The fringe of the GOP party including Mitt Romney joined with Democrats to vote 53/47 in the US Senate to solidify Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as our next Supreme Court Justice and make US History! On another historical matter, the racist Trump-supporting GOP walked out after the vote:
Mitt Romney Claps for Ketanji Brown Jackson as His GOP Colleagues Walk Out (Yahoo.com).
Trump's GOP walked out because she is a black woman and qualified, which is everything the Trump-supporting sycophant politicians hate! This includes the jealous losers like Cancun, Ted Cruz, wishy-washy-doesn't-know-what-he-really-thinks-unless-he-polls-Trump, Lindsey Graham, and stick-man-and-supporter-of-the-insurrection-on-January-6, Josh Hawley. Thankfully, the latter three will never be a US President and they will never be seated on the US Supreme Court!
Wow. How quickly the Kavanaugh hearing has been forgotten.
Let me point out what you are quoting and what I said: "We have reached a new low on the GOP side of confirmation hearings." What does this have to do with Kavanaugh?
But since you are trying deflection, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct and someone stepped up to say so. Yes, the Democrats ran with that idea to discredit him and it was a crap show, and yes the left wing rhetoric was intense, but the senators didn't make it up. Apples and oranges.
Let me point out what you are quoting and what I said: "We have reached a new low on the GOP side of confirmation hearings." What does this have to do with Kavanaugh
I agree. We have reached a new low on the GOP side of confirmation hearings. But is it racism or just a continuing on what these vile people have been doing for a while now? None of those people saying crazy vile things is new.
I believe that's it's unwise and perhaps naive to assume that racism AND misogyny played no part in how those republicans treated Brown-Jackson. They've simply demonstrated a tendency to ignore racist tropes, encourage racist clubs and organizations, and share racist content and opinion about people of color too many times in the past 5 years to deserve that benefit of the doubt.
It's not new for these republican leaders to say crazy and vile things but it is more frequent, crazier and more widely accepted by the Republican voters than ever before.
Just because you say they are, and because you avoided my simple question, doesn't mean they are.
One senator's reasons for not supporting the nomination:
"It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. From leaving the door open on court packing to her multiple overturned opinions, I cannot support a nominee with her record of judicial activism."
No, it wasn't clear that her "judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time" make her the wrong choice but that probably convinced the Republican voting base. There was no record of judicial activism to point to for this nominee although several conservative senators made noises that tried to pin that on her in the hearings.
No, it wasn't clear that her "judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time" make her the wrong choice but that probably convinced the Republican voting base. There was no record of judicial activism to point to for this nominee although several conservative senators made noises that tried to pin that on her in the hearings.
Which senator is responsible for that excuse?
It was Republican Tim Scott from South Carolina, an African American, I actually think that it's a fair position. He took a more high road that Cruz, Cotton, et al
He says ""It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. " Which to me says that she doesn't take positions in line with his philosophy.
A judges past actions and judicial philosophy is something that the hearings try to get out of the nominee and is often the reason Democrats don't vote for Republican president's nominees such as Barret.
I will have to ponder the idea of "judicial activism" and them spewing that out as if it's a bad thing. It kind of makes sense that those that believe in small government don't want the judicial system making decisions about their lives. There are some examples like allowing different races to marry each other that are applauded. But allowing same sexed people to marry each other than aren't.
It was Republican Tim Scott from South Carolina, an African American, I actually think that it's a fair position. He took a more high road that Cruz, Cotton, et al
He says ""It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. " Which to me says that she doesn't take positions in line with his philosophy.
A judges past actions and judicial philosophy is something that the hearings try to get out of the nominee and is often the reason Democrats don't vote for Republican president's nominees such as Barret.
I will have to ponder the idea of "judicial activism" and them spewing that out as if it's a bad thing. It kind of makes sense that those that believe in small government don't want the judicial system making decisions about their lives. There are some examples like allowing different races to marry each other that are applauded. But allowing same sexed people to marry each other than aren't.
Thanks for that name...it was a thought that was running through a fair amount of the conservative questions so I couldn't be certain which person would get the credit. I challenge it as a fair statement because it's mostly a fabrication...there was no activism exposed in her record. None. Nothing about her actual work and absolutely nothing about her comments or response to questioning could be construed as activist. That is what the long and tedious senate hearings revealed. It seems that the "activism" language was a comfortable excuse for voting against an extremely well qualified candidate for the seat. Apparently republican lawmakers are confidant that a large percentage of the population will simply believe the words that they associate with the judge and her record regardless of the actual facts or evidence and it appears that they are largely correct.
Barrett has a thin and narrow professional experience with the law compared to Brown-Jackson, Kavanaugh wasn't even supported by the ABA. So it's sort of difficult to compare them relative to support on that level. It should be noted that Democrats voted against Coney-Barrett as much because of the manner of her elevation, as voting was occurring for the presidency, as they did because she hadn't even tried a case as an attorney and other evidence of narrow experience.
Quote
After a week in which Republican Senate Judiciary Committee members Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, and others played to their QAnon-conspiracy-theory-believing base by outrageously insinuating that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a soft spot in her heart for pedophiles, it was almost refreshing to hear Ben Sasse announce that he would vote against her confirmation to a seat on the Supreme Court because of a disagreement over judicial philosophy. “Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law,” the Nebraska senator acknowledged, “but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all.”
Although Senator Sasse deserves a few points for not descending into the muck with his Republican colleagues, that’s a very low bar. Moreover, the record contradicts his assertions.
Quote
If textualism and originalism are indeed harmless empty vessels, one might wonder why Judge Jackson did not simply embrace them. The answer is that she did. Senator Sasse’s characterization of her testimony is simply false.
Judge Jackson expressly disavowed living Constitutionalism in roughly the same way that Rehnquist did nearly a half century earlier. “I do not believe that there is a living Constitution in the sense that it’s changing and it’s infused with my own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day,” Jackson stated. Moreover, she expressly endorsed originalism as it has been espoused by conservatives in recent decades. She said that “when you are interpreting the Constitution, you’re looking at the text at the time of the founding and what the meaning was then as a constraint on my own authority,” adding “I apply that constraint.”
What about Senator Sasse’s complaint that Judge Jackson espoused no judicial philosophy? It is true that when asked about philosophy specifically, she expressed reluctance to announce an “overarching theory of the law,” instead describing her approach of beginning with the facts, turning to the controlling legal texts and precedents, and so forth. Like Senator Sasse, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell complained that this statement was not a “judicial philosophy,” but in light of the quotations in the prior paragraph, it should be clear that Judge Jackson’s actual judicial philosophy fits within the mold conservatives have shaped in recent decades.
Scott had a private meeting with her and it was after that he decided her philosophy wasn't in line with his. Perhaps she told him she would not overturn legal abortion or gay marriage and other "philosophies" that he objected to. But again, I think that is a reasonable response compared to "she's soft on crime and a pro-pedophile".
He did not clarify which decisions she's made in the past that he considers activism. So it might be fair of you to say there isn't evidence of that and that's a lame excuse.
Again, I'm not sure I like the idea that politicians spew out "activist judge" with disdain because really the conservative public is only going to think it's liberals legislating things they don't like from the bench but conservative judges do activism as well.
It's a shame that it appears a number of senators decided to use the confirmation hearing and the nominee as a commercial for their future ambitions. I guess we're now to the point that we just snatch and grab fame any way we can.
Being a shock jock is nothing new. It was popularized many years ago. This paradigm of sensationalism will and has become common place. People who desire and want fame and power will do what they can to titillate and appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The sad part is that many of us like the paradigm shift because we enjoy being entertained and we get caught up.
Frankly, I don't want politicians, no matter what side of the isle, to play to my emotions. The facts, ma'am or sir. Just the facts.
Yes, most reasonable people see it was about party politics, and not race.
Of course, there are many headlines that mention racism and sexism. The one article I read, the author was really stretching things to make a case for what the headline was claiming. One example was I guess one senator mentioned she was likeable. Somehow, that was a insult to a black woman.
I agree, the pedophile stuff was over the top.
Wow. How quickly the Kavanaugh hearing has been forgotten.
No one has forgotten Kavanaugh's senate confirmation. Kavanaugh wasn't even supported by the ABA and had an emotional break during which he lost all composure, cried and stunned us all with a partisan rant at the Senators. That alone should have been disqualifying. What part do you think we have forgotten?
You've been conditioned that whenever a Republican or conservative disagrees with a black person, it's because they are racist. It's actually quite disgusting.
Do you really think that if everything else was the same, but if Biden's nominee had been a white man the vote would have been any different?
The original post was not about the vote, it was about the petulant behavior of all but one Republican senators who got up and walked out, while all other senators applauded this historic moment. It was a huge show of disrespect, much like Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar, or the antics of Boebert and Greene during the last state of the union speech.
It's also sad, that this walk-out was likely agreed to before the vote, with the approval of leadership. If I can't win, I'll take my ball and go home.
The original post was not about the vote, it was about the petulant behavior of all but one Republican senators who got up and walked out, while all other senators applauded this historic moment. It was a huge show of disrespect, much like Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar, or the antics of Boebert and Greene during the last state of the union speech.
It's also sad, that this walk-out was likely agreed to before the vote, with the approval of leadership. If I can't win, I'll take my ball and go home.
The original post stated "RACIST GOP walks out...." in all caps.
Are you saying that it was the walking out that was racist behavior? If so, my response is the same.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,262 Posts
Let me point out what you are quoting and what I said: "We have reached a new low on the GOP side of confirmation hearings." What does this have to do with Kavanaugh?
But since you are trying deflection, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct and someone stepped up to say so. Yes, the Democrats ran with that idea to discredit him and it was a crap show, and yes the left wing rhetoric was intense, but the senators didn't make it up. Apples and oranges.