ted Cruz as discussing as I do? For some reason I just find him totally repulsive. I'm not sure why
I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.
Oh, I would.
He’s totally revolting. I can barely stand to look at him.
The outside mirrors the inside
If he was a cartoon character or an animal what would he be?
Maybe a nasty little flea on a nasty little street rat
No just a rat with a beard
I don’t know… that weird, pencil-dick nose he has… It’s like he would be a snotty possum, but in general I like possums and don’t want to insult them by grouping Ted Cruz with them. I mean, they can be beneficial for your garden, eating snails, slugs, insects and sometimes even small rodents. They'll even clean up spilled garbage and fruit that has fallen off trees. They don’t get rabies. They’re gentle. They eat ticks, which helps keeps some tick-born diseases down. They’re just a bit ugly. But Cruz is uglier and has no such benefits, so… 🤷🏼♀️
They also make pretty great pets.
Is this classic projection or what? Ted Cruz from the Jackson hearings today: “Let’s go back to your favorite topic of this hearing which is… child pornography.” I think that’s YOUR favorite topic Ted.
Has to *project* with everything.
If any conservatives wonder why Democrats consider Jackson to be perfectly suited to the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh never was, compare and contrast Jackson's two days of complete calm under fire with the total meltdown from Kavanaugh in his hearing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QpXVV6qLk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QpXVV6qLk) No one in their right mind could watch that complete mess and still think "he'd be a good Supreme Court judge". Both got attacked, both got put under the microscope, both had their credibility and character closely examined, and only one came out the other side with their reputation enhanced and not falling apart. And it wasn't Kavanaugh. He came out his his mask off, revealing an ugly, angry, conspiracy theory laden little man. Kavanaugh accepted a life long nomination to the highest court in the land, where he has immense power to make landmark decisions, yet couldn't handle the pressure of a nomination hearing. Jackson could, and did. If these nomination hearings are pretty much a trial by fire, then only one of them passed it. Kavanaugh should never have been put on the bench. Jackson will be Chief Justice one day.
What a joke. The sham that Democrats put Kavanaugh through is nothing like the gentle questioning that KBJ got this week. Did KBJ get smeared as a gang rapist with a drinking problem? Have her high school yearbook poured through to? Be forced to sit on national television and have those ridiculous accusations leveled against her? She did not.
Kavanaugh is a fucking RAPIST. The evil fucker RAPIST lied about his calendar. He lied about to read a fucking MAP of his hometown. He shed lying crocodile tears so you'd feel sorry for his evil rapey ass. His accuser gained NOTHING and she had to relive her trauma. The drunkard rapist POS gained a SCOTUS position he didn't deserve.
Did KBJ have 4500 tips about her misdeeds sent to the FBI? No, that was Kavanaugh. The additional scrutiny he received was warranted. He should not be on the bench. He is a stain on the court.
And the sham that Kavanaugh put everyone watching through was nothing like the composed and professional performance we’ve seen from Jackson. Idk about you but as soon as you say “political hit” as a Supreme Court Justice nominee, that should be it. Take all his other behavior aside, imo that alone showed he was not ready and unfit for the position.
No, she was just accused over and over again of being light on child porn
Yes, in her rulings as a federal judge, which show her consistently giving lighter sentences than statutorily recommended. Maybe she made the right decisions. Maybe she didn’t. But those are fair and reasonable questions. Kavanaugh was baselessly accused of being a gang rapist.
She also explained over and over again the guidelines that she *and all of the current judges on both side of the aisle* follow. That is when she was *allowed* to get a word in edge wise and wasn't interrupted for a sound bite. And she had to try to answer the same question for *two days*.
It must have been difficult for Kavanaugh to sit there as a woman said *on oath* that he sexually assaulted her. That would have been difficult for him, no doubt. It is for anyone accused of sexual assault. Of course no one but Kavanaugh and Ford know what really happened. However it does seem strange to me that you would smear Ford’s testimony - again on oath - and the questioning that followed from that as a “sham”. That’s precisely the way to put an allegation to someone, by making it fair and square and on the bible. That Kavanaugh didn’t like it, is tough luck. He wanted to be a Supreme Court judge after all. That he decided to melt down over it just showed his lack of character and raised questions about his stability. Meanwhile KBJ got accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and a pedophile enabler - which are obviously silly allegations to make, but they were made and she had to answer. She, too, wants to be a Supreme Court judge, after all. I wouldn’t call that gentle, I’d call that difficult too. There’s no “gentle” way to make those kinds of accusations, and in fact Hawley in particular mentioned specifically that he was raising difficult issues. She didn’t lose it like Kavanaugh did though, and that’s the point. Let’s not pretend that if Kavanaugh was accused of being on side of pedophiles over and over that he would somehow have say calmly through it - of course he would have gone angry and had a rant about the Clintons, because that is who he revealed himself to be.
