Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Will ‘Defend the Constitution and This Grand Experiment of American Democracy’

Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Will ‘Defend the Constitution and This Grand Experiment of American Democracy’

“During this hearing, I hope you will see how much I love this country, the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I decide cases from a neutral posture.”

Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, had her first day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Monday consisted mostly of opening statements by the senators. Jackson finished the day with hers:

“It is extremely humbling to be considered for Justice Breyer’s seat, and I know that I could never fill his shoes. But if confirmed, I would hope to carry on his spirit,” Jackson said.

“Members of this committee, if I am confirmed, I commit to you that I will work productively to support and defend the Constitution and this grand experiment of American democracy that has endured over these past 246 years,” she added.

“During this hearing, I hope you will see how much I love this country, the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I decide cases from a neutral posture,” she said.

“I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath,” she continued. “I know that my role as a judge is a limited one – that the Constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. And I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.”

Sen. Klobuchar Implies Trump’s Nominees Aren’t Qualified

Well, Klobuchar, there are people in the Senate who have served longer than you. Therefore they’re more qualified to sit on the Judiciary Committee than you or something.

Sen. Graham Points Out the Left’s Hypocrisy

Sen. Whitehouse’s Dark Money Obsession

Why does RI keep electing this man?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

taurus the judge | March 21, 2022 at 11:05 am

RINO sellout in 3-2-1

Lucifer Morningstar | March 21, 2022 at 11:18 am

Perhaps it’s just me but I still don’t understand how the democrats can attempt to confirm a nomination to the Supreme Court when there isn’t a vacancy on the Supreme Court to fill as of yet.

    Morning Sunshine in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | March 21, 2022 at 11:26 am

    especially since they have been talking about court packing for the last 2 years….

    taurus the judge in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | March 21, 2022 at 11:36 am

    Rules for thee…

    The last time something like this happened was when O’Connor announced her retirement in July of 2005 and then – before Robert’s confirmation hearings could begin – Rehnquist unexpectedly died in September. Bush then withdrew Robert’s nomination to replace O’Connor and then renominated him for CJ. O’Connor agreed to stay on the Court for some period at least through Robert’s confirmation.

    Bush then nominated Miers to replace O’Connor which of course famously went poorly. It wasn’t until October of 2005 did Bush nominate Alito. His confirmation hearings were held in early January of 2006. Just hours after he was finally confirmed, O’Connor left the bench and then Alito was sworn-in. So technically, the Senate confirmed him before there was an actual vacancy.

    Perhaps it’s just me but I still don’t understand how the democrats can attempt to confirm a nomination to the Supreme Court when there isn’t a vacancy on the Supreme Court to fill as of yet.

    I don’t understand your question.

    The constitution is very clear: When there is a vacancy the president can appoint someone to it, if he has the senate’s permission. Breyer has said he intends to create a vacancy, Biden has said when and if that happens he would like to appoint Jackson to it, and now the senate is considering whether to let him do so.

    What makes you suppose the senate has to wait until the vacancy materializes before deciding what it thinks of Biden’s proposal? Where in the constitution do you find any hint at such a requirement?

    When Trump was a candidate for the presidency, he released a list of names from which he would make his first supreme court pick, should a vacancy arise. There’s no reason he couldn’t have submitted the entire list to the senate and asked its consent to all of those names, so that he could appoint them immediately if a vacancy arose.

    He didn’t do that, not because he couldn’t but because it would be stupid. Why would anyone on the list subject himself to that ordeal without any reason to suppose it would ever result in an appointment? What for? I know if I were on that list, and I were asked to submit to a confirmation hearing just on spec, I’d say no thank you, and withdraw my name from consideration. I’d say call me when you get serious. When there’s a vacancy and you decide you want me, call me and I’ll come; until then, leave me alone.

    That’s why he didn’t do it, not because he couldn’t.

    Another Voice in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | March 21, 2022 at 5:37 pm

    Supreme Court Breyer has already tendered his resignation with the condition it would not take effect until the Senate approved his replacement. He made known he did not want to see the court be subjected to a vacancy as happened when Justice Ginsburg passed.

      Milhouse in reply to Another Voice. | March 21, 2022 at 6:06 pm

      I don’t think he has actually tendered anything yet. And of course even if he has, he could withdraw it. But he’s announced his intention of resigning once a replacement has been confirmed. I don’t understand how anyone sees anything irregular in this procedure.

        Nanoushka in reply to Milhouse. | March 22, 2022 at 1:48 pm

        For me the irregularity was the Brandon administration announcement of his upcoming retirement which seemed to be a surprise to him. They’re trying to force him out.

          Milhouse in reply to Nanoushka. | March 22, 2022 at 7:04 pm

          No, he’d already decided to go, and had informed the White House. If he hadn’t, he’d have said so, and in fact would probably have canceled any retirement plans he might have been contemplating.

          Leaking it was a breach of trust, but not “irregular” in the sense of “a breach of rules”.

    Another Voice in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | March 21, 2022 at 5:40 pm

    *Supreme Court Breyer has already tendered his resignation with the condition it would not take effect until the Senate approved his replacement. He made known he did not want to see the court be subjected to a vacancy as happened when Justice Ginsburg passed.

    *I’m reposting as I erred as a response wrongly posted to another entry. OOps!

    henrybowman in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | March 21, 2022 at 11:41 pm

    It’s like “getting on the GSA schedule.” A lot of bureaucracy, certifications, and a boatload of crap; and once you’re finally on it, it still doesn’t mean that anybody is ever going to actually ORDER your junk.

Some of the RINOs will gladly participate in the expected ‘humiliation ritual’ that this Marxist in a brown wrapper requires and thus will be confirmed.

The New York Times argues that Ms. Jackson will be “about as liberal” as Justice Breyer. Obviously, the Times wants its readers to believe that Ms. Jackson is not “woke” or otherwise abnormal. But isn’t “about as liberal” a variant of the “I’m not racist, I have Black friends” argument? Isn’t the NY Times trying to shut down a genuine debate about Ms. Jackson’s politics and racial beliefs.

Woke politics have infected every aspect of life. We need to know if Ms. Jackson has the same nasty political agenda as the “mostly peaceful” BLM rioters. If Ms. Jackson believes that our country is inherently and structurally racist, this is her opportunity to say so. Let us know how you really feel.

Does anyone know if the factoid floating around Twitter that Brown would be the most reversed judge in history to be confirmed for the Supreme Court is factually accurate? That’s a bit of an infamous record to hold, if true.

Not sure why they are wasting their time with a confirmation hearing. She will be sworn in regardless so this is nothing more than theatre.

    Politics is for theatre majors who believe in their roles. In this case, please notice the Republicans are being fairly calm, rational, and practical. They’re not waving forged high school yearbooks or dragging out total strangers from three decades ago. They’re trying to make their case based on facts with some emotion, instead of the Dem playbook of overwhelming emotion mixed with outright lies. In this case, there’s not a chance (that I can see) of the nominee being withdrawn, and ditto for the chance she will ‘mature’ in office to vote anything but straight down the Left-wing agenda.

    There are some legit concerns about her legal mindset, but I’m encouraged instead of discouraged by her history of representing criminal defendants. We should have at least half 0f the SC being former defense attorneys, used to facing the bar from the other side since about 9/10th of the Constitution is there for the Defense.

      mailman in reply to georgfelis. | March 21, 2022 at 2:59 pm

      The fucks on the left are already screeching about how everyone deserves representation (which they do) but by fuck if Republicans don’t ram this line down the throat of every lefty cunt who demands lawyers who worked for Trump be dis-bared, hunted down and imprisoned then I’m going to have to use harsh fucking language to crudely communicate my displeasure with these arseholes lack of spine! 🤬🤬

        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | March 21, 2022 at 6:03 pm

        How about asking her what she thinks of the crusade against Trump lawyers? To maintain any credibility she’ll have to condemn it, and that would be useful material against those conducting it.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | March 21, 2022 at 5:41 pm

    She can’t be appointed without the senate’s consent. The senate could skip hearings and just proceed to a vote on whether to consent, but why would it want to do that?

Biden announced the appointment of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, appeasing left-wing special interest groups and fulfilling a campaign promise of using race and sex to determine his nominee.  There are few decisions more important for a president than the selection of a Supreme Court nominee. Biden has failed making this appointment. Ketanji Brown Jackson is the most radical judge ever nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. A review of her record and judicial philosophy reveals a deeply troubling pattern and raises questions about her ability to be a fair and impartial judge. Her limited judicial record reveals that she has consistently ignored the Constitution, twisting the law to favor certain outcomes. Judges should play a limited role in our government, yet Jackson’s far-left supporters want her to impose a political agenda that invents new rights or erases rights she doesn’t like. Based on the information we already know, senators should reject her for this lifetime appointment. Senators should reject her nomination!
Jackson is strictly an affirmative action nominee, black and female mandated by Biden, and she is not the best qualified or experienced judge available. The Supreme Court deserves the best and race and gender is not a qualifier!

    Philosopher1 in reply to jrcowboy49. | March 22, 2022 at 8:33 am

    A question she should be asked: “Do you believe that President Biden’s stated pick of you as the nominee for the expected Court opening BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK AND YOU ARE FEMALE is Constitutional? Do you believe that the Constitution allows the President or the Federal government in general to pick winners (inclusive) and losers (exclusive) in life based on sex and/or skin color?

Why do you have these leftist talking parrots yapping on the Washington Post site regarding these hearings.

She will be first CRT Marxist on court, race will be first determining factor on every case.

Who is more liberal?

Stephen Bryer or Ketanji Brown Jackson?

retiredcantbefired | March 21, 2022 at 4:43 pm

I think you mean who is more illiberal; i.e., farther to the Left?

The worst part of allowing a lunatic like this woman on the Supreme Court is the effect it will have on younger lunatic judges in her mold.

Now, will she defend the constitution as written, or her “living, breathing” version?

“…I would hope to carry on (Breyer’s) spirit,” Jackson said.

That’s reason enough to VOTE NO.

Here is my shocked face when she votes with the liberals in the future.

She’s a caricature.

The White House is hiding thousands of documents recording her tenure at the US sentencing commission from the committee. More than enough to prevent passing her nomination out of committee, if the GOP had the courage.

What ever happened to the oath to protect and defend the Constitution? Apply this to ALL the elected assholes and appointees and it seems not a single one of them tells the truth.
So many of them should be arrested and put on trial. Including this she witch.

This woman is a liar, she will do no such thing as to “defend The Constitution”. Her record speaks for itself…nothing more than another Lefty plant injected into our upper echelons. And the theater these “hearings” will become – R’s “playing nice” while he mentally ill D’s wait to pounce if anything breeches their screwed up demented view of the world – will prove once again that our Federal government has become the feckless weak joke we all believe it to be. Yet another distraction of stupidity.

Last week we had the comedian addressing our Congress, with nearly every one of them breathlessly fawning with delight as Zelensky gave them cover for their treasonous activities abroad. More distraction.

America is toast if the heeled-over ship cannot be righted. Need some warriors to do the right thing.

Just heard her answer to Sen. Grassley,on the @nd. amendment Not So Much,No to Jumangi Communist.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode