Republican Sens. Murkowski and Romney Will Vote to Confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson for SCOTUS
Collins already gave Jackson a yes vote so that’s three Republican votes.
Moderate Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney will vote to confirm SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:
“After reviewing Judge Jackson’s record and testimony, I have concluded that she is a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor,” Romney, R-Utah, said. “While I do not expect to agree with every decision she may make on the Court, I believe that she more than meets the standard of excellence and integrity.”
“My support rests on Judge Jackson’s qualifications, which no one questions; her demonstrated judicial independence; her demeanor and temperament; and the important perspective she would bring to the court as a replacement for Justice Breyer,” Murkwoski [sic], R-Alaska, said.
“It also rests on my rejection of the corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year,” Murkowski added. “While I have not and will not agree with all of Judge Jackson’s decisions and opinions, her approach to cases is carefully considered and is generally well-reasoned.”
Sen. Susan Collins already said she would vote for Jackson.
Jackson has three confirmed Republican votes, which means she will likely be confirmed to SOCTUS.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Name three Republican Senators who don’t give a shit about the future of their country.
Name three Republican Senators who are as probably compromised as Biden.
Years from now when they write the history books there will be a chapter on America’s downfall, it will note that the turning point was putting this traitor on the Supreme Court.
Name three Republican Senators who do.
Obama 2.0!! White guilt!! This woman is soft on the worst crimes in society! Crimes against children!
She ia soft on crime. but hard on non-crime.
Crime is not the reason she is being put on the
Supreme Court.
The reason is to advance the agenda.
Lindsey, Cotton, Cruz
Am I shocked? No. Pissed? You bet.
The Three Amigo RINOs: More predictable than the sun rising in the east.
The usual sellouts.
Unreal! A couple of morons supporting a menace to the court. This chick is a useless piece of human debris who goes easy on child molester’s.
A well placed smiting from Heaven needs to happen in DC, clear out these treasonous evil cretins before they can do any more damage to our Republic and The Constitution.
She is Obama. We see how he’s been working out, even in his third term.
You do realise that she is vastly more qualified than any of the GOP picks during the trump years right
Now yer just poking the dog…and Adderall Joe got 81 Mil votes with no election fraud, Hunter’s Laptop was Russia propaganda, and SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released.
Jackson is such a lightweight that she can’t recall any of her cases then proceeds to tap-dance around every question. Yeah, genius, that one. It used to be one of these seats was reserved for Constitutional scholars and adherents, and in that, Congress took their nominee selections seriously, not the dog-n-pony shows and circuses we are now subject. This one can’t even define what a woman is, yet you think she’s “all that”. This is a political AA appointee, nothing more. And to America’s great embarrassment.
Case closed. But you go ahead and wallow in your self delusion.
The only evidence of fraud is of Republican fraud. Still waiting for that kraken to be released. Why are you clinging to the election fraud thing, even the Trump campaign acknowledged no evidence for fraud in an internal memo, duh.
Hunter bidens laptop had a lot of spurious claims around it. Still waiting for any actual indictments based of off the laptop. But why do we care, he is being investigated and in the proper manner unlike Trump prior behaviour Biden hasnt touched the investigation
As for Covid sure you keep reading those conspiracy posts.
With respect to Jackson, she actually had a job as a judge with over a hundred cases. Your expecting her to recall the details of every single case? Even then the question from likes of Cruz were moronic, and utterly irrelevant. If she is a light weight then the Trump judges were throw away trash and the qualifications in comparison make them look really quite bad.
Who the hell cares what the definition of a women is, she is supposed to listen to the arguments and based from that give a reasoned conclusion not make crap up for the benefit of a political question which has zero merit.
I hope your children and children aren’t molested by someone she gave a light sentence too!
No, she isn’t, not even close.
If times were normal I would support her confirmation, on the grounds that the president wanted her and she’s not obviously disqualified. But that’s a very low bar. There are literally thousands of people who are better qualified.
That’s what happens when you restrict your choice in advance to a tiny demographic pool. It’s like deciding in advance that the next nominee would come from Delaware; there are certainly qualified people in Delaware, but not that many, and they’re unlikely to be the best.
Still, in principle I believe the president is entitled to his pick, and the senate’s role should be limited to ruling out obviously bad choices. That’s why I supported Harriet Miers’s nomination; the president wanted her and she wasn’t obviously disqualified, and that was good enough for me. But I was disappointed that he wanted her, and I was glad when he was persuaded to change his mind and pick someone much better.
