Ketanji Brown Jackson's 'Partial Tribute to the Judicial Philosophy of Originalism' Earns Conservative Praise
“I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,” said the Supreme Court nominee.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings have become a mostly pointless exercise, characterized by bloviating senators asking rambling and frequently incoherent questions while the squirming nominee dutifully recites case law and tries to avoid revealing any of his or her own legal views.
But every now and again the judicial confirmation process does shed a little light on what a justice-to-be actually thinks. One such moment may have occurred in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday when Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to elaborate on what she has called her "judicial methodology."
"Earlier today you said that you 'do not believe there is a living Constitution' and you also said that you are constrained to interpret the text and that, I think you said, sometimes that's enough to resolve the issue," Sasse observed. "So I think I've heard you pay partial tribute to the judicial philosophy of originalism."
Jackson's response did not exactly disavow Sasse of that understanding. "I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning," Jackson said. "I believe that it is appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning of the words when one is trying to assess [a constitutional provision] because, again, that is a limitation on my authority to import my own policy views. But there are times," she continued, "when the meaning—unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, looking at those words are not enough to tell you what they actually mean. You look at them in the context of history, you look at the structure of the Constitution, you look at the circumstances that you are dealing with in comparison to what those words meant at the time that they were adopted, and you look at precedents that are related to this topic."
Those words came as a pleasant surprise to many originalists. "The description of originalist methodology given by [Jackson] is as good or better than a *Republican* nominee would have given until the past few years," tweeted Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, a leading originalist theorist and scholar. "She's done more than 'nod' at Originalism per Senator Sasse. She's claimed much of it as a part of her own stated methodology. I can't say what it portends for the future, but she didn't need to do this to get confirmed."
Libertarian-minded originalists may also take heart in Jackson's comments during an exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas), who complained to her about the Supreme Court thwarting the will of the majority when it invalidated certain democratically enacted state regulations. "Well, senator," Jackson calmly and correctly told him, "that is the nature of a right. When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Check out this right wing radical.
Talk about deception........ No; There isn't a single originalist (USA Patriot) that would be satisfied with that answer.
This article is nothing but a sales-pitch of deception.
"I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning," (GOOD) Jackson said. "I believe that it is appropriate to look at the !!!-original intent-!!!! (OPINION), original public meaning of the words when one is trying to assess [a constitutional provision] because, again, that is a limitation on my authority to import my own policy views ( BUT SHE JUST DID ). But there are times," she continued, "when the meaning—unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, !!!!!!!!! ---- looking at those words are not enough to tell you what they actually mean ----- !!!!!!!. You look at them in the context of history, you look at the structure of the Constitution, you look at the circumstances that you are dealing with !!!!----- in comparison to what those words meant at the time that they were adopted --------!!!!! (THE LIVING CONSTITUTION ARGUMENT RIGHT THERE), and you look at precedents that are related to this topic."
Summary of that.....
"looking at those words are not enough to tell you what they actually mean"
In some cases that's true.
Look at all the lefty idiots who look at the 2nd Amendment, see the term 'well regulated militia', assign their own misunderstanding of a modern-day context, and think they're making a point.
I know you read a lot of reviews and news to earn jobs online. bhj Some people don't know how to make money and say they're faking it. I have my FIRST check for a total of $10,000, quite interesting. Just click and open the page to click on the first statement and check....
.
The jobs…. https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
See comment below... You're right lefty idiots do make their 'own' Constitution by word scramble or chopping (well just flat out lying and deceiving). But that's not what this SCOTUS nominee stated.
She basically said those Constitutional words are not enough to have any actual "meaning". There's not a single originalist that would say that. USA patriots don't 'infer' their own "actual meaning" that defies what the words of the Constitution say. If there is any question the Federalist Papers are considered.
Well, that is true. Meaning doesn't exist without context. Especially when you have a word like "unreasonable" in there. Some judgement and opinion is inevitable.
