What Are Ketanji Brown Jackson's Chances?

[reflechissez]

I just don't care.

I have had it with this affirmative action crap.

IKR? The republicans keep nominating questionable white people.

 

[Cardinal]

Should be 100% but Democrats can't agree on when to have dinner. Look out for Manchin and Sinema.

Bingo. I'm not putting down bets for just that reason.

 

[noonereal]

IKR? The republicans keep nominating questionable white people.

That frat boy and the women after are the all time most aggresious in the courts history...
Along with Thomas
.

This is not a white black thing for me. This is a be fair thing for me.

No men need apply? No whites need apply?
Wtf is that?

 

[Fishking]

What are her chances of being confirmed a SCOTUS Justice? Why?

I picked 100% but should've picked 90%. You never know if some kind of past scandal is lurking to be discovered with any given person. Outside of that, it will happen. Not only is there plenty of time to make it happen but the GOP blew their credibility with blocking SCOTUS appointees previously.

 

[Credence]

I am not sure if I answered the question correctly. I voted 100% but that is because I think she will be confirmed; not by the percentage of votes she gets

 

[jotathought]

Since this diversity hire was forecasted nearly 2 years ago, I'd give it 50/50 along party lines, and this depends on whether Senate Democrats defect. I was surprised that she was unable (or refused / dodged) to answer the very basic question around court packing. My guess is that this question will be asked more than once during confirmation hearings.

 

[reflechissez]

Since this diversity hire was forecasted nearly 2 years ago, I'd give it 50/50 along party lines, and this depends on whether Senate Democrats defect. I was surprised that she was unable (or refused / dodged) to answer the very basic question around court packing. My guess is that this question will be asked more than once during confirmation hearings.

Why is that question relevant?

 

[TurtleDude]

That is because the right is nominating sexual predators to the highest court. Embracing predators is not something anyone should do.

no one who is on the supreme court is a "sexual predator"-no matter how many times you keep repeating that moronic defamatory lie

 

[MaryP]

She'll be confirmed. Look for 52-48. At least 2 GOP senators will go along.

Sounds like Susan Collins is in, although she always says she'll listen to the hearings before deciding. Unless there's a big stink bomb thrown, I'd say that's one GOP vote.

Following their meeting, which lasted more than an hour and a half, Senator Collins made the following comments:
“I had a lengthy and very productive conversation today with Judge Jackson. I thought it went well. We covered a lot of issues. She explained in great depth the methodology that she uses as she approaches the cases that come before her. It's clear that her credentials and the breadth of her experience are impressive. She has been a law clerk, a public defender, an attorney in private practice, a member of the Sentencing Commission, a district court judge for more than eight years, and now a circuit court judge. I will of course await the hearings before the Judiciary Committee before making a decision, but I found today's session to be very helpful.”

Senator Collins’ Statement Following Meeting with Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson | U.S. Senator Susan Collins of Maine

Click HERE for a high-resolution photo of Senator Collins and Judge Jackson Click HERE for b-roll at...

www.collins.senate.gov

 

[JMR]

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).

Perhaps some of the changes were due to the process of ramming her through the confirmation during "an election year"

 

[jotathought]

Why is that question relevant?

It's not relevant to her credentials -- it's been a hot button topic leading up to the 2020 elections, and many Democrats refrain from answering the simple question. Naturally, their non-response or dodge speaks louder than just saying yes or no. Why is it relevant: because once the court is packed, you have "rights" the majority party dictates. This type of behavior is exactly why the Bill of Rights was established -- to address fears that the checks and balances in the constitution would be widely interpreted by the courts, thus providing a federal government with powers which would most likely be abused.

 

[reflechissez]

It's not relevant to her credentials -- it's been a hot button topic leading up to the 2020 elections, and many Democrats refrain from answering the simple question. Naturally, their non-response or dodge speaks louder than just saying yes or no. Why is it relevant: because once the court is packed, you have "rights" the majority party dictates. This type of behavior is exactly why the Bill of Rights was established -- to address fears that the checks and balances in the constitution would be widely interpreted by the courts, thus providing a federal government with powers which would most likely be abused.

What are you even talking about?

 

[Crovax]

No, I don't think that at all. The problem anyone had with 2 of the three last appointees was the way they were rushed through and the dirty work of McConnell.

