# So is Ketanji Brown Jackson getting on the Supreme Court or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 23, 2022, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573 "2022-03-23T16:32:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/321 "2022-04-08T13:42:17Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > No. She is the nominee for Breyer’s seat. The new nominee would be for Thomas’s seat. Forgive an elementary question: to what extent does this matter? To my understanding, associate justices all have equal status. Their seniority on the court determines things like who gets to write opinions and who gets to speak first, but otherwise they all get a vote. Does it make any difference whether Justice Jackson would be replacing Breyer, or a hypothetical Thomas vacancy? ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/322 "2022-04-08T13:54:37Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > You know, if Republicans take back the White House, and Democrats get the Senate, I _don’t_ want us even considering one of the president’s Supreme Court nominees. Let them chew on that. They bitch about it? Say McConnell started this bullshit. I completely agree. Unfortunately, in this political climate the odds of an R president with a D senate are virtually zero. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/323 "2022-04-08T14:12:54Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > Does it make any difference whether Justice Jackson would be replacing Breyer, or a hypothetical Thomas vacancy? Each Supreme Court justice also serves as a “circuit justice” for one or more of the thirteen courts of appeal. That justice alone will deal with certain applications from that circuit such as requests for emergency stays and injunctions. ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/324 "2022-04-08T14:30:46Z")
I didn’t know that; thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/325 "2022-04-08T14:54:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The Warren Court really changed that with its expansive protection of criminal defendant rights. I am a criminal defense attorney, but I feel that their ivory tower intellectualism made it such that the modern plea bargaining system had to come into existence because they had created so many rights out of whole cloth that society simply cannot provide all of them. Which rights do you find problematic? The right to be informed you can remain silent and have an attorney, the right to an attorney if you can’t afford one, or the right not to have illegal obtained evidence used against you? ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/326 "2022-04-08T15:39:40Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This does not compute. Tons of republicans were voting for democratic-nominated judges in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. It makes no sense to look at Bork to justify the 2010s-20s obstruction strategy. That is clearly not when the norms broke. Even your internal logic for the justification for your position makes no sense. This is not exactly true. You have to look at when Mitch McConnell came to power in the Republican party - when he really started to have a major influence, which I reckon was around the mid-90s. He has a lasting grudge based in the Bork proceedings, and as he rose to power within the Party, he was able to start stifling Democratic SC nominations while furthering his own choices (based on Federalist Society picks) by pressuring Republicans to vote purely on Party line. Check out “[Supreme Revenge](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/)”, a Frontline episode on PBS (or YouTube) - it explains pretty well why things are the way they are now. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/327 "2022-04-08T15:47:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > For being too conservative? That is impeachable now? What? No. Why would he be impeached for that? He made a ruling on the Trump case and his wife is clearly a “they stole the election” person. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/328 "2022-04-08T15:48:09Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I had assumed it was for repeatedly refusing to recuse himself in cases where he had a clear conflict of interest due to his wife gaining a direct (and him gaining an indirect) financial benefit from particular outcomes. This is the one. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/329 "2022-04-08T15:57:07Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Dred Scott in particular was a ruling on the dominant political issue of the day, and one that every politician involved in appointing every one of thise judges involved realized the judicial significance of. Yes, but were the judges appointed because of how they might rule on a future case such as Dred Scott? I think that is the huge difference there. > [@Procrustus](#): > > Which rights do you find problematic? The right to be informed you can remain silent and have an attorney, the right to an attorney if you can’t afford one, or the right not to have illegal obtained evidence used against you? I think each of these now “rights” are noble things. However, none of the three are mandated by the text of the Constitution and the Warren Court just made them up. Let’s take the first one. One cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Where does the Constitution say that a person must be affirmatively told that, even when he isn’t even testifying but being interrogated in a police station? Again, maybe that is something that we _should_ do, but it’s not there in the Constitution. Not being able to afford an attorney. The clear public understanding at the time was that the government couldn’t use Star Chamber tactics such that you had to speak for yourself. That you could hire, if you could afford one, an attorney to speak on your behalf, not that the government had to create a social welfare program of providing free attorneys. Finally, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t specify a remedy. The exclusionary rule is totally judge made. Perhaps you could imprison police officers who violate privacy rights. Nothing there says that the remedy must be exclusion of illegal evidence and let a crazy serial killer go free. Again, that may be a good thing that could be enacted, but it is not mandated by any fair reading of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/330 "2022-04-08T16:19:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > One cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Where does the Constitution say that a person must be affirmatively told that, even when he isn’t even testifying but being interrogated in a police station? I see the Miranda warnings as more a reminder to the police as to what _they_ aren’t allowed to do than to the person they are questioning. Or do you think that the constitution only applies