• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ketanji Brown Nominated to Supreme Court - Confirmation Hearing 3.21.22

Roberts is a general exception, but the federalist society grooms their mouthpieces generally pretty well.
what were the most politically charged decisions of the last 25 years? Maybe Bush v Gore. All Democrats voted for Gore-but two GOP did as well. Heller? two Republicans voted against gun rights as did both Democrats.
 
Live Updates:

Jackson, 51, who currently sits on the nation's second most powerful court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, will face questions from the committee's 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats over two days, starting Tuesday. On Thursday, senators can ask questions of the American Bar Association and other outside witnesses.

 
bbm: Surely you jest. Roberts is the ONLY one that meets that description :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Ever heard of David Souter?

Kavenaugh could, unfortunately end up in that same category.

Tell us what the comparable ones would be from the democrats. Only on I can think of in recent years is MAYBE Kennedy.
 
I'll catch it later on CSpan. Anything of note to watch for, in your opinion?
Honestly, I think the most important part of the hearing will be when the question and answer period starts tomorrow. Opening statements really don't mean much without clarity. Just gives you an idea what questions each will be focusing on. I did find Graham's statements interesting due to the Arabella Advisors allegations. Brown is being introduced now for her 10 minute statement.
 
Are republicans actually trying to claim dems use dark money to pick their candidates? Do they really have the nerve to project while they put up completely hacks, many much less qualified than the current nominee?
Holy shit, they are such assholes
 
Are republicans actually trying to claim dems use dark money to pick their candidates? Do they really have the nerve to project while they put up completely hacks, many much less qualified than the current nominee?
Holy shit, they are such assholes
Epitome of hypocrisy
 
Ketanji Jackson: "I like beer."

Sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
Are republicans actually trying to claim dems use dark money to pick their candidates? Do they really have the nerve to project while they put up completely hacks, many much less qualified than the current nominee?
Holy shit, they are such assholes
They've engaged in projection since 2016, and in 6 years have lost all self-awareness in doing so.

#zerocredibilitycons
 
Ever heard of David Souter?

Kavenaugh could, unfortunately end up in that same category.

Tell us what the comparable ones would be from the democrats. Only on I can think of in recent years is MAYBE Kennedy.
I know Souter decided with the libs on the Heller case. Other than that, really don't remember him much but the decision was still 5-4 so Souter did not affect the decision. Kennedy was conservative but more in the middle. Kavanaugh is more conservative but he has sided with the liberal justices in a couple of cases. I do admit that the liberal judges tend to vote in lockstep more than the conservatives.

In any event Jackson will not affect the existing split.
 
Last edited:
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."

Gaslighting
 
Are republicans actually trying to claim dems use dark money to pick their candidates? Do they really have the nerve to project while they put up completely hacks, many much less qualified than the current nominee?
Holy shit, they are such assholes
whattaboutism
 
She's going to be confirmed. The Senate is basically 50-50, with the tie vote cast by Kamala Harris, and all the Democrats will likely vote to confirm, and some Republicans will vote to confirm.

This nominee has been background checked and she has passed Senate muster at least twice now, once to be a Circuit Court Judge and once to be a District Court Judge. So, it's hard to see how she would not be strictly qualified. It's the President's nomination, and unless the Republicans have a real, solid, significant reason not to confirm, they should take the high road and have her approved overwhelmingly. It's Biden's second year. It's his nomination.
 
Her record, as stated by Josh Hawley, against sex offenders is troublesome.
Not really. Unless one knows the facts of the cases in question, one really can't know if it's troublesome. There are sentencing guidelines. That kind of thing is not sufficient to scuttle a nomination, IMO.
 
Her record, as stated by Josh Hawley, against sex offenders is troublesome.
Just remember these were opening STATEMENTS which may or may not be true. No different than an opening statement in a court of law which is not testimony.

We haven't heard her side yet and what the cases entailed.
 
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:


Imagine a conservaitve complaining about dark money.
 
You should always rely on Josh Hawley for your information.

Josh Hawley’s latest attack on Ketanji Brown Jackson is genuinely nauseating​


Hawley’s broad allegation is false. His most substantive claim against Jackson is that as a judge she frequently did not follow the federal sentencing guidelines when sentencing child pornography offenders. But, as Ohio State law professor and sentencing policy expert Douglas Berman writes, “the federal sentencing guidelines for” child pornography offenders “are widely recognized as dysfunctional and unduly severe.”

It’s also a stunningly inflammatory charge, reminiscent of conspiracy theories such as QAnon or Pizzagate, which posit that prominent liberals are part of a vast ring of pedophiles. Similarly incendiary claims have inspired violence in the past, such as when a man with an assault rifle opened fire in a DC pizza restaurant in 2016. The man was apparently motivated by his unfounded belief that Hillary Clinton and her former campaign chair John Podesta ran a child sexual abuse ring in the basement of this pizzeria.

 
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 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.


The court, full of Ivy Tower types, could sure use that.
 
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. :rolleyes: 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 old

Apparently, having worked on Bush v Gore is a plus.

 
Back
Top Bottom