- Sep 30, 2019
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
Heh he leaves out the federalist society for conservative justices.Senator Graham brought up this group who is supporting Brown and allegedly made negative comments about Judge Childs. As most of you are aware, Sen Graham wanted Judge Childs to be nominated and she was endorsed by Jim Clyburn. They are all from SC. Graham made an accusation that Arabella was a liberal dark money group.
I had never heard of them so looked them up; this is their website:
Are the Republicans saying Judge Jackson is somehow part of this group?This is an article re: the controversy published by Axios. It was the least biased one I could find whether liberal or conservative
Conservatives pin progressive consulting firm as new "dark money" target
A leading conservative advocacy group's seven-figure effort to turn an obscure progressive consulting firm into the face of Democratic "dark money" is drawing legal threats from the firm's lawyers, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The Judicial Crisis Network's $2.5 million ad campaign goes after Arabella Advisors in the context of President Biden's upcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. But it's part of a much larger effort on the right to make Arabella a household name.
In private conversations with donors, GOP fundraisers are bringing up Arabella and its clients to warn of a flood of progressive funding they say is tilting the scales of national political contests.
Publicly, conservatives have pointed to spending by Arabella and its clients to allege hypocrisy by Democrats who decry undisclosed political donors.
Arabella describes the campaign as baseless and malicious. After it sent legal demands last week to stations airing the new ad, JCN revised the spot and began running a modified version.
What's happening: JCN's new ad is airing on cable TV stations in the D.C. area, according to advertising analytics firm AdImpact.
"The president and the Senate were bankrolled by Arabella Advisors," the original version of the ad stated.
It called Biden's Supreme Court pick "a huge payback" to the group.
Arabella attorneys alleged defamation in letters to broadcasters, pointing out that Arabella has not donated to any political campaigns — and, as a corporation, is legally barred from doing so.
JCN lawyers called Arabella's letter "a meritless attempt to shield your viewers from the dangerous levels of influence exerted by the Arabella network over critical decisions being made by the Biden administration."
The group nonetheless modified its ad to say Biden and Senate Democrats were "bankrolled by Arabella Advisors' network."
Be smart: Partisans often seek to isolate and elevate high-dollar donors that can be portrayed as hidden masterminds behind their opponents' success.
George Soros and the Koch brothers have long held bogeyman status on the right and left, respectively.
Conservatives see Arabella as a new player in a formidable progressive funding apparatus.
Between the lines: Arabella, a for-profit company, has risen to prominence due to the huge sums spent in recent years by nonprofits it advises and helps administer.
Its clients include organizations like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the North Fund, which act as "fiscal sponsors" for scores of progressive advocacy groups.
Those groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on policy advocacy and, in some cases, explicitly political activities.
Due largely to spending by Arabella clients, which generally do not disclose their donors, progressive nonprofits are far outpacing their opposition in so-called "dark money" spending, a recent New York Times investigation found.
But Arabella itself is not the actual entity spending that money. And while critics paint it as a hidden mastermind, Arabella describes its role as largely administrative.
What they're saying: "Arabella Advisors is not the source of funding for any of these organizations, and we do not exert control over the spending decisions of our clients," a spokesperson told Axios.
"The claims in this advertisement were false, and they deliberately mischaracterize the work of Arabella Advisors and several of our clients. Even JCN acknowledged this, that's why they changed their ad."
Graham accused the group of throwing their monetary support (alleged to be dark money) behind Judge Jackson and other political candidates for quid pro quo and making negative comments about Judge Childs. Neither one of them are affiliated with the group. The group has denied making any donations. They said they give administrative and operational support to various organizations and individuals that may make donations but they don't have control over that.Are the Republicans saying Judge Jackson is somehow part of this group?
Actually the chart's purpose was also to depict that she is the only one that has trial experience and it was brought up in the hearing already.Picking 7 criteria that Jackson has as if they are "the" criteria doesn't mean she's qualified.
But I doubt anyone worth mentioning is seriously claiming that she's not qualified. Being "qualified" isn't the only, or even the most important, criterion for being on the Supreme Court.
Actually the chart's purpose was also to depict that she is the only one that has trial experience and it was brought up in the hearing already.
Won't really know what details will be brought out until the questioning tomorrow although some of the opening statements by the committee gave you an idea of what some of the questions will be
Have you watched?
If you watched the hearing, it was explained which is why I asked if you watched. Public defender and district judge were brought up. I also misspoke as Sotomayer was also a district judgeHow does the chart demonstrate that she's the only one with trial experience?
No different than from other picks former POTUS' have chosen. Actually the Federalist Society picks the conservative judges and they HAVE to be on that list and is non-negotiable. Regan also committed to a mandate to choose a woman and Bush committed to picking a black judge to replace Thurgood Marshall so GMAFB. It is getting oldLOL-she was mainly chosen because she is a black female who leans left. Those were non-negotiable to Biden
LOL-she was mainly chosen because she is a black female who leans left. Those were non-negotiable to Biden
that hasn't quite worked out yet in the court decisions. of course presidents appoint justices whom they hope will favorite view or the other. GOP picks have proven less reliably partisan than Democrats haveAnd Trump's "picks" were only chosen by the GOP powers that be because they were lifelong groomed federalist society shills trained their entire lives to do their bidding for their Republican masters.
Being a trial judge has very little relevance to appellate positions. Public defender-even lessIf you watched the hearing, it was explained which is why I asked if you watched. Public defender and district judge were brought up. I also misspoke as Sotomayer was also a district judge
How Ketanji Brown Jackson’s path to the
Supreme Court differs from the current justices
In some ways, Jackson, 51, followed a similar trajectory as the court’s nine justices on her way to becoming Biden’s nominee: Harvard Law, Supreme Court clerk, federal appeals judge. Jackson is the first Black woman to be nominated to the nation’s highest court in its 233-year history and in other ways she would bring less-common experiences, namely having served as a district court judge and public defender.
that hasn't quite worked out yet in the court decisions. of course presidents appoint justices whom they hope will favorite view or the other. GOP picks have proven less reliably partisan than Democrats have
bbm: Surely you jest. Roberts is the ONLY one that meets that descriptionthat hasn't quite worked out yet in the court decisions. of course presidents appoint justices whom they hope will favorite view or the other. GOP picks have proven less reliably partisan than Democrats have