Times being what they are, however, I think Republicans should vigorously oppose whomever Biden nominates, and give them as hard a time as possible, because those are the rules the Dems play by. We cannot have a situation where Dem nominees are treated decently and Rep nominees are given the Kavanaugh treatment. The Dems deliberately turned this into a blood sport, so their nominees need to be treated the same way. They should be hit with obviously false and over-the-top accusations, reduced to tears, made so miserable that they withdraw their names, until the Dems pledge to start playing decently.
That’s a dumb argument. Firstly I highly doubt thousands are as qualified as her given the range of experience she has. If that were true why the hell did the likes of Barrett get picked given her total lack of qualifications.
And the argument that you behave like the opposition is moronic too. Oh look that persons committing a crime I should too! That’s a dumb thing to say.
And let’s be clear the democrats were mostly talking about relevant issues. Do you think it would be appropriate to have a rapist as a justice? Asking tough questions Vs right wing barrell dredging. No comparison
Well, there’s the NAMBLA perspective weighing in.. But nobody who thinks Crititical Race Theory is a type of law is remotely qualified.
Among supporting documents she provided along with her Senate Judicial Questionnaire was a document titled “Fairness in Federal Sentencing: An Examination” in which she wrote:
““I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law—criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations, and to some extent, even contracts…”
Since when did CRT become the law of the land? According to KBJ it is. Put her on the SCOTUS and it will be. But talk about legislating from the bench. Talk about political activism. Absolutely nobody voted for CRT to be placed on par with actual criminal law, constitutional law, negotiations (negotiations in law is a recognized legal field as an alternative form of dispute resolution), or contract law.
This is no Bidenesque off-script verbal gaffe. These are prepared written remarks which unless she’s extremely intellectually lazy went through several drafts and she thought about in which category CRT properly belonged (and if she’s that intellectually lazy that alone would disqualify her). Because she continues:
“…And if that’s not enough to prove to them that sentencing is a subject worth studying, I point out that sentencing policy <b.implicates and intersects with various other intellectual disciplines as well, including philosophy, psychology, history, statistics, economics, and politics.”
Got that? She could have included CRT among other “other intellectual disciplines” which would have been bad enough. But no. She gives the game away. As far as she is concerned it is a type of law. One you will not find in U.S. Code since no legislature has enacted it. Except a legislature of one; KBJ.
Here’s the complete paragraph, unbroken by commentary.
““I also try to convince my students that sentencing is just plain interesting on an intellectual level, in part because it melds together myriad types of law—criminal law, of course, but also administrative law, constitutional law, critical race theory, negotiations, and to some extent, even contracts. And if that’s not enough to prove to them that sentencing is a subject worth studying, I point out that sentencing policy implicates and intersects with various other intellectual disciplines as well, including philosophy, psychology, history, statistics, economics, and politics.”
This may be a Freudian slip, but it’s no mistake. She had two choices of how to categorize CRT. “Myriad types of law” or “various other intellectual disciplines.” Again, this isn’t the result of a verbal slip of the tongue. She supposedly has a reputation for writing carefully worded (if according to Time magazine “long winded). In this carefully worded essay she claims CRT is a category of law.
Which makes her a rogue leftist judge legislating from the bench, elevating a marxist critical theory to the level of the Constitution and Criminal law, and completely disqualifies her.
Critical Race Theory is a theory of law. It’s a theory about how our legal system works. It’s a wrong theory, but it is an intellectually consistent one. It’s from law that it has metastasized into history and education.
As per Milhouse it’s a legal theory, like originalism is a theory for example. Also the context is sentencing and in some areas this is based on the judges discretion. It’s not making CRT law just using it as a set of principles. It’s pretty well documented that a number of legal areas discriminate against minority groups so it seems entirely legitimate to take this into account with respect to sentencing.
Nope she has better qualifications than any of the Trump picks. And as for intellect if you think she is limited in intellect that’s a sign she has intellect.
Is that really the best you can do a random meaningless insult. I assume you are referring to Jackson’s sentencing which duh no one of substance cares about because her sentences were considered in line with other judges.
Perhaps the question should be why are you so gullible given the red meat you lap up like a good little puppy.
Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
I called and wrote Cronyn to be a man and not let her out of committee
Yeah, right
And how many Democrats voted for Kavanaugh after they smeared him with a bunch of nonsense that they knew was false? If KBJ were a Republican nominee, the Dems would be accusing her of all kinds of ridiculous nonsense.
Murkowski didn’t vote for Kavanaugh. I really hope Alaska dumps her for an actual Republican
They did a decade ago, but the GOPe couldn’t stomach losing and backed Murkowski’s write-in.
