linsay grahme is very upset about judge childs. i’m figuring he will be a no vote.
I note that Senator Graham stormed out after his questioning of the Judge and his exchange with Sen. Dick Durbin.
It would be reasonable to assume that Senator Graham was crying as he walked out.
Listening to the hearing, what I’m learning is that Republicans are getting ready to propose term limits for Supreme Court justices. Right? They’re really worried about this concept of lifetime appointments, and it’s not just this potential Dem-nominated candidate. Right? When Rapey-McDrunk was being confirmed they were equally concerned about the awful ramifications of his lifetime appointment?
It’ll be judges appointed by Democratic presidents are limited to the president’s term while judges appointed by Republicans are for life.
Preposterous? I point to a 14-month delayed vs. a three-week expedited appointment.
I can’t listen to the confirmation hearing. What are they saying that implies time-limited justices on SCOTUS?
What happened there? I just caught (on NPR) the beginning of Graham’s questioning where he was really drilling into the Judge’s personal religious faith; I couldn’t figure out where he was going with that. But then I arrived at work so I missed the rest.
3m 7s:
Graham was accusing Jackson of – in effect – siding with the Gitmo detainees by advocating on their behalf. She held her own against Graham, but Graham seemed more upset when Durbin fact-checked him.
Setting apart race and gender (which are important here) why do you think so? Her experience appears very light on a cursory review.
I think you’re right, but I think the motivation will be a lot more Machiavellian. She will be a political lightning rod and the GOP will be able to levy a lot of very valid attacks against the Dems as a result. Having her on the bench as a boogeyman will be a huge boon for the GOP’s fundraising and campaigning in coming cycles. The reality of the 6-3 majority will be ignored and they’ll be screaming about how the Dems are packing the court with unqualified people picked solely for identity politics. I think the GOP is quietly thrilled with this.
What exactly are you reviewing? This statement is at odds with, well everyone else I’ve heard from, she certainly has more experience than ACB by a long shot.
Pretty much just time in various roles. Like I said, cursory. Want to know why you immediately say she’s an ideal choice?
Edit: We know the GOP are hypocrites. ACB is not the yardstick anyone should be using.
Me? I have said nothing. I listen to those that do know though. My personal opinion on her experience is irrelevant as I’m not qualified to opine on judicial experience, not being someone that is educated or experienced myself in that area. I’ve heard plenty of people that are qualified rave about her qualifications though.
This breaks it down pretty well:
Critically, she has public defender experience, which is so far unique on SCOTUS.
As CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck notes, Jackson has more judicial experience than 43 of the last 58 justices to take the bench, and more than current Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett had, combined, when they were confirmed.
Sorry, thought you were the person I quoted. Still, if you want to share some of the merits I’m all ears.
I think two people before this reply just did so. Did you already see their posts?
Again, my personal opinion is not relevant. No more relevant than my opinion on brain surgery.
What are your qualifications, exactly, that indicate that your opinion on her qualifications are worth considering?
I don’t think anyone has claimed that she’s the “ideal choice.” What I’ve heard are claims that she is “more than qualified” or “eminently qualified” for the Justice position. I do happen to agree.
Jackson would be the most experienced trial court judge to join the Supreme Court in almost a century.
- Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
- Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also served as a District judge, Circuit judge and Supreme Court justice.
Jackson would bring more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices combined.
- Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed.
Assuming these facts hold up, that’s utterly shocking. If 8 years as a District Court Judge and 8 months as a Appellate Court Judge make you the grizzled veteran of the Supreme Court I’d say our system is more fucked up than I ever imagined.
Her experience as a public defender was for only 2 years which also seems like a modest tenure. Of course that being rare is also an indictment of the court as a whole.
Are you picking a fight for a reason?
No fight at all. You made a strong declarative statement about her qualifications. You are also a stranger on the internet. Asking why I should accept your declaration at face value is hardly asking for a fight. Are you feeling defensive for some reason?