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

[Hoodat]

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

Graham, Sasse, and Cornyn sit on that committee.  Sorry I asked.

[Bigun]

Graham, Sasse, and Cornyn sit on that committee.  Sorry I asked.

  I feel your pain!

[mystery-ak]

Read the Letter Biden’s SCOTUS Pick Wrote Calling a Journalist ‘Irredeemably Evil’

Kevin Daley • March 21, 2022 5:00 am



While clerking for a federal judge, Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson denounced a Boston Herald columnist as "irredeemably evil" for criticizing unrestricted immigration.

Jackson wrote a letter to the editor of the Herald in response to a piece from columnist Don Feder that noted that the population of white people in America could decrease steeply as a result of open borders immigration policy. The text of both 1997 writings were obtained by the Free Beacon through a news archive.

"To my mind, he's also like the liberal's purported view of American history—irredeemably evil," Jackson wrote of Feder, whose column also attacked black civic leaders such as Louis Farrakhan. The judge disclosed the letter in a questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

more
https://freebeacon.com/courts/read-the-letter-bidens-scotus-pick-wrote-calling-a-journalist-irredeemably-evil/

[Kamaji]

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

Sure, why not?  However, other than in circumstances where it's pretty clear that the "reserve" is intended to replace a sitting justice who has already announced his intention to retire during the term of the president who appointed the "reserve", I don't see that argument getting any traction.

Where one gets serious arguments is if one or more "reserves" were nominated and confirmed during a prior president's term, and a vacancy only happens during the next president's term.  That raises issues of whether a confirmation lasts past the end of the term of the president who made the nomination.

However, being able to "bank" confirmed nominees would lessen the risks of a last-minute denial of a confirmation vote a-la Garland.  That cuts both ways, however, as both republican as well as democrat presidents could "bank" future justices.

[Hoodat]

Ask yourself this.  What would the Democrats say if the Republicans tried to do this.  Would they allow the GOP to stack justices like this?

[Kamaji]

Ask yourself this.  What would the Democrats say if the Republicans tried to do this.  Would they allow the GOP to stack justices like this?

I'm quite certain they would object; that doesn't mean their objections would be well-founded.

[Bigun]

Sure, why not?  However, other than in circumstances where it's pretty clear that the "reserve" is intended to replace a sitting justice who has already announced his intention to retire during the term of the president who appointed the "reserve", I don't see that argument getting any traction.

Where one gets serious arguments is if one or more "reserves" were nominated and confirmed during a prior president's term, and a vacancy only happens during the next president's term.  That raises issues of whether a confirmation lasts past the end of the term of the president who made the nomination.

However, being able to "bank" confirmed nominees would lessen the risks of a last-minute denial of a confirmation vote a-la Garland.  That cuts both ways, however, as both republican as well as democrat presidents could "bank" future justices.

Either the law says what it says and does not say what it doesn't or it is meaningless. It's a slippery slope already. No need for more grease.

[Cyber Liberty]

A justice in reserve is still a justice.

Don't they have to be sworn in to be a Justice?

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

Those "confirmations" would expire at the end of the Congressional term.

[Kamaji]

Either the law says what it says and does not say what it doesn't or it is meaningless. It's a slippery slope already. No need for more grease.

The law does not say, nor does it necessarily imply, that there cannot be a pre-vacancy nomination and confirmation hearings.  Therefore, such actions are possible.

Unless, of course, one wants to get into penumbras and shadows.

[Kamaji]

Those "confirmations" would expire at the end of the Congressional term.

That's quite possible.  If a confirmation during Session X of the Senate has not been acted upon - i.e., resulted in the swearing in and seating of a justice of the Supreme Court - then the Senate action expires as a dry or failed confirmation.

That would prevent the problem of "holdover" reservists claiming to have been nominated and confirmed during the term of one president, but waiting in the wings until a vacancy in fact occurs during the term of the next president.

[catfish1957]

Watch the feckless GOP play nice with this pick, while forgetting the treatment Barrett and Kavanaugh got.

Just another reason we need scorched earth change witihin the GOP.

[Kamaji]

To be perfectly honest, there are so many other points on which this nominee can, and should, be attacked, so why put so much effort into the thin gruel?

[Bigun]

The law does not say, nor does it necessarily imply, that there cannot be a pre-vacancy nomination and confirmation hearings.  Therefore, such actions are possible.

Unless, of course, one wants to get into penumbras and shadows.

Once again @Kamaji The law says NINE justices. Not a word about any "reserves".

[Bigun]

That's quite possible.  If a confirmation during Session X of the Senate has not been acted upon - i.e., resulted in the swearing in and seating of a justice of the Supreme Court - then the Senate action expires as a dry or failed confirmation.

That would prevent the problem of "holdover" reservists claiming to have been nominated and confirmed during the term of one president, but waiting in the wings until a vacancy in fact occurs during the term of the next president.

Whether or not that is true is TOTALLY irrelevant to the question currently before us.

Should there be proceedings on nominations before a vacancy occurs?

[Cyber Liberty]

That's quite possible.  If a confirmation during Session X of the Senate has not been acted upon - i.e., resulted in the swearing in and seating of a justice of the Supreme Court - then the Senate action expires as a dry or failed confirmation.

That would prevent the problem of "holdover" reservists claiming to have been nominated and confirmed during the term of one president, but waiting in the wings until a vacancy in fact occurs during the term of the next president.

If a regular Bill is passed in the last days of a Congress, and doesn't get signed by the President, then the Bill fails and must be passed again.  This is a "pocket veto" and applies every two years.

Same thing here, seems to me, but I could be wrong.  When it comes to law, common sense of laymen doesn't apply. 

[Kamaji]

Once again @Kamaji The law says NINE justices. Not a word about any "reserves".

It doesn't have to.  It says that the Supreme Court - i.e., the active sitting bench - consists of nine justices.  Having a "reserve" doesn't break that rule, and isn't prohibited by that rule, so long as the "reserve" is not seating on the court's bench, and is not allowed to opine on cases before the court.

There is nothing in either the Constitution or the statute that requires the existence, vel non, of an actual vacancy on the Court before the current president can nominate a replacement, or before the Senate can hold confirmation hearings.  Nothing.

There are no penumbras or emanations that would necessarily prevent that result, either.

And, as @Cyber Liberty has pointed out, a "dry" confirmation would likely expire at the end of the session of the Senate that made that confirmation, meaning that having a "reserve" is unlikely to create a conflict between the current president and a prior president who may have appointed, and had confirmed, a "reservist" who was never seated because an actual vacancy did not arise during the prior president's term of office.

[Kamaji]

Whether or not that is true is TOTALLY irrelevant to the question currently before us.

Should there be proceedings on nominations before a vacancy occurs?

Why shouldn't there be?  At the very least, in the case of an ill justice who refuses to vacate his/her seat during the middle of a session of the court, and who is expected to die momentarily, having proceedings take place prior to that actual death would not be unwarranted.

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if there is any precedent for this?  Has a Justice ever been confirmed before a vacancy occurred?

[Hoodat]

Those "confirmations" would expire at the end of the Congressional term.

Based on what?  You expect those rules to be followed while all the others are being ignored?

[Kamaji]

If a regular Bill is passed in the last days of a Congress, and doesn't get signed by the President, then the Bill fails and must be passed again.  This is a "pocket veto" and applies every two years.

Same thing here, seems to me, but I could be wrong.  When it comes to law, common sense of laymen doesn't apply. 

Another option is to defer consideration of the nominee.

[Kamaji]

Based on what?  You expect those rules to be followed while all the others are being ignored?

What rules are being ignored?

[Cyber Liberty]

Based on what?  You expect those rules to be followed while all the others are being ignored?

It's a long-standing rule:  A Congress cannot force actions upon a future Congress.  This is not a rule that can be ignored.

[catfish1957]

I wonder if there is any precedent for this?  Has a Justice ever been confirmed before a vacancy occurred?

Cruz would be the one who would has the  knowledge and expertise to deep 6 this thing on a technicality.

That'd be a hoot.

[mystery-ak]

 March 19, 2022 5:26pm EDT
Grassley calls for Judge Jackson records amid GOP scrutiny over child porn sentencing; White House pushes back
The allegations were leveled at Jackson this week by Sen. Josh Hawley
By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Sen. Chuck Grassley is calling for records related to Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson’s time on the U.S. Sentencing Commission ahead of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next week, amid Republican claims she was overly lenient to child pornographers -- a charge that the White House is branding a "debunked" and "desperate" conspiracy theory.

"Judge Jackson’s history of sentencing below guidelines, particularly in cases involving child exploitation, raises legitimate questions about her views on penalties for these crimes," Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Saturday.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grassley-jackson-records-gop-scrutiny-child-porn-sentencing-white-house