Murkowski is calculating enough to stick around as an evil swamp rat.
I think Romney could easily be a one term senator….let’s just hope his elected replacement is the one that primaries him.
Claude Raines voice: I’m shocked! SHOCKED!
In normal times they’d be right. And in normal times she’d have got something like 25-30 R votes at least. And she’d have deserved them.
But these are not normal times. If Collins, Romney, and Murkowsky are upset with the treatment Kavanaugh got, and with the treatment Thomas, and Miguel Estrada, and so many other Republican nominees got, then they have to understand that the only way it will ever stop is if the Republicans fight back with the same weapons.
So long as they Kavanaugh our nominees we have to do the same to theirs. Making sure they understand that it’s not personal, but we can’t allow things to go on like this, and if they don’t want to be subjected to it they should withdraw their names.
Please stop referring to these treasonous scum as “moderates.”
Well that’s what they are, moderates. There is nothing treasonous about having your own mind and not following the right wing gibberish like lapdogs.
KBJ has lied under oath, shown herself to sympathise with child porn users and distributors, and appears to reject the idea of natural rights in preference for government given privileges. In short she is manifestly unfit to be a judge, let alone on SCOTUS.
For any Republican to side with Democrats in electing her to SCOTUS reveals they are sellouts unfit to campaign as Republicans and as such they should be primaried and removed from their seats forthwith.
It is not just child porn leniency. The latest appears to be that she gave a rapist a low sentence and once out early he raped another person and …. wait for it …. she had him in front of her again and gave him a low sentence again.
What were the races of attacker and victim?
Did she lie ? I’ve seen no suggestion of that.
You do realise her job is to assess the merits of the case and make a judgement right not just rubber stamp the government position. She actually has to think about the sentence. You also know here sentences are absolutely in line with other judges.
The reality is she is very well qualified and will serve with a lot more nuance and intellect than many of the current justices.
Collins shouldn’t be compared to Romney and Murkowski. Collins is as conservative as she could be in a sapphire blue state without getting kicked out while Romney and Murkowski are just pissing on us.
Luckily there is something called voting, if your from Alaska there is a primary soon.
The electorate in Alaska and Utah are both far more conservative than Murkowski or Romney. The same can’t be said of Maine, Collins is more conservative than her electorate. Don’t believe me look at the ACU, American Conservative Union lifetime rankings. Collins is at 44/100 while Maine’s other Senator, Angus King is at a 7/100.
Until r voters are willing to start doing the heavy lifting to actually elect the most conservative candidate in the primary who can reasonably be expected to win a general election this will continue. It’s much easier to bitch and moan about Collins but far less effective. Even less so than the 200K r general election voters in Nov who didn’t show up to vote in the Jan Sen run off; thanks Lin Wood.
What counts is winning the damn elections. A losing candidate can’t betray a campaign promise only an office holder can do so. As many have pointed out we all expected this from Collins precisely because she didn’t claim to be anything else but a liberal r.
I don’t know what Collins would have done had it mattered. This is the smart move for her, and I don’t hate her because I know what she is.
Murk and Rom are sellouts probably getting compensated.
Those two among others. I am tired of attaching blame to politicians who consistently fail to consistently measure up.
The voters who keep returning these clowns to office term after term, despite their betrayals, are the folks who are enabling this. It’s a version of battered spouse syndrome; ‘oh, I made them angry and that’s why they hit me’, ‘they really do love and respect me they just express it differently’.
It’s past time to find, recruit, fund and support alternatives to these incumbent frauds in our primary elections. Stop letting a +6 red State or a +1o CD be occupied by someone who votes as if it’s a toss up State or CD.
It is likely a done deal even with objections. Resistance is useless?
“After reviewing Judge Jackson’s record and testimony, I have concluded that she is a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor,” Romney, R-Utah, said.”
Thus speaks a man to whom “freedom” means a wide selection of available tee-times.
Time to primary the Rombot….this guy needs to go yesterday.
Told you,
RINO scum all the way down.
And remember.
These are THE SAME fucks that acted like they faced some great ‘moral’ dilemma on whether to vote for Kavanaugh.
I am so sick of these pukes and seeing the same scumbags every single time.
“Romney opposed KBJ’s nomination to a lower federal court less than a year ago, which means he didn’t decide to support her for SCOTUS until *after* he learned of her horrifying history of going easy on child molesters and pedophiles. ”
-Sean Davis
In the words of one of the *most* elite…”At this point, what difference does it make?”