The problem is when you read it to find a justification for what you want to do rather than reading it with the intention of understanding what it means.
"Meaning doesn't exist without context." -- I wouldn't consider chopping selective words from their context "looking at those words". I'd consider it a flat out lie.
You too can be a Scotus Justice.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66890686@N02/51718474396/in/dateposted-public/
The word "unreasonable" is fundamentally subjective in nature and begins the process of establishing a line that different people might place at different levels, I don't see any problem with citing a need to weight that against historical precedents and context to try to determine the most appropriate place to set the dividing line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable".
"Due process" is a less subjective term, but it took over 150 years before the 6th amendment was deemed to protect a right to counsel in State criminal courts. Are there many orientalists out there who are so hard core that they'd rather go back to the practices of the early 19th century in that regard?
Unless she's giving these kinds of answers in a performative way, it's almost surprising that there haven't been any calls from the "progressive" wing (who generally have a deeply abridged take on 1A, 4A, 6A, 9A, and 10A in addition to often calling for the outright repeal of 2A, all of which are incompatible with any degree of literal interpretation) of the Dems for Biden to withdraw this nominee.
She is. We also call that "lying through her teeth".
Didn't she say something about wanting to update the constitution though?
Our constitution has two defined methods for amending it. People wanting to make changes to it are welcome to pursue one of those two methods. Being an originalist doesn't mean that you don't want the rules of the game to be changed. It means that you understand the rules of the game don't change by squinting really hard.
Well said.
Well, not really, because that's not what she said or defended. At least Sullum is honest enough to actually go out there and defend kiddie fucking on the merits instead of resorting to lying about the candidate.
You can be an originalist and still legislate from the bench, simply by identifying inconsistencies, conflicts, and injustices in the Constitution.
For example, she might argue that the 1A comes in conflict with the Equal Protection clause and limit the 1A accordingly. Ditto for any other part of the Constitution she doesn't like.
The Framers themselves set about updating the Constitution almost immediately after writing it. The first 10 amendments were ratified a year after the original founding document.
Originalism would include belief in the process described within the Constitution for how any updates are to be enacted.
That is utter and complete b.s. The Bill of Rights does not "update" or alter the Constitution, it simply provides an extra set of protections for rights that the people already had but that the Founders were worried Congress might be tempted to legislate away.
For example, even without the 2A, Americans have the right to bear arms under federal law. Why? Because the federal government hasn't been granted the power to regulate the bearing of arms.
What muddied the water is the 14A, under which the Bill of Rights got a special status when it comes to state laws. That is, some time in the 19th century, the Bill of Rights ended up granting Americans rights under state law that were previously not guaranteed under state constitutions.
By definition, adding any kind of Amendment is an update to a document; at least if we're speaking in English. I suppose the "progressive" movement could have inverted the meaning of the word "amend" in one of the many iterations of their Newspeak lexicons, but I didn't think we'd be using that version of language on this forum.
Without the 10th Amendment, the lack of any mention of arms regulation in the main document wouldn't obligate the new government to protect those rights to the people, so your premise that the Bill of Rights doesn't alter the original document is predicated on circular logic, or what some might describe as "utter and complete B.S."
Maybe you meant to begin your comment with the word "This" as opposed to the word "That"? Then your opening phrase would alert a reader to the accurate nature of what they're about to take in.
The definition of "update" is "make (something) more modern or up to date". The Bill of Rights did not "make the Constitution more modern or up to date", not just because it was written at the same time as the Constitution, but also because it didn't change the meaning of the Constitution, it merely clarified rights people already had.
Even if you erroneously consider the Bill of Rights an "update" of the Constitution, you are equivocating and playing semantic games, since KJB wants to make substantive changes to the Constitution, not merely clarify existing rights like the Bill of Rights.
The US Constitution explicitly only grants limited, enumerated powers. The 10th Amendment merely restates this fact explicitly.
These issues were hashed out extensively in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates at the beginning of the US. The debate was never about whether the powers of the federal government were already limited by the US Constitution; all sides agreed on that. The debate was about whether the addition of the Bill of Rights would mislead ignorant people like you into believing that the US was a nation of enumerated rights, not enumerated powers, or whether the Bill of Rights would act as a useful additional bulwark against federal tyranny.
Based on Reason’s coverage of her, I’m expecting her to be the most libertarian scotus of my lifetime.
Child porn for everyone!
Mandated child porn!
possess it.
I think the spell checker changed 'scrotum' for you - - - - - -
We’re not talking about Michelle Obama.
We get you're a Leftist and support any blatant lie told by the racist, pedo enabling nominee. The fact is she only says that sometimes there are limits and sometimes the original text matters, I have a feeling her idea and any liberty minded individual's idea of when that should be are completely at odds.
She knows what their intent was even if they didn't write in the constitution which means she can claim it says anything she wants. thats not originalism
I, for one, welcome our new public defender overlord.
What kind of white washing is this roundup? KBJ is not an originality and Cornyn proved that during his line of questioning. She originally proclaimed she was but then started treating abortion as a super precedent and then discussing new rights such as the gay marriage ruling.
Hee claims of believing in limited authority and the discovery of rights was a lie. Watch the Cornyn portion. This was further given away when she claimed she didn't know the term Living constitution.
The compete back and forth between KBJ and Cornyn.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-gives-them-the-right-to-do-that-cornyn-grills-jackson-on-unenumerated-rights-judicial-policy-making
Basically everything KBJ would want to alter outside of the constitution falls under the 14th at her whims.
Ultimately it ended as such:
Cornyn then shifted to the fact that Obergefell overruled the will of the states in recognizing same-sex marriage. “When the Court overrules the decision made by the people … that is an act of judicial policy-making, is it not?”
“Senator, the Supreme Court has considered that to be an application of the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment,” Jackson responded.
“Well, one of the things that concerns me is, here is an example of the courts finding a new fundamental right that is mentioned nowhere in the document of the Constitution, that’s the product of simply court-made law we’re all supposed salute smartly and follow, because nine people, who are unelected, who have lifetime tenure … five of them decide that this is the way the world should be.” Citing the 9th amendment, Cornyn then asked, “What other rights do you believe exist? And how could we anticipate what those might be?”
Jackson said she could not answer the question because it was hypothetical, but that substantive due process rights were established by Supreme Court precedent.
She tries to answer "All of the above" to any question. I think she doesn't have a coherent judicial philosophy. She has policy outcomes she desires and she simply adopts whatever justification is convenient for getting to that outcome without applying it universally. Most progressive justices do this.
She is lying about her philosophy like all democrat nominees do. See Garland.
I didn't trust anything she said.
Time will tell how satisfied or embarrassed we will be in the relatively near future.
Good luck to us all...
Kbj also said on 2015 we should use CRT in determining criminal sentences.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/scotus-nominee-judge-ketanji-brown-jacksons-history-supporting-critical-race
So much for equality under the law.
From the article:
"Ketanji Brown Jackson, the appeals court judge nominated by President Joe Biden to the U.S. Supreme Court, has extolled the virtues of Critical Race Theory and once urged that it be considered during sentencing of defendants, according to evidence submitted to the Senate."
Given the widely-recognized fact that Black folks are likely to receive longer sentences than White folks convicted of the same crime, this doesn't really seem out-of-line.
No, I am not a fan of hers -- but I am willing to listen. At least for now.
No they don't. The one argument people make regarding this is crack vs cocaine but the sentencing was equal by crime.
And the majority of those cases that differ are decided by a jury with use of guidelines to make the sentencing equal.
Good morning, Jesse:
"Consistent with its previous reports, the Commission found that sentence length continues to be associated with some demographic factors. In particular, after controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors, the Commission found:
Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied. The differences in sentence length remained relatively unchanged compared to the Post-Gall period."
This is one of four "bullet points" in a report from the United States Sentencing Commission.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
Obviously the answer is to give white people harsher penalties.
https://mynorthwest.com/3399911/rantz-wa-schools-adopt-race-based-discipline-white-students-get-harsher-punishment/
Oh yeah. That's the ticket. Geesh.
Good old WA state. This is a series of massive lawsuits waiting to happen.
I read the whole thing because I like to know what I'm talking about. So let's take a look at this report to see if there's required action to fix the racism of the system. From the conclusion:
These analyses show that some differences exist, and describe
the relative size of those differences, in the periods in which the
differences were observed. However, the fact that certain sentencing outcomes may be correlated with demographic factors does not mean that the demographic factors caused the outcome. Therefore, the demographic differences in sentencing outcomes revealed by these analyses should not be interpreted as a finding that demographic factors caused those differences. Neither can the analyses presented in this report be used to explain why the observed differences in sentencing outcomes exist.
So the demographic differences-that is, the race of the individuals-cannot be interpreted as the cause of the differences. Even though it's correlated with race, race is not definitively the cause. But if the defendants are "similarly situated," then how come they can't come to that conclusion? Let's check an explanation on page 3.
Multivariate regression analysis often cannot control for all
possible factors that might affect the outcome being studied, typically because sufficient data about some factors is not readily available. For example, in its past reports, the Commission noted some potentially relevant factors were not included in its analyses, such as whether the offender’s criminal history included violent criminal conduct, the offender’s family ties, and the offender’s employment history. Data was not readily available for those factors because the Commission did not routinely extract that information from the court documents it receives. Therefore, for those prior analyses, the Commission could not control for
them. For this reason, caution should always be used when drawing conclusions based on multivariate regression analysis.
So they have incomplete records on many of these cases-full criminal histories and family ties, employment histories. And yet those cases still got added into the dataset and compared against others who are "Similarly situated" because they committed the same offense in the same state during a similar time period. So there's gaps there, and racism or systemic issues are from the only way you could fill that gap, so perhaps assuming racism isn't the way you should immediately go.
"So there's gaps there, and racism or systemic issues are from the only way you could fill that gap, so perhaps assuming racism isn't the way you should immediately go."
Absolutely. Income could be a factor, as could be family history: are close relatives criminal offenders?, as well as the economic status of the family (wealth), and many other factors. Race is only one factor
Based on the information provided, you can't assume race is a factor at all. That's the point. There's not enough information to draw that conclusion.
"There's not enough information to draw that conclusion."
Perhaps not: it can depend on perspective.
For instance: generally, there is a definite correlation between home ownership and lower rates in both violent and non-violent crime. The rate of home ownership by Blacks is much lower than Whites. That could be another factor. I think the sentence handed to a home-owner might be lower than for someone who does not own a home. Somebody has no-doubt studied that.
Or maybe black people as a group commit a larger share of crime than other groups, and that's why they get arrested at higher rates and sentenced more harshly on their 4th or 5th conviction than a "similarly situated" honky on his first offense. Maybe the reason they, as a group, own fewer homes and have less income is because, as a group, they do worse in school, graduate at lower rates, have lower average IQ. See what can happen when you play the "correlation is causation" game? Sometimes you might stumble across some data that leads you to places your CRT-loving lily white self-loathing ass doesn't want to process. Ahh, but then you can always just climb onto the nearest soapbox and scream "RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!"
Thank you. I've had issues with these reports for years. Primarily as the data is not public due to personal information and the factors utilized are not consistent.
It is p value data mining from a large data set. It is one of the biggest misses of statistics out there.
The sentencing commission has a bias. Kbj was part of that group for a period. The data is so not public.
Does it control for repeat crimes or first time offenses?
I'd the data was openly available ot would be more credible. It is not.
About 90% of the differences in sentence lengths are simply based on background other than race. The remaining 10% are largely not due to sentencing guidelines, but to choices that the prosecutor makes.
Nobody has been able to explain to me why longer sentences for violent criminals and drug dealers coming from vulnerable communities are a bad thing in the first place. Blacks mostly commit crimes against other blacks and crime rates in black communities tend to be high, so locking up such criminals for longer times is bad for the criminals, but arguably good for the communities they are coming from.
I'm a kind of "visual" guy, so when the descriptions of her 'typical sentence lengths' was raised, I pictured this:
Show a frequency graph (histogram) of the sentences handed down Nationwide, with lines showing the 'recommended minimum and maximum sentences.
Then overlay that with a chart of HER sentences.
If the most frequent sentences from HER are noticeably "to the left of" (shorter than) the national average, THAT should have been brought into question immediately.
I don't think that she or anyone else could argue that her shorter sentences could have any logical justification.
More than 90% of those disparities are explained by criminal history and other factors not related to race.
The remaining differences are not due to laws or judges, but due to the initial charging decisions of DAs. Most of those DAs are progressives.
It is also weird to assume that longer sentences for violent criminals and drug dealers are somehow a bad thing; black communities are devastated by violence and drugs, and DAs may simply be trying to protect them
"I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,"
Color me skeptical.
^AGREE............ +10000000000000000
Well she comes off as very disingenuous because she'll talk about the importance of original intent and then go on to say that she sees limitations in the intents of the documents' founders. She had a very long spiel about cell phones, for instance, as if the idea of having your possessions searched somehow didn't account for that.
She's a chameleon. She's trying to give every answer to any single question. For instance, let's look briefly at another exchange, when asked how she fell on the lines of current justices:
SASSE: We talked about the differences between justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor's judicial philosophies...What are the differences between the three of their judicial philosophies?
JACKSON: ...There are differences as you see from the various opinions that they issue, and I'm not sure which one I would necessarily follow because it depends on the case. I think their differences indicate that they are looking at different provisions, they are using the various tools that judges use, and that I have used in my cases.
Sounds to me like she's going to be Breyer. She'll work backward from whatever policy outcome she likes and come up with a legal justification for it. She won't pin herself down to one philosophy, she'll argue from originalism if it suits an outcome she desires but she'll easily talk more about a living document if the originalist argument doesn't suit her goal.
Did she mention the significance of the passage of time?
Only twice.
It has become clear that none of the writers at reason are watching the trial or reading the transcripts. Every argument produced so far are the quotes found in politico or vox.
Situational judicial philosophy.
Don't worry, she'll have excuses for any deviation the left supports.
“I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,”
It took 200 years of Supreme Court rulings, but now it's fixed.
Dammed thing is always needing fixing. Piece of junk.
who was the last nominee to *be* who the nomination interviews showed them to be?
Gorsuch? Arguably ACB, as well, but her record is still very fresh.
we'll see. I believe in Neil, not so much in Amy
That's the problem with textualism. You paint yourself into the corner of sticking with what the Constitution actually says.
Neil "when congress wrote "sex" they actually meant "gender" because trannies are awesome" Gorsuch? He's as much an originalist as John "it's a penalty for tax purposes and a tax for judicial purposes" Roberts.
I wonder what she thinks the "original public meaning" of "shall not be infringed" was?
"Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual, fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or others. Consequently, the NRA is concerned with President Biden's decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court of the United States at a crucial time when there are vital cases that will determine the scope and future of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights in our country."
(https://ontheissues.org/court/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson_Gun_Control.htm)
This isn't good. Nor is it necessarily bad. One would have to research her entire judicial record to see if it ever came up in a case she adjudicated (maybe somebody will do that). Judges don't, generally, go around spouting about their opinions regarding rights which aren't part of the case before them.
Or maybe one of those senators might actually ASK her?
You'd think one of the senators would ask, but nothing so far...
That’s surprising. Not that I believe for a moment that she believes 2A means what it says.
MAGA board, spiced with racism, not libertarian.
Kavanaugh Kavanaugh Kavanaugh! Poor guy! Wow his hearing!
Tell us about the Garland SC hearings Graham, you f..king asshole. Oh, that's right! He didn't get one and every GOP Senator is guilty of abandoning their constitutionally mandated duty to advise and consent. You cannot advise without a hearing and of course they had no intention of letting Obama get another appointment. As a result, what should have been a liberal court until Ginsburg died, stayed right wing. With the hurry up on Barret - while voting had already begun - the Loser got another pick and the court is fucked for probably decades. It was packed.
The Senate doesn't have a duty to consent, which is why not every justice is accepted. They do have a duty to reject any justice for which they will not provide consent, and they were not going to consent to Garland's passage. They didn't give him a hearing because there's no point in putting on a phony show when he would be rejected.
Thinking - they have a duty to ADVISE and CONSENT the President's appointees. If they don't hold hearings they can tell the President to send another nominee - that has happened recently- and they would be fulfilling the 1st part. They don't have a right to abandon this responsibility and block the president right and responsibility to appoint judges. That was their goal and their achievement. If the Democrats did that - and they probably will now given that bar being lowered - Republicans would be livid and rightly so. Fair minded citizens should understand this and not let it become standardized. The sitting GOP senators who enabled the Garland rip-off should be prosecuted. Remember, they ripped off American voters who twice chose Obama. It's not Obama's loss but theirs.
No, the clause requires advice and consent, their duty is not to provide consent.
And to make you look dumber, look at postponed and lapsed from historical nominations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Idiot Joe probably never heard of Harriet Miers.
R Mac, you goofball, Miers was interviewed by numerous senators and several of them - including Republicans - "advised" Pres Bush that she couldn't cut the mustard and he should withdraw her nomination. He did so and replaced her with Alito who was the "consented" to. Get it? That is how it is supposed to work if there are objections to the President's appointee. With Garland, he wasn't the problem - he had been recently confirmed on a bipartisan basis for his circuit court position. The GOP members aimed to take away Obama's constitutional duty and responsibility to appoint a judge.
Wake the fuck up!
She withdrew two years after her nomination dummy.
R Mac, you sure about that?:
"...On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court...
On October 27, 2005, Miers asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination.....
Bush then nominated Samuel Alito for the seat on October 31, 2005.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers
Hey Joe, watch this:
Yep, I was wrong on that. (Bet you’ll never do that).
Did they have a hearing and vote on her or not?
Well shit, you did just below. Twice in one day! You should go buy a lotto ticket.
You were thinking of Estrada.
Joe Friday, "MAGA board, spiced with racism, not libertarian."
My reading to this point haven's seen a single thing about Black People make bad Supreme Court Nominees...
However; I have read multiple times Biden announcing plans that ONLY a Black Woman could fill the Seat.....
I just love how leftards run around claiming 'those' people are racist while their Racism SHINES like a sunny day.... Remember CHAZ and their demand for only Black Doctors work on Black Patients??? How about the new legislation differentiating between skin color.....
YOU PEOPLE ARE SICK IN THE HEAD!!!! GET HELP...
TJJ, the same posters here everyday made grossly racist comments about Jackson yesterday on another thread. Maybe they found truth overnight and are now not racist, but I don't believe in miracles.
By the way, that leftist Reagan promised a women SC justice in his 1980 campaign and followed through with O'Connor. Leftist Trump promised a women in 2020 and nominated Barrett, who was confirmed after presidential voting began, even though GOP senators had said the Scalia vacancy (he croaked in mid-Feb 2016) had to wait until the next president was elected.
PS I note you don't dispute the comment board is MAGA, not Libertarian.
It isn't libertarian because idiots like you come here. But there are libertarian viewpoints on this board quite often.
Yes, many of us want to make America great again, after what you democrats have done. I understand patriotism and pride in one’s country are anathema to a creature, such as yourself. However, there are some good people here who are patriots and believe e) the constitution.
It was dumb of all of them to promise sex or race based appointments. They should have just done it without announcing it before hand. Because it does put an asterisk next to their name because they were chosen in part for reasons irrelevant to their ability to do the job. Now maybe that's not fair. But that's just another reason not to make a big deal of it before hand.
lol.... And somehow you take Reagan and Trumps promises as a promise to the GOP and not a promise for the DNC... Denial-ism at it's finest.
Everyone KNOWS the DNC is the Racist and Sexist party; that's all they seem to care about 80% of the time.
"TJJ, the same posters here everyday made grossly racist comments about Jackson yesterday on another thread. Maybe they found truth overnight and are now not racist, but I don't believe in miracles."
Feel free to provide examples of your slander, son.
"GOP senators had said the Scalia vacancy (he croaked in mid-Feb 2016) had to wait until the next president was elected."
Shame that accusing of SCOTUS nominee of running rape trains in high school didn't give Dems the Senate, ain't it?
You don't think that Democrats would have done the same thing had they been in that position? That they wouldn't have blocked Barret if they had the votes?
They did what they did, within the rules, for their political advantage. That's how politics works.
"He didn't get one and every GOP Senator is guilty of abandoning their constitutionally mandated duty to advise and consent."
The advice was not to nominate the dunce and he lacked their consent for nomination.
"You cannot advise without a hearing and of course they had no intention of letting Obama get another appointment."
They could have filibustered him...you know, like Obama did.
"With the hurry up on Barret - while voting had already begun"
Cute seeing leftists demand that we increase the time for voting --- then use that to whine about things they do not like happening.
Shall we go into what would help avoid events occurring after voting starts? Have ONE day for voting.
Yeah, we all really wish that fascists and racists like you, Joe Friday, would leave this board.
The court shouldn't be "left wing" or "right wing" or "liberal" at all. The court should follow the letter and original meaning of the Constitution. Your error is that you consider the court doing its job as intended to be "right wing".
+10000000000000 Excellent Comment.
Needless to say; The Republican party platform has an entire page honoring the Constitution. The Democrat party platform has ZERO pages honoring the Constitution but instead champions [WE] mob building.
Senators are not used to SC nominees who have actually worked in the legal system and know WTF is going on. The Senators like to pontificate on pie-in-the-sky imaginary solutions, and never get or got their hands dirty. Sotomayor is the only other one who actually worked in a courtroom, including as a judge.
What the fuck are you smoking? Gorsuch went to court as a private attorney dozens of times. Roberts was a private attorney and also argued cases in front of the Supreme 39 times before he was appoint to the Court of Appeals. Thomas worked in appellate courts as a lawyer when he was in the state Attorney General's office.
The people who spent almost no time working as lawyers were the law professors-Barret, Kagan, and Breyer.
Thinking - appellate courts, corporate law, and arguing at the SC are not the down and dirty courts where Sotomayor and Jackson worked and they certainly didn't deal with sentencing issues and crime. It's country club stuff.
Look forward to you response on "advise and consent".
You mean your misunderstanding of what the clause means?
Explain that Jesse.
You can’t be this dumb.
Then you explain Jesse, genius.
This should be good.
I already said it plainly here:
https://reason.com/2022/03/23/ketanji-brown-jacksons-partial-tribute-to-the-judicial-philosophy-of-originalism-earns-conservative-praise/?comments=true#comment-9414678
I provided you more detail below dummy.
Think harder Joe.
I did above. It is a conditional requirement on the Advice and consent clause. The Senate is not required to do anything. The requirement is to complete the requirements on an appointment. Here it is in its entirety:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Your claims would mean that Congress would also be required to approve treaties, and not simply be a mechanism to make a treaty valid.
I've said it before Joe.. You're not intelligent.
Jesse, thanks for showing your inability to understand the most simple language with the most clear intent, or at least when that interpretation fits your partisan intent. You write:
"Your claims would mean that Congress would also be required to approve treaties,.."