to those who know the law well enough to point out the unconstitutional activities of the police that are detaining them? > [@UltraVires](#): > > the government couldn’t use Star Chamber tactics such that you had to speak for yourself. So, you think that this only applies if you can afford an attorney? > [@UltraVires](#): > > Perhaps you could imprison police officers who violate privacy rights. There’s a thought. Would you actually advocate for that, or is that merely a red herring? > [@UltraVires](#): > > Nothing there says that the remedy must be exclusion of illegal evidence and let a crazy serial killer go free. The constitution says you cannot obtain evidence in a certain fashion, but if you do anyway, then it’s just fine and dandy? If the only evidence that someone is a crazy serial killer was obtained illegally, how do we know that it is valid at all? If the cops are willing to obtain evidence illegally, then there’s no reason to believe that they aren’t willing to just manufacture it. If someone is a crazy serial killer, then I would hope that the police would be competent enough to gather evidence without violating the constitution. But maybe I have more faith in the competence of the police than you do. The fourth amendment is meaningless if there is no remedy when it is broken. You will notice that the constitution has few remedies to the things that it prohibits. The founding fathers figured we’d be smart enough to realize that such would be necessary in order for it to have any meaning at all. They were optimists, after all. Let’s say that the military decides to station a few soldiers in your house. What remedy would you ask the courts to give you to resolve this unconstitutional act? How would you justify asking for a remedy, when the constitution doesn’t spell it out for you? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/331 "2022-04-08T16:28:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I see the Miranda warnings as more a reminder to the police as to what _they_ aren’t allowed to do than to the person they are questioning. Or do you think that the constitution only applies to those who know the law well enough to point out the unconstitutional activities of the police that are detaining them? As I said, maybe it is a good idea, but it isn’t applied generally. For example the police do not have to tell you that you are free to decline a consent to search. It makes no sense to be treated differently. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, you think that this only applies if you can afford an attorney? Again, good idea, but original intent was if you could afford and pay for one. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > There’s a thought. Would you actually advocate for that, or is that merely a red herring? Sure, if it was intentional. We could work on the details. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Let’s say that the military decides to station a few soldiers in your house. What remedy would you ask the courts to give you to resolve this unconstitutional act? How would you justify asking for a remedy, when the constitution doesn’t spell it out for you? Well, we know that they would be forced to stop doing that, but as you say, there is no remedy specified, so Congress could provide something, but how would a court be justified in providing money damages, for example. Where does that power come from? Likewise, you make good points that could be argued to a jury that the cop who illegally searched my house cannot be trusted when he says he found this stuff there, but where in the Constitution does it say that exclusion, and only exclusion, is required? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/332 "2022-04-08T16:34:00Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Likewise, you make good points that could be argued to a jury that the cop who illegally searched my house cannot be trusted when he says he found this stuff there, but where in the Constitution does it say that exclusion, and only exclusion, is required? The Court never said that exclusion is the _only_ remedy. Only that due process prohibits using illegally obtained evidence against a defendant. See the _Bivens_ case for a discussion of suing law enforcement officers for illegal searches. > **[{{meta.pageTitle}}](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/301)** > > {{meta.description}} ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/333 "2022-04-08T16:37:06Z")
It’s a fair point. Touche. I should state it better. Where in the Constitution is exclusion _required_ to be a remedy? Due process doesn’t speak to evidentiary rules. That is what I am complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/334 "2022-04-08T16:41:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Due process doesn’t speak to evidentiary rules. That is what I am complaining about. Says you. I’d say the evidence rules are all about fairness, thus “due process.” You’re certainly not alone in your views, a significant number of judges and analysts agree with you. You are the only criminal defense attorney I’ve heard express these views, however. Most are pretty passionate defenders of the Warren Court protections of criminal defendants. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/335 "2022-04-08T17:05:13Z")
> [@Mallard](#): > > Congrats on getting Jackson onto your Supreme Court. Now, any chance she can slap some sense into that fu\*king Clarence Thomas?? Where is Will Smith now that we need him? ---
**Author:** ![Mallard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Mallard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mallard)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/336 "2022-04-08T17:06:22Z")
🤣 ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/337 "2022-04-08T17:23:07Z")
NVM. You all are doing better at refuting him than I am. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/338 "2022-04-08T17:54:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Where is Will Smith now that we need him? “I have reported this threat of violence against me to the Capitol Police.” –Clarence Thomas ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/339 "2022-04-08T18:35:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … is that merely a red herring?.. 🤔 Hmmm… ya think? ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2022, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573/340 "2022-04-08T19:36:26Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Again, good idea, but original intent was if you could afford and pay for one. You’re agreeing that all these things are good ideas, but just not spelled out in the Constitution. Maybe what you’re saying is actually a good compelling argument _against_ originalist or textualist judicial philosophy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-ketanji-brown-jackson-getting-on-the-supreme-court-or-not/961573.md?page=18)