No I’m not. Find another strawman.
The man proved to be incredibly dumb.
He tried to pillory her by asking if she contacted the victims before sentencing a guy for drug possession.
“There was nobody to contact” should be obvious enough that she shouldn’t need to say it.
And then he challenged her on whether she wanted more or less cops.
To paraphrase her answer “You’re a member of the legislature, who makes such policy decisions. That’s your job, and I’m gonna stay being a judge.”
I think she’s going to be my new favorite Justice. Sonya Sotomayor is going to be so jealous!
Perhaps you should read the thread for context.
Several people said that the GOP would not fight her appointment so as to not look like bigots since all it does is maintain the status quo. All I said was the GOP might be playing a more complicated game here, that having a boogeyman is politically advantageous for them.
Why so many of you are acting all triggered over that hypothesis is not something I’m going to waste time analyzing.
There’s no “might” about it.
But it’s going to be true of anybody who the democrats nominate. They are always going to be a boogeymen. If not because of her race and gender, then for whatever other superficial qualities the Republicans can identify.
In truth, this judge is incredibly well credentialed. In fact, as a practicing trial attorney, I’d say that the chance to have a judge who has actually done jury trials at the Supreme Court level is quite exciting! It’s incredible that it’s not more common.
I don’t think that’s true. While they will TRY to make a boogeyman out of anyone, it would have been much harder to stir up outrage from the base if it were Merrick Garland up there.
As someone else noted upthread the Supreme Court doesn’t really operate like a trial court. Having a trial lawyer/judge probably brings something to the table, but I’m not quite sure that it’s necessarily going to make her a better justice since the dynamic here is so different.
Perhaps. I’ll grant you that. Perhaps I should read the whole thread to guess at your answer about a question I posed about something specific you posted. Perhaps.
Perhaps I should.
So you’re saying you cherry picking my comment out of context was a feature and not a bug? Thanks for clarifying your intent.
It’s really that racist and misogynistic, huh?
Yes, it brings something significant to the table - a “boots on the ground” perspective on how judicial rules and procedures are implemented. That’s quite a valuable piece of input since the Supremes write the rules of procedure.
No; I asked you a question, that’s all. Perhaps let it go, I guess, if you don’t feel like answering it. That’s what I’d do.
We’re talking about the GOPs base here, of course it is.
Can you elaborate for a non lawyer?
This is the party that marches with actual Nazis and tried to overthrow democracy.
How did you manage lose your knowledge to suspect her experience in the matter of hours?
The idea that Supreme Court justices need some great wealth of judicial “experience” (which, to be clear, I think Judge Jackson has) is an invention of the late 20th century and I don’t see that it’s done anything to noticeably improve the court.
Modnote: To everyone, get back to discussion of the issues and don’t make this personal. The attack the post and not the poster is the golden rule in P&E and GD. Have a good discussion, don’t go after other posters or try to goad them.
Looks to me like she’s doing well and is likely to be confirmed, but I hadn’t thought of this:
That opinion piece is ludicrous. Nominees always talk about staying neutral, calling balls and strikes, the importance of stare decisis, and then they get on the court and do what they want.
on to day 2. i believe we start with 2 senators that did not have a go yest… then on to 22 senators going 20 minutes today. another long day. i can only imagine judge jackson’s family dinner last night, after some of the comments and grandstanding.
Two fairly obvious things:
- It bears repeating that “activist judge” means: a judge whose decision you didn’t like – no more, no less;
- We’ve seen a trend in the last generation of SCOTUS Justices not voting the way the administration that appointed them hoped they would vote.
It’s really TBD how Justice Jackson would rule on … anything.
Right. The key SCOTUS skill is to be good at portraying one’s own preferences as a fair, neutral, and objective reading of the Constitution and law. Who can sound fairest? Who can sound most neutral, and most objective? That often has little to do with who and what actually fairest, most neutral, and most objective.
In a non-political, non-ideological SCOTUS maybe we could have actual fairness, neutrality, and objectivity. But those days are long gone, or more likely never actually occurred.
With regards to the criticism of Jackson over her under-sentencing some defendants, frankly, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are often draconian anyway. Jackson should or could have said that everyone, not just child-porn defendants, deserve lesser sentences than what the guidelines called for.