• 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!

Sasse to vote no on Jackson's Supreme Court nomination

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,477
Reaction score
11,798
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The Repubs all grope for an excuse to follow their leader and vote in opposition to anything proposed by a Democrat.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
17,389
Reaction score
17,937
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.
Not one republican will vote for her.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,477
Reaction score
11,798
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.
I like what Senator Whitehouse had to say about all of this 'judicial philosophy' stuff yesterday. In case anyone missed it,
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
12,950
Reaction score
7,465
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.
What he means is that if he votes for her he will lose his campaign donations from the far right. He, like all other Gopers will do as ordered and vote against her, which is of course meaningless. They all voted for Kavanaugh, who we all know harasses women, but the GOP cares little about that.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
32,575
Reaction score
14,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

As Senator Whitehouse explained so well, that's a heck of a good reason for her to be on the court - and others to not.
 

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Repubs all grope for an excuse to follow their leader and vote in opposition to anything proposed by a Democrat.
On October 26, the Senate voted to confirm Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, with 52 of 53 Republicans voting in favor, while Susan Collins and all 47 Democrats voted against; Barrett took the judicial oath on October 27.

Seems like we have that on both sides.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,477
Reaction score
11,798
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
On October 26, the Senate voted to confirm Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, with 52 of 53 Republicans voting in favor, while Susan Collins and all 47 Democrats voted against; Barrett took the judicial oath on October 27.

Seems like we have that on both sides.
True enough. But I was a little worried about Barrett, too. I don't think the objections to Jackson are comparable, but it's all a matter of opinion.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,432
Reaction score
42,237
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So it turns out the most activist judge on the SCOTUS bench is actually Clarence Thomas & his insurrectionist Qanon wife Ginni.
And Justice Roberts worries that SCOTUS is losing credibility? Once you have Qanon on the bench, credibility left the building a LONG time ago.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,477
Reaction score
11,798
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So it turns out the most activist judge on the SCOTUS bench is actually Clarence Thomas & his insurrectionist Qanon wife Ginni.
And Justice Roberts worries that SCOTUS is losing credibility? Once you have Qanon on the bench, credibility left the building a LONG time ago.
Whoa...Ginni isn't on the Court. Nancy Reagan was a horoscope freak. It doesn't mean Ronald was worried about what day to do thus and such. It's twaddle.
 

RIP U.S. Democracy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2022
Messages
4,383
Reaction score
2,987
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.

The best judges don't have a "judicial philosophy", whatever the **** that actually means.

A judge, by definition, should have an open mind and apply the law objectively in every single case. This seems to describe Jackson, which is what makes her better than all of the conservative hacks currently on the Supreme Court.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
36,543
Reaction score
16,286
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The best judges don't have a "judicial philosophy", whatever the **** that actually means.

A judge, by definition, should have an open mind and apply the law objectively in every single case. This seems to describe Jackson, which is what makes her better than all of the conservative hacks currently on the Supreme Court.

I think originalism means you Jung’s like that when nuclear arms technology comes out, judges don’t care and still will rule that “the right to answer me shall not be infringed.” That way we can have nuclear ordnances on sale at Walmart. Yay freedom!
 

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
True enough. But I was a little worried about Barrett, too. I don't think the objections to Jackson are comparable, but it's all a matter of opinion.

So you are worried about Jackson ? I don't get that.

And yes, the objections are comparable.

Most of the garbage that was thrown at Barrett had little to do with her legal positions.

And what is more funny is Durbin tryin to chastise the GOP for questioning Jackson at all after putting Barrett through a really super stupid grilling.

Of particular interest was the pathetic efforts by our, now, VP who showed then (as she continues to show) what a total moron she is.

If the GOP had attacked Jackson the way Durbin & male jerks of the left attacked Barrett, you'd see the word "misogynistic" plastered all over the worthless MSM.
 

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sasse was the momentary darling of the left when he called Trump out for the Stop the Steal rubbish.

Looks like fame is fleeting.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,477
Reaction score
11,798
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So you are worried about Jackson ? I don't get that
No, I meant I was worried about Barrett like the Dems were. Now we have a religious nutter and the spouse of a Q Anon believer on the Court. Great look.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
40,246
Reaction score
15,045
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation,” Sasse said in a statement.

“Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, 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,” he added.

Link

Despite seemingly endless pages of posts arguing over how someone is qualified or most qualified or not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, Sasse, who is praised as an independent thinker, drives home the point that it's really just about politics.

She could be street sweeper, but if she toed the Federalist Society line, he and other Republicans would vote for her. Same with the Dems in their case. And frankly, I'm okay with that. But we should be honest about it.
Originalism is literally how the courts are supposed to operate. If they do not follow that POV then they are automatically disqualified as they will have fallen in line with making themselves dictators of the US.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,432
Reaction score
42,237
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whoa...Ginni isn't on the Court. Nancy Reagan was a horoscope freak. It doesn't mean Ronald was worried about what day to do thus and such. It's twaddle.
Susan Collins, what are you doing here on DP? 🤣
 

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, I meant I was worried about Barrett like the Dems were. Now we have a religious nutter and the spouse of a Q Anon believer on the Court. Great look.

O.K.

We are back to the left-wing B.S.

My apologies. I thought this was a rational thread.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Originalism is literally how the courts are supposed to operate. If they do not follow that POV then they are automatically disqualified as they will have fallen in line with making themselves dictators of the US.
.
We have differing philosophies. A liberal democracy respects that; one side doesn't cancel out the other. It's sort of ironic that you don't see dictatorship in that.

Right-wingers do not seem to be aware that even the Founders disagreed over the meaning of the Constitution.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Sasse was the momentary darling of the left when he called Trump out for the Stop the Steal rubbish.

Looks like fame is fleeting.

Certainly the idea that he is independent is fleeting.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So you are worried about Jackson ? I don't get that.

And yes, the objections are comparable.

Most of the garbage that was thrown at Barrett had little to do with her legal positions.

And what is more funny is Durbin tryin to chastise the GOP for questioning Jackson at all after putting Barrett through a really super stupid grilling.

Of particular interest was the pathetic efforts by our, now, VP who showed then (as she continues to show) what a total moron she is.

If the GOP had attacked Jackson the way Durbin & male jerks of the left attacked Barrett, you'd see the word "misogynistic" plastered all over the worthless MSM.

What "crap" are you referring to? Could you cite these "attacks?"
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,503
Reaction score
28,733
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

HikerGuy83

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What "crap" are you referring to? Could you cite these "attacks?"

We can start with post #17.

And you can spare me the repeat of the entire hearing.

It was D.C. politics on full display and kept me wondering why we wanted to put these morons in charge of our health care.
 
Top Bottom