A Big ‘No’ On Ketanji Brown Jackson

[mystery-ak]

Issues & Insights, by The Editorial Board
 3/24/2022

We’ve now listened to three days of a scheduled full week of testimony by Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. And to be honest, we’ve heard enough. Anyone who truly cares about the Constitution and the rule of law should reject Jackson.

Jackson has a winning smile and pleasant demeanor. Those are nice personal traits, but not ones that necessarily elevate you to the Supreme Court.

Still, she’s also a Harvard Law grad, clerked for Justice Steven Breyer, worked as a public defender, served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just last year.

But do those credentials really matter? Maybe they should, but unfortunately they’re mostly political window dressing.

As both President Joe Biden and the Democrats have made clear, Jackson was selected because she was, 1) African-American, 2) a woman, and (most important of all) 3) a leftist. Unfortunately, none of those things are actual qualifications for the Supreme Court.

Despite her superficially sparkling resume, under tough questioning this week, she showed why she shouldn’t be privileged with a seat on our nation’s highest court. On issue after issue, she whiffed, at times pretending not to have an opinion, or acting as if she didn’t really know much about certain landmark legal cases and current controversies.

more
https://issuesinsights.com/2022/03/24/a-big-no-on-ketanji-brown-jackson/

[Free Vulcan]

Jackson is a intersectional marxism activist, pure and simple. She subscribes to racial supremacist views that the color of her skin gives here status above everyone else, and she is entitled to rule.

She is not there about anything having to do with law. She simply wants to use her position on the court to advance the old collectivist dogma.

It's the same game we all know and love since the 60's and before.

[Fishrrman]

"Jackson is a intersectional marxism activist, pure and simple. She subscribes to racial supremacist views that the color of her skin gives here status above everyone else, and she is entitled to rule."

Or, to put it another way:
She's a commie, Jim...

[Kamaji]

McConnell said no last night.  Wonder if he'll be able to enforce party discipline on that.

[Free Vulcan]

"Jackson is a intersectional marxism activist, pure and simple. She subscribes to racial supremacist views that the color of her skin gives here status above everyone else, and she is entitled to rule."

Or, to put it another way:
She's a commie, Jim...

These aren't your old school 'insidious and nefarious bourgeoisie capitalist pig' commies. They are a far more virulent strain who doesn't just come at you straight on acting like societal saviors shouting their high and mighty rhetoric, trying to gain the proletariat masses to their side.

These people are simply wanting to destroy everything that's not them, not pure, not ideologically correct, and rule over the smoldering shell that is left. Highly cultist and tribalistic, much like you see in the Muslim world.

That's the feral woke part that turns on each other when they run out of enemies to stand against them. They are nothing but animalistic chaos and anarchy that's incapable of even the pretense of running a stable nation state, or even fake it like the old marxist regimes did.

[Hoodat]

All 50 Republicans voting against would block her confirmation.

[andy58-in-nh]

All 50 Republicans voting against would block her confirmation.

Except that "Giggles" Harris gets the tie-breaking vote.

[Hoodat]

Except that "Giggles" Harris gets the tie-breaking vote.

Uh, no.  Harris isn't a Senator.  The Constitution specifically states the advice and consent of the Senate.  That does not include Harris.

[mystery-ak]

Dem Sen. Reed: Jackson Will ‘Bring the Spirit, Not Just of Enforcing the Law, But Seeking Justice’

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Jose Diaz-Balart Reports,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) stated that Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will “bring the spirit, not just of enforcing the law, but seeking justice,” and will continue in the spirit, as well as the letter” of the law.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/03/25/dem-sen-reed-jackson-will-bring-the-spirit-not-just-of-enforcing-the-law-but-seeking-justice/

[mystery-ak]

Alabama AG: Ketanji Brown Jackson Wants ‘Fundamental Redesign’ of Criminal Justice System

Alabama Attorney Steven Marshall argued Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wanted a fundamental redesign of the criminal justice system.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/25/alabama-ag-ketanji-brown-jackson-wants-fundamental-redesign-of-criminal-justice-system/

[240B]

Dem Sen. Reed: Jackson Will ‘Bring the Spirit, Not Just of Enforcing the Law, But Seeking Justice’

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Jose Diaz-Balart Reports,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) stated that Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will “bring the spirit, not just of enforcing the law, but seeking justice,” and will continue in the spirit, as well as the letter” of the law.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/03/25/dem-sen-reed-jackson-will-bring-the-spirit-not-just-of-enforcing-the-law-but-seeking-justice/

This is just BLM code. I've heard it all before. It means that Black people are exempt and do not have to obey the 'White man's Law' whereas everyone else White, Asian, Latino, do have to behave as civil human beings in society.

Like all of the Black racists, if she had her way a Black man shooting, robbing, or raping, a non-Black person would be legal. But any non-Black person who does 'anything', no matter how simple or innocent, to a Black person would face the death penalty. This is the BLM Black racist definition of "seeking justice".

This is the opposite of "equal rights". What Black racists want is "Special Rights" or "Superior Rights", which place Black people on a different level of human being, which exempts them from all normal civil behavior rules and laws that everyone else must observe.

[Hoodat]

Just a reminder of what liberals said three years ago:

No hiding behind Pence’s skirt on the Supreme Court nomination

The vice president doesn’t have the power to break a tie on the appointment.

Laurence H. Tribe  |  Updated September 23, 2020, 10:36 a.m

In the coming weeks, certain Republican senators running for reelection will find it convenient to tell opponents of President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination that they bear no responsibility for the damage this rushed appointment will do to the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, and other court rulings their moderate supporters care about. They will say that even if they did join Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in voting against confirming a precedent-shattering nominee this close to the election, the vote would be 50-50 and Vice President Mike Pence would break the tie to put that nominee on the court. They are wrong.

While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.

https://archive.ph/qPnVS#selection-1473.0-1483.61

[andy58-in-nh]

Uh, no.  Harris isn't a Senator.  The Constitution specifically states the advice and consent of the Senate.  That does not include Harris.

The Democrats are acting as if they do not think that might be an impediment.

[Hoodat]

The Democrats are acting as if they do not think that might be an impediment.

The Democrats always act as if the Constitution doesn't exist.  It's in their nature.

[andy58-in-nh]

The Democrats always act as if the Constitution doesn't exist.

And they usually get away with it.

[Hoodat]

And they usually get away with it.

Only because Republicans let them.

[Fishrrman]

I'm pleased that McConnell has said "no" to jackson, but with collins, murkowski and mittens, gonna be hard to get 50 Republican "nays"...

(I refuse to capitalize those names for good reason -- my disgust of them)

[DCPatriot]

The Democrats always act as if the Constitution doesn't exist.  It's in their nature.

@Hoodat

Given the number of "Blue Dog Democrats" there are out there today...thank you Brandon...given the number of these Democrats that are retiring rather than spend all that campaign $$$ for nuttin' honey...

...you'd think there would be at least a half dozen Patriotic, flag-loving Democrats in their senior years who would 'kill' this stupid nomination.   

[andy58-in-nh]

Only because Republicans let them.

Many of today's Republican "leaders" would rather be socially accepted, rather than admired or feared.