Well, if you ignore the fact that the passage - and the founders - included the "advise" of the Senate together with their positive vote to consent, but they didn't say that, nor am I. I suppose you think that if the senate majority so decided, there would be no SC at all.
If this is the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Nowhere in that clause does it require a vote you illiterate dumbass. Please bold where it does.
You are right in the clause is not difficult. It says p requires r and s. It never says if r then s has to occur.
Stop embarrassing yourself Joe.
Let's ask sarcasmic's Joe Friday sock what the plain-language meaning of "Shall not be infringed" is.
The Senate can withhold consent simply by not even taking up discussion on a nominee. Perfectly constitutional.
You literally said that nobody but Sotomayor has ever worked in a courtroom. You're now trying to make a distinction after the fact. And even with that distinction, you're still clearly ignoring the time both Roberts and Gorsuch spent in private practice where they absolutely worked in lower courts. Even Alito worked criminal cases, though he was a prosecutor. I get that you're pretending that's different, but it's also not "appellate court," "corporate law," or Supreme Court oral arguments, it's him dealing with "sentencing issues and crime," as you call it.
Stop serving bullshit and then trying to pretend it's chocolate ice cream. Admit you mis-spoke or didn't know what you were talking about and accept that the facts are different than what you presented.
Alito had one known criminal case as a US Attorney - they are political appointees who generally never go to court - so hurrah, you get a lolipop.
The others are all corporate or appellate lawyers.
Now, answer on advise and consent. You conveniently left out "advise" in your post, as if that is not part of the Constitution.
PS In 4 years as an AUSA in NJ, Alito was in the appellate division, but also did criminal cases involving organized crime and trafficking. My bad and my apologies.
PS Roberts and Goresuch never did criminal work
Courts don't deal with civil matters?
We’re quite different in our political philosophies, Joe, but in this day and age, I have to commend when someone owns a mistake.
Yeah that was pretty bold of sarcasmic, after he lied about it and tried to equivocate for 20 posts and then continued to insist that the courts in which the
wiseobese Latinx and diesel dyke argued cases were somehow magical fairie courts that are in a different realm from the ones Gorsuch and Roberts argued in.OH. So experience is vitally important...but ONLY if you agree with the experience. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
Gorsuch could likely define what a woman is. Biden's choice --- who is, amazingly, as idiotic as Biden AND Harris --- cannot.
On a positive note.....................
She didn't say, "What (living) Constitution????"
Oh wait; She did!!!!!!!!! According to above post.....
lol....
Sorry; I'm just not convinced at ALL she won't just keep thinking "What Constitution" all the way through her Seat on a Supreme Court.... Then again; it'd take a mountain of evidence to think otherwise when nominated by a PROUD SPONSOR of NAZISM...
I can’t imagine even for a moment that Biden’s handlers would tell him he is nominating anyone who would not be a guaranteed vote for their agenda.
+++ Well Said
Our Constitution, like the Bible can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. That is why I never put much stock in originalism or textualism. If a justice wants to go do a certain line of argument, I sure they will find a way.
Exactly how do you interpret what the federal government is doing within their granted authority?????? Pure lying and deception....
Arguing about exact meaning of minor details is one thing; flat out dismissing it is another and the later is the DNC's way.
I love the WaPo claiming that the Jackson is being treated WORSE than Kavanaugh was.
Because her history of decisions is dramatically worse than accusations of raping MULTIPLE women. With zero evidence.
Given that she doesn't believe that the word 'woman' is fixed, I wouldn't let her walk my dog. If I had a dog.
You can't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
I addition, believing that the meaning of the Constitution is "fixed" doesn't imply that she doesn't think she has the power to legislate from the bench.
For example, she can designate any part of the Constitution she doesn't like as "white supremacy", claim that it is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution, and then overrule it.
Gorsuch has been pretty solid, but that particular case showed a lack of consistency on his part. I hope it remains the exception and doesn't become his new position.