Then there was Bret K. I am not sure what to think about that guy. But all I know is now with Bret and Clearance on the court, we have very possibly allowed two sexual perverts to get confirmed, not to mention both are lock step with far-right ideology. As far as ACB, haven't seen enough to make a judgement.

So yes, you can see I am not thrilled with any of Trump's picks. But, should I be, after all I am a liberal.

This is a ridiculous statement. There were no allegations before or after their conformation hearings.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the SCOTUS has made a bad decision on a major case in 50 years. So right or left the right jurists have been chosen.

 

[The flaming lib]

Found out why China Joe the pedo like her.

 

[Moon]

What are her chances of being confirmed a SCOTUS Justice? Why?

100%

 

[natman]

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.

How about because she only has one year of Court of Appeals experience?

 

[jpevans]

The gop only got the first punch because they had the first opportunity, the democrats were just as willing to swing first if they had the opportunity.

D’s would definitely not have not held a vote with 11 months to go. That’s BS…

 

[Cordelier]

This is a ridiculous statement. There were no allegations before or after their conformation hearings.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the SCOTUS has made a bad decision on a major case in 50 years. So right or left the right jurists have been chosen.

So you're in agreement with Roe v. Wade?

 

[cpwill]

We're not talking about the Party as a whole - only that the three who crossed Party lines might feel that way. Nobody like having to explain their actions in a barrage of press questions.

Well, I suppose I'm glad you have a higher opinion of them than I do? Perhaps it's because I am mostly thinking of Graham, here.

How can you not agree with her judicial philosophy? She has, quite specifically, expressed no judicial philosophy.

She does indeed have one, and it is progressive. A judge without a judicial philosophy - though it's questionable whether such a thing exists, much like claiming to have no ideology - is merely deciding based on what feels right in their gut, instead of by applying consistent rules. That's a judicial philosophy of a type, but, it's a variation on Rule Of Man, vice Rule Of Law, and it is also one I can't countenance.

 

[Court Jester]

She is a problem and probably won't be confirmed. Either due to a delay (based on her being a problem for all Republicans), and then possibly a change in power in the Senate this fall, and then no Biden choice may be confirmed.

But my suspicion is that Biden picked her in order to create a fight with Republicans, as there was at least one other Black female who would have had an easy confirmation process process as several Republicans had already said they would have easily voted for that one.

So, why would Biden pick a more radical choice? Well, to appease the far left, even if she can't be easily confirmed, and then blame Republicans for that.

In the past it was customary for an administration to select more moderate justices in periods of divided government, not more left or right candidates. A party holding a strong mandate...well, that is different. Part of the "elections have consequences" thing.

 

[jotathought]

no one who is on the supreme court is a "sexual predator"-no matter how many times you keep repeating that moronic defamatory lie

It's ironic though that Biden, who denied sexual assault allegations in 2020, once said, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time."

 

[j brown's body]

How about because she only has one year of Court of Appeals experience?

Sigh. Chief Justice Earl Warren had less than that.

 

[Cordelier]

How about because she only has one year of Court of Appeals experience?

Clarence Thomas had a year and a half. Do you think that extra six months was pivotal?

Plus, Thomas had no experience as a Federal District Court Judge.... Jackson had 8 years.

 

[MamboDervish]

How about because she only has one year of Court of Appeals experience?

You mean the same as Clarence Thomas had ?!!?
How about it?

 

[j brown's body]

She is a problem and probably won't be confirmed. Either due to a delay (based on her being a problem for all Republicans), and then possibly a change in power in the Senate this fall, and then no Biden choice may be confirmed.

But my suspicion is that Biden picked her in order to create a fight with Republicans, as there was at least one other Black female who would have had an easy confirmation process process as several Republicans had already said they would have easily voted for that one.

So, why would Biden pick a more radical choice? Well, to appease the far left, even if she can't be easily confirmed, and then blame Republicans for that.

In the past it was customary for an administration to select more moderate justices in periods of divided government, not more left or right candidates. A party holding a strong mandate...well, that is different. Part of the "elections have consequences" thing.

In other words, a neccesary pick and badly needed voice for a decidedly unradical court.

Now, if you can just find a way to prove the label of radical.

Maybe Biden picked her because she's been confirmed by the senate twice before.