Truer words were never spoken. We see this country being destroyed and there is nothing being done to stop it.
Before we continue, I need to address some incredibly obtuse remarks that claim that when I swore to support and defend the Constitution I and every other officer didn’t somehow swear to agree with the Constitution; just to support and defend something I may or may not agree with or something that may or may not be true. Just so long as I can support and defend it.
Nothing could be further from the truth; it is absurd to suggest that any similarly worded oath of office allows for you to doubt or disbelieve the principles of the Constitution of the United States. Two oaths; you’ll see the similarities.
“HAVING BEEN APPOINTED A MIDSHIPMAN IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT YOU WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT YOU TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT YOU WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER, SO HELP YOU GOD.”
Then the oath of office for an USAF officer (these oaths have been standardized throughout the armed services, and as you’ll see have no practical difference from the oath a Midshipman must take upon appointment):
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Agreement with the Constitution is a prerequisite for having true faith in it. You can not have “true faith” in something you don’t know is true or not. By definition. The oath of office is in fact a loyalty oath. That’s what the word allegience means (I feel like I’m dealing with third graders). Compelled loyalty oaths may violate the 1st Amendment, but not one taken freely and voluntarily. If you don’t want to swear allegiance to a document you think is bulls***, that’s easy to avoid. Don’t volunteer for the job. What are “mental reservations?” the dictionary defines them as unexpressed doubts. Here KBJ goes one worse. She has expressed doubts. Milhouse claims that many “respectable” people don’t believe in natural, inalienable rights. Well, I doubt that; I know European socialists and communists don’t believe in them. Read their constitutions and you’ll find that they list all sorts of wonderful rights. And enough loopholes that demonstrate you don’t actually have those rights because they are not inherent in the individual.
Remember, folks, truth is not a defense against EU hate speech laws. Quoting the Bible in Canada has been ruled a hate crime by the Ottowa Supreme Court if it offends the LGBTQ+ “community” (Some “community” what with “transwomen” demanding that Lesbians sleep with “women with penises” or they smear them as TERFs [Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists} with the Lesbians turning around and said if they wanted to sleep with people with penises they’d be straight; don’t you love it when they eat their own?). Mark Steyn has been brought before various provincial human rights tribunals by Muslim activists for accurately quoting portions of fundamentalist Muslim sermons. Nobody he argued he made those things up. Just that he was “Islamophobic” for quoting them and disseminating their vile comments to the wider world. But then, that’s Islamic libel law. Libel in Sharia law isn’t telling lies about people. It’s telling truths that a Muslim doesn’t want known. So Muslims are effectively getting Canadian HRTs to enforce Sharia.
But hey, if you look at the Canadian Charter of rights everyone has freedom of speech. Subject to government “reasonable” restrictions. Just like everyone has freedom of religion. Just as long as religious (and private, and home ) schools teach government mandated LGBT+ friendly curricula.
So in fact, in countries where your rights are not natural, derived from our creator, and innate you have the right to obey the government. Just like in North Korea.
KBJ would fit in there nicely. But she’s unfit to serve on the SCOTUS.
Arminius, the position you are taking is full of shit. It is completely unsupportable, and you will not find even one person who knows anything at all about the law who supports it.
The oath required by Article 6 is to “support” the constitution; nothing more. And there is no possible question that this means simply to oppose its being overthrown by illegal means. Nothing more.
Your claim that the oath is voluntary, and therefore doesn’t violate the first amendment, is nonsense. The first amendment forbids the government from imposing any penalty whatsoever for a person’s opinions.
Barring someone from public office for not agreeing with the constitution, and for wanting to repeal it by legal means, would be exactly the same as barring someone for not being a Christian. In the early days of the republic there were states that had such laws, but the constitution (the original one, not just the first amendment) explicitly forbids them at the federal level, and of course the 14th amendment extends that to the states. The first amendment merely extends that from religious opinions to all opinions.
Your emphasis on “true faith and allegiance” and on ruling out mental reservations is similarly nonsense. True faith and allegiance simply means that you will not break your oath. This is the same oath that before 1789 was sworn to a king; the USA required it to be sworn instead to the constitution. A soldier or public officer in any other country didn’t have to like the king; but if someone tried to assassinate the king, or if someone declared war on the king, he was sworn to fight against them. If they won the war and there was a new king, or if Parliament removed the old king, then those sworn to the old king could faithfully swear again to the new one, but until then they had to stick with the old one. And that’s all Article 6 requires of public officers in the USA.
Lack of mental reservations simply means that you mean what you’re saying, and don’t have your fingers crossed. That’s all. It still doesn’t mean you have to agree with the constitution.
