Yes, except she was on the Sentencing Guidelines Commission for awhile. (maybe she dissented from the worst of it, I don’t know)
It is crazy to rake a judge over the coals for sentencing decisions. They make a ton of them, and Judge Jackson’s in particular don’t seem out of line to me. She was right to put it back on Congress, and tell them she was just doing what the law required. Paraphrasing, “The law doesn’t say everyone should get the maximum allowable sentence, it says they should get one that is sufficient to achieve the goals set out, and no more.”
But the GOP’s racist sexist base is going to be fired up no matter who the nominee is so long as and transgendered people exist and somewhere someone somewhat related to education mentions critical race theory. There is no point in trying to pander to those people in hopes that they won’t hate you.
When the Republicans push those narratives they are doing so to switch votes, they are doing to virtue signal their bigotry to help get the approval of the base to survive their primary.
There are two different concepts that seem to get repeatedly conflated in this thread.
Pointing out how the GOP will react to a thing and suggesting what the Dems should do. Those aren’t really related things and I haven’t yet seen anyone suggest that the Dems should accede to the bigoted whims of the GOP., As an extension both sides will try to make political hay out if it, and each side will have differing degrees of success in making that political hay.
I’ve suggested that the GOP will probably get a lot of traction from their base because of the appointment. I suspect the Dems will equally try to activate their base based on the appointment. Time will tell who’s more successful at it. For better or worse this pick is a fastball right down the middle for GOP talking points. Whether the Dems should care is a separate discussion.
If we shouldn’t care, then why is this even an issue? I think we all agree that nominating a black liberal woman pisses off conservatives, and that GOP members will use it to pander to their base. But the origin of this discussion was your suggesting that this was a strike against her nomination and a reason that Biden should not have chosen her. That is where the disagreement lies and what I and others are arguing against.
I listened to a lot of the questioning yesterday, from my local NPR station, as I had to do a lot of work travel.
Jackson handled everything I heard like a champ. Very even-keeled and knowledgeable.
Hearing Graham throw a tantrum then stomp off like a toddler was awesome.
Hearing Cruz sheepishly admit he didn’t have the info to refute her statements and meekly ask if someone could give him the details was almost as satisfying.
I get the impression that both sides already assume that she’ll sail through without too much trouble, and are using this as an excuse to stump for the midterms. Many people (Rs and Ds both) are going off-topic frequently to pontificate about one thing or another that seems tangentially related to this confirmation.
Republicans know that they cannot unilaterally block Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from confirmation if Democrats unite to support President Biden’s nominee in the 50-50 Senate.
But some of them are working to pick off votes for her in the president’s party, focusing in particular on Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the centrist Democrat who has broken ranks on major issues and whose state is solidly conservative.
As they seek to portray Judge Jackson as an extremist on matters of race, sexuality and crime — suggesting she has pushed critical race theory on kindergartners and showed leniency to pedophiles — some Republicans are hoping to make a vote in her favor into a political risk.
But Republicans are holding out hope. Despite angering his own party, Mr. Manchin has been willing to scuttle Mr. Biden’s agenda — and some of his personnel decisions. The senator’s declared opposition last week to the nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin for a seat on the Federal Reserve killed her chances of confirmation when Republicans abandoned her.
Maybe I’m missing something or maybe it is just a group of Senators that favor how our civil rights have been whittled away the last few decades, but were they really discussing doing her job as a defense attorney for the prisoners of Gitmo as a bad thing? Maybe this is why we don’t have any defense attorneys on SCOTUS - they are all expected to be Justice Lynch.
Has she started screaming and crying yet? I’m told that women don’t have the temperament for such an important position. You’d never find a man’s man like Kavanaugh screaming and crying during his questioning, that’s for sure.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Trial lawyers have a very long history that you can mine for dirt, and they will undoubtedly find themselves defending scummy people which means that they will invariably have to say good things about scummy people. Take those statements out of context and ignore the fact that it was their legal ethical duty to do everything they can to assist their client, and you can make them look just as scummy as the people it was their job to defend.
I think that many Americans assume that all good lawyers are like Parry Mason and only defend people who are innocent.
IMHO that’s the reason for lifetime appointments; and it’s a legitimate reason. Once on the court, the judges are beholden to nobody – and their opinions often change over time.
Of course, the trick is to appoint people whose opinions do change based on the evidence.
Never occurred.
I give you Dred Scott.
– The people on the Supreme Court are all human beings. They have to be human beings; we don’t have a better choice. While some humans come closer than others, total fairness, neutrality, and objectivity are not available to us.
The best we can do is to name people who are trying to attain that impossible goal (I’m not claiming that the Dred Scott court was even trying); and to name people from varying backgrounds, in the hope that they won’t all have the same invisible-to-themselves biases.
The thugs played true to form, playing to their base and getting sound bites on the nightly news. I’m sure Fox has portrayed Ketanji as a wannabe child molester who is going to outlaw heterosexual marriage. But anyone who is positively impressed by the Republican antics wasn’t going to vote Democratic anyway. As for the judge- isn’t she even going to tell us she likes beer?
Is that the final word on the subject ? Probably not. But I might guess that they’re ‘directionally right’ (ie, that it’s less common than one might think, given the lifetime tenure aspect.
Not only is it basically impossible for a human being to be an objective arbiter of the law IMO there isn’t even really an objective, neutral interpretation of the law.
In a lot of the cases that the SCOTUS has gone back and forth on over the years (what constitutes “regulation of interstate commerce”, what is an “unenumerated right” etc.) I don’t think it’s really possible to have an objective answer. You can interpret interstate commerce to literally mean producing a commodity in one state and selling it in another, or you could say nearly anything could have an effect on interstate commerce. I don’t think there’s an objective answer to that question.
And the concept of applying precedent is also highly subjective. Many cases will not exactly match the precedent-setting cases or even the legal reasoning that is viewed as precedent-setting. People just have to find some line to draw somewhere.
The latest word on the subject is Shelby and several subsequent voting rights cases that have been an entirely predictable party-line vote.
The SCOTUS surprises often in some extremely high profile issues (like abortion and gay rights), and some cases that fit more into short-term political thinking than the long-term trajectory of precedent they want to set (i.e. a lot of Trump’s lawsuits about this that or the other), but there are several cases that aren’t quite as hot-button as abortion and where there is an ideological battle that involves carefully planned out cases where the SCOTUS has been predictably partisan in recent years.
Does any of this longitudinal information help us predict what kind of AJ somebody like KBJ might be ? Dunno. Interesting to consider, though.
I’m wondering aloud whether there are simply certain classes of cases (eg, voting rights) that statistically tend to push the Justices to their proverbial corners.
I’m going to have to see if there’s more broad-based data since all of#45’s appointments have been on the bench. I’d like to see an analysis like the one in the QZ article but far more up-to-date.