• 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

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
54,383
Reaction score
51,027
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 Repubs all grope for an excuse to follow their leader and vote in opposition to anything proposed by a Democrat.
 
“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.
 
“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,
 
“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.
 
“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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
“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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Sasse was the momentary darling of the left when he called Trump out for the Stop the Steal rubbish.

Looks like fame is fleeting.
 
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.
 
“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.
 
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? 🤣
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom