Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing | LIVE on March 21 at 10:30 a.m. ET

[Elderberry]

Washington Post

Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If confirmed, she would  replace retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer, becoming the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court.

Jackson, 51, would also be just the third African American in the high court’s 233-year history. A former public defender, she served as a trial court judge in Washington for eight years before Biden elevated her last year to the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was confirmed to that court after a relatively uncontentious Senate hearing and with the backing of three Republican lawmakers.

Libby Casey will anchor coverage from the Washington Post newsroom, with reporting and analysis from Rhonda Colvin, James Hohmann, Seung Min Kim, Ann Marimow, Amber Philips and more.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAbTrpmeeUQ

[Kamaji]

I hope she gets as much hell as Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch got.

[Hoodat]

Why are the Republicans allowing a confirmation hearing when there is no vacancy?

[Bigun]

WHY in the unshirted hell is there even a nominee at this point?  As far as I'm aware, there is no current vacancy!

[Kamaji]

What says there must be a current vacancy?

[Bigun]

What says there must be a current vacancy?

Current law fixes the number of SCOTUS seats at nine and all of them are currently filled @Kamaji

[Kamaji]

Current law fixes the number of SCOTUS seats at nine and all of them are currently filled @Kamaji

Yes, it does, but that doesn't impose a necessary restriction on there being a nomination and a confirmation hearing.  It means that, assuming arguendo, there was a confirmation, the confirmation is dry (i.e., pointless), because the individual who was confirmed cannot be seated until there is a vacancy.

Unless, of course, one wants to start exploring penumbrae of the Constitution, that is.

[Kamaji]

Apparently Nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomination_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
So I guess if Breyer doesn't retire, then we'll have 10 Justices.

Maybe so, maybe not.  We wouldn't have 10 justices serving on the Supreme Court, and we wouldn't have 10 justices making decisions on cases before the Court, because that number is limited to nine.

We would have nine active justices, and one reserve justice, if you will.

[mountaineer]

Vice President Kamala Harris
@VP
United States government official
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has impeccable character and a dedication to the rule of law.
At this week’s hearings, the world will see just how exceptional a Supreme Court Justice she will be.
10:43 AM · Mar 21, 2022·

Jackson's one and only "qualification" for the job is the same one Harris offered the Biden/Harris ticket.

[Kamaji]

Jackson's one and only "qualification" for the job is the same one Harris offered the Biden/Harris ticket.

I dunno.  I think Harris' heels spent more time in the air than Jackson's did.

[Hoodat]

Maybe so, maybe not.  We wouldn't have 10 justices serving on the Supreme Court, and we wouldn't have 10 justices making decisions on cases before the Court, because that number is limited to nine.

We would have nine active justices, and one reserve justice, if you will.

9 + 1 = 10

[mountaineer]

[Kamaji]

9 + 1 = 10

If the 1 is not sitting on the bench, hearing cases, and deciding them, then that 1 is simply a justice in reserve.  A dry confirmation.  I don't see anything that expressly prevents that state of affairs.

The only argument that might come up is if a pre-vacancy nomination is made and confirmed, and then there is a change of president, so that a vacancy only arises after the president who made the pre-vacancy nomination is no longer in office.

[mystery-ak]

I hope she gets as much hell as Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch got.

I do too but according to McConnell that won't happen...

[Kamaji]

I do too but according to McConnell that won't happen...

To what end?  So the GOP can, once again, appear to be supine?

[Bigun]

Maybe so, maybe not.  We wouldn't have 10 justices serving on the Supreme Court, and we wouldn't have 10 justices making decisions on cases before the Court, because that number is limited to nine.

We would have nine active justices, and one reserve justice, if you will.

Where does it say we can have "one reserve justice" @Kamaji

[Kamaji]

Where does it say we can have "one reserve justice" @Kamaji

Where does it say we cannot?

I openly admit it would be an interesting question, and if she is confirmed and Breyer retires during Bidet's administration, I don't see the question being litigated.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution or in the relevant statutes that prohibits a pre-vacancy nomination or a confirmation hearing, particularly in light of the announced intentions of a currently sitting justice to retire.

The statute currently forbids more than nine sitting justices actively hearing cases and deciding them; it doesn't of its own necessary language do more than that.

[Bigun]

Where does it say we cannot?

I openly admit it would be an interesting question, and if she is confirmed and Breyer retires during Bidet's administration, I don't see the question being litigated.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution or in the relevant statutes that prohibits a pre-vacancy nomination or a confirmation hearing, particularly in light of the announced intentions of a currently sitting justice to retire.



The statute currently forbids more than nine sitting justices actively hearing cases and deciding them; it doesn't of its own necessary language do more than that.

The letter of the law says nine.  No mention of any "reserve" justice(s).

[Kamaji]

The letter of the law says nine.  No mention of any "reserve" justice(s).

The letter of the law does not foreclose a pre-vacancy nomination, nor does it foreclose a pre-vacancy confirmation.  All that it forecloses is a successful pre-vacancy confirmee from serving on the Supreme Court prior to the time that a vacancy arises.

[Hoodat]

If the 1 is not sitting on the bench, hearing cases, and deciding them, then that 1 is simply a justice in reserve.

A justice in reserve is still a justice.

[Hoodat]

The letter of the law says nine.  No mention of any "reserve" justice(s).

There are eleven Republicans (and eleven Democrats) on the Judiciary Committee.  I want to know who the Republican is that voted 'yes' to this fiasco.

[mountaineer]

What Senators Must Ask Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson About Her Record, Judicial Philosophy
Feb 28th, 2022 8 min read
John Malcolm
Thomas Jipping


Key Takeaways

1. President Joe Biden has nominated U.S. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

2. While on the bench, Jackson has issued some opinions that should trouble Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

3. Jackson should be asked some tough question about whether she believes that courts should be overtly political institutions.  ... Read entire article at Heritage Foundation

[Bigun]

The letter of the law does not foreclose a pre-vacancy nomination, nor does it foreclose a pre-vacancy confirmation.  All that it forecloses is a successful pre-vacancy confirmee from serving on the Supreme Court prior to the time that a vacancy arises.

Why not two or three "reserve" justices? Hell, Why not eight or nine?

[Bigun]

There are eleven Republicans (and eleven Democrats) on the Judiciary Committee.  I want to know who the Republican is that voted 'yes' to this fiasco.

I do not currently KNOW the answer to that question but would wager a LOT on it being our "friend" Lindsey Graham. @Hoodat

[Hoodat]

Why not two or three "reserve" justices? Hell, Why not eight or nine?

Hey, now that would be a neat trick.  The Dems could confirm a hundred reserve justices.  That way, every time there is a future vacancy, they would have already selected a replacement.

Republicans take control of the Senate next year?  Too bad.  The Dems have already confirmed all the future Supreme Court Justices for the next 50 years.