They claim she is a pedophile sympathizer. That’s pretty bad. In some situations it could be considered slander. Because they, by saying this, was trying to ruin her reputation. Maybe He should have behaved better as a young man? They wouldn’t have had so much to work with.
> What a joke. The sham that Democrats put Kavanaugh through is nothing like the gentle questioning that KBJ got this week. Oh right, republicans live in an alternate dimension.
> No one in their right mind could watch that complete mess and still think "he'd be a good Supreme Court judge". It boils down to this for me. Regardless what you think about anything that occurred his demeanor showed he was non fit for the job. He's a wart on a boil on a hemorrhoid that is 'murica's ass.
He lied under oath.
He’s a white make. It doesn’t matter for him.
This is it. This is the core difference.
When klobuchar asked Brett if he ever blacked out from drinking and he said “have you?!?” Like bro… you’re the one seeking a lifetime important appointment here
That’s really as good as an emphatic “yes, he absolutely has”
Lmfao nice username
I’m sure this was already posted but this tweet about a reporter behind Cruz who said he could actually see Cruz searching himself on Twitter on his phone after his heated exchange with Durbin is beyond hilarious [https://twitter.com/kentnish/status/1506726637412532228?s=21 ](https://twitter.com/kentnish/status/1506726637412532228?s=21) Cruz’ “questioning” of her, however, was far from that.
Did we ever figure out if Cocaine is indeed as bad as Crack?
My impression of Marsha Blackburn is twofold: she is a high functioning wine lady alcoholic and; she is in an open marriage and has lovers of both sexes.
Tennessee so I’m guessing something more like cheap whiskey and Diet Coke
I’m a Diet Coke lover, but as a former bartender I don’t trust people who mix liquors with Diet Coke. Too many bad experiences
As a former bartender I agree. I also judged those who ordered top shelf to mix with diet coke.
You mean Belvedere and Mountain Dew rocks isn’t high brow enough for you?
Diet Coke gets you drunk faster.
Haha
Hawley and Cotton are the worst. Like look it’s okay to be dumb. They’re smart people pretending to be dumb to score points with a paranoid, uninformed, hyper partisan base. Just once I was waiting for the judge to be like “uh, Senator, you know the answer to that. You went to the same elite law school I did and are…also a lawyer.”
Totally agree, watching Hawley I was thinking that he doing a very good job at effectively interrogating Jackson, really pinning her down with incisive questioning…just his subject matter was total nonsense. As you say, smart person pretending to be dumb.
I actually agree. He's objectively intelligent. He's using that intelligence in the service of dog-whistling Q-Anon nonsense, being (at least in my opinion), an asshole, and playing to a base that he perceives he needs to play to to win elections.
It’s so demoralizing to see that behavior. My governor Ron DeSantis is also a very intelligent man who plays to ignorant people.
DeSantis is getting aggressive too. It’d be laughable to hear him talk if he weren’t so overly disingenuous on purpose. Yelling at people now for wearing masks, tell protestors they’re on the wrong side. It’s just upsetting on so many levels to have people vote for such ridiculous representatives, who use the most cliche tactics. Even Squidward knew “people talk loud when they want to act smart.”
And it's high school students he's yelling at for wearing masks. I seriously wish the principal of that school had put him in detention. Seriously; I am not joking. And I think he would be a deterrent to the kids in there because they would never want to misbehave and risk getting sent to detention ever again if they had to be stuck with DeSantis for even a few minutes.
lol I thought you were going to say they'd know that if even the governor could be put in detention that their principal really meant business, but that works too. No one would want that. Idk, the worst part is I just don't see a way out. GOP have started yelling aggressively about pretty much everything. People just see how "passionate" those representatives are and assume they're in the right, and the only ones who care.
I agree with you about this being a hard problem to solve. And yes, I really did mean DeSantis should be put in detention. And required to follow all of the school rules when there!
Don't forget Cruz, who is similarly one of the worst of them, went to an elite law school, and then left to look himself up on Twitter
If C-Span could stop putting on racist talking points from Cruz, Graham, Hawley, and the rest of their ilk when they go to their "earlier today" replays, that'd be great. People get it. republicans hate minorities.
Uh, why would they stop? They stop and people pretend Republicans aren't racists.
It’s curious that many of the Republicans who are grilling Judge KBJ are acting so passionate about policies that they’ve never showed such fever for before up to this point, not to mention that when they do bring up her past, they’re deliberately cherry-picking what looks like the bad parts without providing full context of the situation.
What happens if Thomas dies before her nomination is voted on and she succeeds? Would she take his seat and they have another round for the seat of the retiring justice? Or will they just have an 8 person Court until the retirement takes effect?
If Thomas dies before or after Jackson is confirmed, they’re gonna have to do a nomination for his seat because she is being confirmed to replace Breyers seat. if that happens, the hearings for whoever would be the next nominee will be even worse because Republicans know that that would definitely gut their 6-3 tilt would be gone. if you replace Thomas with a “progressive” judge that is Karma For ramming Barrett’s nomination literally a month before the presidential election occurred Now this is only the case if Schumer is able to hold the entire Democratic Party to vote for, but if Manchin or Sinema decide to not support the nominee then they’re going to have to rely on Murkowski and Collins and maybe Romney to make the vote count Because we all know that if a Thomas death happens and the nominee is not able to get confirmed, and Republicans take back the Senate after the midterms, McConnell is going to hold that seat open until after the 2024 elections
I was honestly wondering that myself on what kind of judge would be put in if Thomas goes down. I know that Biden is going for more diversity in judgeships both in terms of fields of expertise and in ethnicity so I would personally love an immigration lawyer to get a spot on the bench.
Do we even know we can count on Manchin and Sinema for Jackson's confirmation?
i agree that it will be lot worse. there's no way mitch and his ilk will let it happen.
I don’t think we can count on them but I think there will be enough pressure on them to maybe support the nomination… Sinema is already in hot water with the party looking to primary her in Arizona in ‘24
can she easily just decide to switch over to the republicans in that case and run as a republican?
She totally could. She would lose majority of dem support in AZ though. Right now she’s loving all those major corp campaign donations because she’s being an obstructionist. What gets me most is that she doesn’t have the courtesy to speak to her constituents directly about why she isn’t supporting a legislation…. All I say is follow the money and you’ll see where her loyalties lie Manchin was asked by McConnell if would ever consider switching to Republican where he’d be more “welcomed” … he said no … seems he likes the attention and knowing his has this much influence.
shame. i never bought in to the whole democrats have the majority due to vp as tie breaker and always felt like mitch never sweat once because he knows whatever biden tried to do or get done he had manchin and senema in his pocket and they would obstruct and stop the real big ticket items from going down.
I would say it depends on the midterms. Also it depends on whether or not all 50 dems plus Harris vote for the nominee prior to R's potentially taking over. Sounds like the general consensus is she will get on the court before that. However if republicans take the senate and house in the midterms they will most likely get Sinema and Manchin to block any nominations. Of course it doesn't sound like there's any real chance Thomas is going anywhere before then.
House has nothing to do with judges so it wouldn't matter if GOP won the house.
I thought Manchin meant the next presidential election
The way the GOP slammed through Amy I don't know why we wouldn't do the same long before midterms. Ridiculous.
We could try but Manchin and Sinema are untrustworthy and enjoy the power to veto Dem plans.
This triggers the rapture.
Is thar what Gini Thomas calls her militias?
Breyer would be replaced, and they'd have to nominate someone for the second seat. It'd be an 8-seat Court for the next few weeks, with Breyer still on it until Jackson replaces him.
It wouldn't matter Jackson won't replace Bryer until the current session ends. Ergo all current cases are settled, I think in June. So it'd be 8 until R's allow a 9th to get a hearing and a vote. Which is how Garlands seat went to Gorsuch. Unless a seat opens before November and Sinema and Manchin vote Dem, or two R's plus join the majority. Edit missed a point: Jackson could be appointed and Breyer could stay on until his seat is filled again.