Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson SCOTUS hearings.

printer said:
Only one woman looking stunned in the clip.
Click to expand...
lol you mean the lady in the front seat, yeah it is hilarious her face the entire clip. Yeah I think she is completely appalled at what he had said and how shit of a job he was doing in his flop sweat explanations.
 
Look at that! That photo!

There is a Man who has weathered the ages of both life and Service to our Nation.
He now gets to leave his mark on the history of the Presidency.
It is a wonderful change form Donald Trump.

At the podium is person who stepped from California to Congress and then to the Vice Presidency. A hell of an achievement. If you besmirch that then do better.

And then there is SCOTUS Justice Jackson. A person well qualified yet having endured the QGOP gauntlet of what seemed like "political Klingon Pain Sticks" over and over.

Whatever your position; be is passively racist know this, The Grand Experiment of the USA has moved forward in a progressive way.
All GOP can do now is put a "Traditional White Cracker" back in power.

So as Obama said. In the United States progress doesn't move in a straight line "it Zig Zags."
 

She is stepping into a shit situation, but it is still a very big deal that she is sworn in now as a SCOTUS judge.

All we can hope for now is that the Democrats pick up 2-3 senate seats in the fall and can break the filibuster to add 3 more seats to it to take the power away from the radicalized judicial activists that Trump and the Regressives in the Republican party have stuffed the Supreme Court with.
 
hanimmal said:

She is stepping into a shit situation, but it is still a very big deal that she is sworn in now as a SCOTUS judge.

All we can hope for now is that the Democrats pick up 2-3 senate seats in the fall and can break the filibuster to add 3 more seats to it to take the power away from the radicalized judicial activists that Trump and the Regressives in the Republican party have stuffed the Supreme Court with.
Click to expand...
I think forcing Clarence Thomas to retire with an impeachment inquiry and jailing his wife if she is guilty would be helpful too, one more for Joe. If the democrats win enough in November they will pack the court, so impeachment inquires for the Trump justices will soften the ground for packing and getting rid of Thomas with retirement will make it even better. If they win, they will play hardball and exterminate elements in the republican party as a constitutional duty. To use an often abused term, they are enemies of the state, or at least the constitution.
 
DIY-HP-LED said:
I think forcing Clarence Thomas to retire with an impeachment inquiry and jailing his wife if she is guilty would be helpful too, one more for Joe. If the democrats win enough in November they will pack the court, so impeachment inquires for the Trump justices will soften the ground for packing and getting rid of Thomas with retirement will make it even better. If they win, they will play hardball and exterminate elements in the republican party as a constitutional duty. To use an often abused term, they are enemies of the state, or at least the constitution.
Click to expand...
He won't be impeached with this current batch of Regressives, and he has no shame so won't retire.

IMO the way to fix it is to show up in force and vote out Republicans in the tossup/lean R seats and hold the Democrats in the tossup/lean D ones.

Screen Shot 2022-06-30 at 12.16.46 PM.png
 
https://www.rawstory.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-argument/
Screen Shot 2022-10-04 at 6.36.43 PM.png
The newly sworn-in justice laid out her claims during oral arguments in the case, Merrill v. Milligan, challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which two judges appointed by Donald Trump previously ruled had been violated by Alabama's legislative map, and Jackson challenged the state's claim that the lower court's interpretation actually resulted in racial discrimination.

"I don't think that we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem," Jackson began, "because I understood that we looked at the history and traditions of the Constitution and what the framers and the founders thought about, and when I drilled down to that level of analysis, it became clear to me that the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, in a race-conscious way. That they were, in fact, trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen, during the Reconstruction period, were actually brought equal to everyone else in society."

Those post-Civil War amendments were explicitly drawn up and ratified to expand and protect the rights of the Black citizens who had been enslaved in Confederate states, Jackson argued, and she backed her claims with statements made by the legislators who wrote and voted on those bills.

"I looked in the report that was submitted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th Amendment, and that report says that the entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves," Jackson argued. "The legislator who introduced that amendment said that, quote, 'Unless the Constitution should restrain them, those states will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination and crush to death the hated freedmen.'"

"That's not a race-neutral or race-blind idea, in terms of the remedy, and even more than that, I don't think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required, right?" she continued. "They drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically stated that citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens. That's the point of that act, to make sure that the other citizens, the Black citizens, would have the same as the white citizens."

"They recognized that there was unequal treatment," Jackson added. "People based on their race were being treated unequally and, importantly, when there was a concern that the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have a constitutional foundation, that's when the 14th Amendment came into play. It was drafted to give a constitutional foundation for a piece of legislation that was designed to make people who had less opportunity and less rights equal to white citizens."

"So with that as the framing and the background, I'm trying to understand your position that Section 2, by its plain text is doing that same thing, is saying that you need to identify people in this community who have less opportunity and less ability to participate and ensure that that's remedied, right?" she concluded. "It's a race-conscious effort, as you have indicated. I'm trying to understand why that violates the 14th Amendment, given the history and background of the 14th Amendment."
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1577316855307444225
 
Jackson is magnificent, bright, thoughtful, good natured and charitable to all opinions. Oh that they all presented themselves similarly. Thanks for posting this.

I still have a problem with labeling this series of web pages as speech representing the "author " rather than the subscriber or client.

Consider the lawyer who files the initial suit. Does her composition and filing of such a suit signify that the lawyer herself ascribes to the notions indicated within the filing? I don't think so. Does a lawyer indicate his or her own personal belief in the process of the suit? I say they do not. Therefore, the lawyer cannot necessarily be claiming to represent their own philosophy in so filing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top