• 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!

What Are Ketanji Brown Jackson's Chances?

What are Ketanji Brown Jackson's chances of being confirmed?


  • Total voters
    90

Gatsby

Neoliberal Globalist Shill
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
4,727
Reaction score
4,518
Location
Cambridge, MA / Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think she'll be confirmed as long as the Democrats don't lose control of the Senate (e.g. someone dies or is incapacitated).
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
10,297
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What are her chances of being confirmed a SCOTUS Justice?
100%
Having just been voted onto the Court of Appeals last year by a vote of 53-47, it becomes virtually impossible for those who voted for her before to vote against her now. They would make themselves out to be idiots, suffer public embarrassment, and be asked by the press to explain why they voted her qualified a year ago, but not qualified now.
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
13,517
Reaction score
11,734
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
100%

Having just been voted onto the Court of Appeals last year by a vote of 53-47, it becomes virtually impossible for those who voted for her before to vote against her now. They would make themselves out to be idiots, suffer public embarrassment, and be asked by the press to explain why they voted her qualified a year ago, but not qualified now.
That sounds perfectly logical. However, republicans don't seem too worried about public embarrassment or being seen as idiots.

Consider Paul Gosar, Marjorie Three Names, or Lauren Brainless. I realize they are not senators, but we do have Ted Cruz, FGS. None are worried about looking like idiots.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,434
Reaction score
17,221
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
90% because the left embraces identity politics so democrats will likely all vote yes for her no matter what is discovered during the confirmation hearing.
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
13,517
Reaction score
11,734
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
90% because the left embraces identity politics so democrats will likely all vote yes for her no matter what is discovered during the confirmation hearing.
Anything discovered will be made up. They just went through this process last year. There won't be anything new. It should be very straight forward.
 

NatMorton

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
26,556
Reaction score
13,016
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IMO, her chances are quite good. Historically, the Republicans in Congress have not shown themselves to be as reflexively opposed to Democratic SCOTUS nominations as the Democrats have for those coming from Republican Presidents.

(And for those who've begun to hyperventilate, despite the failed Garland nomination, look at the Senate vote totals by party for both types of nominees over the last 35 years. The level of party bias between the two isn't even close.)
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
26,032
Reaction score
17,693
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
90% because the left embraces identity politics so democrats will likely all vote yes for her no matter what is discovered during the confirmation hearing.

What could be "discovered"?
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
10,297
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That sounds perfectly logical. However, republicans don't seem too worried about public embarrassment or being seen as idiots.
Tru dat . . .
Consider Paul Gosar, Marjorie Three Names, or Lauren Brainless. I realize they are not senators, but we do have Ted Cruz, FGS. None are worried about looking like idiots.
Cruz and Cornyn (both on the Judiciary Committee) don't have to worry about making fools of themselves explaining their vote this time - because they voted against her last time. As for Greene, Boebert, et al, they are merely idiots that embarrass, if not themselves, the rest of their party.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
10,297
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
(And for those who've begun to hyperventilate, despite the failed Garland nomination,
The Garland nomination wasn't failed - it was still born. The coward Mitch McConnell refused to even let it go to the floor for an up or down vote.
look at the Senate vote totals by party for both types of nominees over the last 35 years. The level of party bias between the two isn't even close.
That's only because the level of judicial competence between the two party's candidates isn't even close.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,813
Reaction score
53,495
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anything discovered will be made up. They just went through this process last year. There won't be anything new. It should be very straight forward.

Using that “logic”, any (and every) federal judge previously approved by the Senate is qualified to be on SCOTUS. Amy Conan Barrett got 3 demorat Senate votes in 2017 (for the federal appeals court), yet got none in 2020 (for the SCOTUS).
 

Blue Dog

Mugwump
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
3,506
Reaction score
2,994
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It will be a close vote with two republicans voting to confirm her.
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,899
Reaction score
6,174
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
101 percent.

Yes, I agree: in 2022 America, a question like this is definitely "silly."


*****

Many years ago, the ruling classes in England regularly used to read an authoritative but boring newspaper called The Times.

In a certain British comedy movie, a husband is seen coming into the room to have breakfast. His wife is reading that newspaper. The dialogue is something like this:

Husband: Good morning, Darling. Anything interesting in The Times this morning?

Wife: (with puzzled look on her face): Don't be silly, Charles! [An example of famous British understated humor.]
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
13,517
Reaction score
11,734
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Using that “logic”, any (and every) federal judge previously approved by the Senate is qualified to be on SCOTUS. Amy Conan Barrett got 3 demorat Senate votes in 2017 (for the federal appeals court), yet got none in 2020 (for the SCOTUS).
Not because of her qualifications. Because of the rushed process. They were confirming her before RGB was buried. It wasn't a good look for the republicans. You do realize that if everything had operated under some sort of normalcy, Obama would have had his pick and Biden would have replaced RGB, according to McConnel's own words.

But, far be it for a republican to keep their word. McConnell's words were and I'm paraphrasing, This close to an election, it should be up to the people to decide. Until that changed when RGB passed.

Republicans = Win at all costs, no matter how bad it looks.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,813
Reaction score
53,495
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not because of her qualifications. Because of the rushed process. They were confirming her before RGB was buried. It wasn't a good look for the republicans. You do realize that if everything had operated under some sort of normalcy, Obama would have had his pick and Biden would have replaced RGB, according to McConnel's own words.

But, far be it for a republican to keep their word.

Republicans = Win at all costs, no matter how bad it looks.

I understand that political payback (rather than voting on ACB’s qualifications) was involved, but that was in no way the fault of ACB.
 

BirdinHand

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
11,571
Reaction score
11,900
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I see absolutely no reason why she wouldn’t be confirmed. It is replacing a liberal leaning Justice with a liberal leaning Justice under a Democratically controlled president and Senate.

It’s a zero sum game swap.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,461
Reaction score
28,681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
She's already been confirmed 3 times by the senate. Its insane that all the Republicans would vote against her.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reps voting in-toto against her would increase black voter turnout that could make a diff in both 2022 and 2024 elections. Good chance Romney will vote for confirmation. Both Sinema and Manchin have voted for all of Biden's court nominations. Though Manchin was the only Dem voting for 9 of Trump's lower court nomination, he voted against the Barrett nomination because of it being a rushed vote and too close to the 2020 election. Close vote for confirmation. Against confirmation would be a political disaster

Poll silly. Question good.
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
13,517
Reaction score
11,734
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I see absolutely no reason why she wouldn’t be confirmed. It is replacing a liberal leaning Justice with a liberal leaning Justice under a Democratically controlled president and Senate.

It’s a zero sum game swap.
For the GOP, it's all about obstructionism. The details don't matter. Anything to obstruct Biden, no matter what the issue.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,673
Reaction score
37,803
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
100%

Having just been voted onto the Court of Appeals last year by a vote of 53-47, it becomes virtually impossible for those who voted for her before to vote against her now. They would make themselves out to be idiots, suffer public embarrassment, and be asked by the press to explain why they voted her qualified a year ago, but not qualified now.
While I think 90% is the better answer (few things are 100%, and events can almost always intervene), what, exactly, led you to the belief that Republicans in the Senate would be unwilling or unable to "make themselves out to be idiots, suffer public embarrassment, and be asked by the press to explain why they voted her qualified a year ago, but not qualified now."?

Full disclosure: I would not vote for her because I don't agree with her judicial philosophy (preferring either originalism or textualism as two means of providing predictability to the law), but, the last few years of watching the GOP have not left me convinced they would be afraid to look hypocritical and stupid.
 
Top Bottom