And it is a fact that a very large number of philosophers and theologians, probably a majority, don’t agree with the natural rights theory that was popular in the late 18th century. It is a quasi-religious belief, and the religious tests clause explicitly forbids the USA from requiring it of anyone, or denying anyone any benefit whatsoever for not sharing it.
No, it means a lot more but you are clearly mangling the plain meaning of the words to support the unsupportable.
SCOTUS Justices take two oaths; the Constitutional Oath and the Judicial Oath.
The Constitutional Oath is substantially the same as the one that all commissioned all of it. I see it’s been a while since you diagrammed sentences so I’ll break it down for you.
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
1. The Constitution is the subject of the sentence. It is what the sentence is about.
2. true faith. In this context true means loyal. And in this context faith means complete confidence in someone or something. Here that something is the Constitution. You can not have complete confidence in something upon which you don’t have an opinion, something you believe is an open question. More obviously, you can’t have complete confidence in something you think is complete fiction.
3. Allegiance: loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior. Court officers are subordinate to the Constitution, as are commissioned or civil officers in the Executive branch.
4. Finally the words “the same” refers back to the subject of the sentence. The Constitution. Not your own oath, you illiterate. That is grammatically absurd. You are swearing your true faith and allegiance to the same thing you are swearing to support and defend.
To continue.
“…that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;”
A mental reservation is defined as an unexpressed doubt. KBJ has committed worse. She’s expressed fatal doubts about whether or not the Constitution is even based on anything true, such as natural, inalienable rights. Anyone who expresses such doubts can not take this constitutional oath honestly. This strongly implies purposes of evasion. The fact that she has written that CRT is a type of law (not an intellectual discipline, which she could have done) which is virulently hostile to the Constitution confirms her purpose is evasion. One can not take an oath to support and defend a thing while also espousing a theory that requires that thing’s destruction.
“and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Her track record as an enabler of pedophiles demonstrates she will do neither, any more than Biden has any intention of seeing that our immigration laws are faithfully executed.
Up until 1861 you’d have had a point. Then all a judge had to swear to was, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” You could have all the doubts you wanted. But something significant happened in 1861. Any guesses? It turns out your argument was proven false; that you don’t have to believe something is true in order to defend it. Because of that little dust-up, now you’re actually required to believe it. Even (shudder) agree with it. You’re 180 years behind the times. Based on bitter experience Congress changed the oath. Now you don’t merely have to support the Constitution. You actually have to believe it. Which KBJ does not. No leftist judge does.
But you will continue to ignore or mangle the plain meaning of the text, which is why I call you a leftist shill. That’s what the leftist shill KBJ will be doing when she says a bunch of words she doesn’t believe to attain her seat of power.
Were I on the a Senate committee conducting hearings on a nominee that would obviously swear a false oath to a Constitution they clearly despised I’d never vote for that nominee. You, apparently have no problem with making a mockery of the whole thing.
Sorry Arminius your just wrong. Milhouse is correct. You seem to think the constitution is somehow magical and completely inalienable in and of itself. The reality of course is that it’s open to interpretation and has been reinterpretated over the years. It’s fine to say you are defending the constitution but a position that expresses unwavering loyalty on a particular version of the constitution in one’s mind doesn’t make a lot of sense. As a document it has evolved over time hence it’s amendments and the various Scotus decisions
, it is not unchanging and immutable.
There is no excuse to vote for this Constitution destroyer, and especially NOT that the Democrat Marxist “fix” is in, so a “No” vote doesn’t matter. Jackson’s twisted “jurisprudence” includes examining the white space to find all the unenumerated rights in the 9th Amendment. The fact that the Amendment isn’t a license to manufacture new “to-do-lists” for an already despotic and tyrannical central government is more evidence that Jackson is intellectually and ideologically unfit for elevation to SCOTUS.
Jackson is a virus being planted into our judicial system, One more step won by the left; aided by our 3-4 naïve or uncaring transpoliticos
No surprise there. These three are the biggest RINO’s in the Senate. I hope they all lose when they face re-election.
Thank You, Lord, that I live in a “backward” Southern state.
.
Instead of moaning about this we should do something about it.
There is an election coming up and it wouldn’t be difficult to make a hard hitting commercial about this women’s affinity for child abuse and child molesters. Show each of the scum she gave minimal sentences to and their crimes. Then use these commercials against everyone who voted for her.
Petition to Senate to vote No on Ketanji Brown Jackson:
https://www.votervoice.net/OMM/campaigns/93760/respond