What Should Have Happened at the Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearings
Can you define "partisan circus?"
HD DownloadOn March 24, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. The questioning, which lasted more than 20 hours, whipsawed from Democrats praising Jackson's record to Republicans attacking her handling of child pornography cases and defending a Guantanamo Bay detainee.
They didn't play Dungeons & Dragons.
Here's what we would like to have seen.
Starring Andrew Heaton and Austin Bragg; written and shot by Heaton, Bragg, and Meredith Bragg; edited by Austin Bragg.
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
Ok, it's proof that I'm a nerd, but I laughed.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA03 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail.......... http://CurrentJobs64.Cf
Can you define "partisan circus?"
"What is 'The Output of Reason Magazine Since at Least 2010?', Alex?"
The same guys who nodded along when Kavanagh was falsely accused of running a high school rape gang, and thought that administering an illegal religious test to Amy Coney Barrett was just fine, are now in high dudgeon that Jackson was asked questions relevant to her judicial record.
There's a partisan circus going on all right and the big top is right here and at Cato.
"We have a justice system that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent."
"Is that why you're so calm?"
A+ line.
Partisan circus? Anyone remember the Kavanaugh confirmation? That made this one look like an episode of Barney.
Yeah, that was some political theater.
And I'm old enough to remember watching the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Biden's old enough to remember watching the Pilate hearings.
Biden chaired the Pilate hearings...
"What is 'woman'?"
A miserable little pile of secrets! ...In high heels.
Woman is a temple built over a sewer.
~Tertullian, 203 AD
It Kvanaugh is k e of those mean old republicans! So totally not the same thing.
Goddamn that came out poorly.
Maybe, some time in the far future, in the 21st century, Reason will have the tech savvy and financial wherewithal to put in an edit feature for comments.
It will mean saying farewell to "Old Bessie", the steam-powered, wood-and-brass difference engine they currently use. Nobody knows its' origin, but it does have the name "Lovelace" carved into one of the legs.
This wasn't even as nuts as the ACB hearings. I mostly remember Cotton making an ass of himself, and Cruz being cringey a couple of times. Hawley was not too bad at all, just asking pointed questions about something he seemed concerned about from her actual record.
They didn't include any clips of the "Dark Money," the idea that extremists are secretly ruling the court, the ridiculous government 101 questions many Democrats asked (like asking her to explain freedom of the press.) Still not sure why the coverage was so one-sided when Democrats did a fuck-ton that was mock-worthy.
"Still not sure why the coverage was so one-sided when Democrats did a fuck-ton that was mock-worthy."
Really? You're not sure why MSM was one-sided in their coverage?
I don't even think you needed this edit. Showing hearings as they go is enough to see what buffoons we have elected.
Wait'll you see the ones we appointed!
#9 will surprise you,
Just add a laugh track.
Here's some libertarian coverage on the Brown confirmation hearings.
"I'm not a biologist" was THE most important and telling exchange of the whole fucking thing.
There's so much to unpack on this question and it seems to have gotten very little coverage.
Ketanji Brown has been declared the First Black Woman appointed to the supreme court. Did the press get the 'ok' from a consensus of trained biologists after careful medical examination before making that declaration?
Yeah, the fact that it was a pretty direct quote from RBG was pretty astounding. Like they could've asked her an RBG question and a MLK question and her answers would've been "I don't know." out of fear of being seen as agreeing with RBG and MLK.
Historic first slave justice.
One of the commenters (who presented as a woman) said if you can't define woman how can you logically defend abortion rights?
An unnecessary concern, I think...when were abortion-rights people bound by logic?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there was a nugget of truth in her reply.
Since the term is currently under dispute, then, as she says, as a judge she can't dogmatically define it lest she prejudge some future case.
If she says "woman" means what it's always meant until 11:59 yesterday morning, she may have to recuse herself if she later gets a case where a guy says he's a woman because he feels like a woman.
At least she could make a non-ridiculous argument to that effect...once we accept the ridiculousness of the fact that the definition is in court in the first place.
It would be a fair statement if she were being asked technical questions about amount of circulating testosterone or estrogen, bone density differences or other specifically technical matters that might require an endocrinologist to answer correctly.
The judge doesn't have to be a zoologist to know if she's looking at a cat or a dog. If there's an edge case, that's why you have experts testify and file briefs.
Actually, her weasel answer contained an answer: she implied that whether a human being is a woman is a matter of biology, as opposed to psychology, social convention, or culture. She knows that, as do most progressives. But, at the same time, she will have no qualms about fabricating a different definition should it suit her ideology.
Alternate line of questioning: Ms. Brown, can you define a black person?
Watch heads explode
A better question: "Please name some key cases involving sex discrimination and explain what criteria were used to determine sex."
Then, "Now do the same for race."
Nothing prohibits justices from defining things dogmatically during hearings. The reason they don't is because they don't want to ruffle feathers in a political process.
Furthermore, her non-answer contains an answer; she effectively said that "A woman is a human being who is biologically of female sex." That is the legal definition right now, and it is the commonsense definition.
However, KJB will likely rule in the future that "A woman is a human being who either identifies as a woman or is perceived to be a woman by others."
That is absurd. Judges make judgments and definitive statements in almost every legal ruling and opinion, and they certainly don't have to recuse themselves from future cases because of it. Judges have to recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, not because they have opinions prior to hearing a case.
If she cannot define something so basic as a woman then I have to wonder what words in the Constitution she actually can define and how can she swear to uphold and arbitrate on a thing with no definition.
Social, it was a "squirrely" answer to a "squirrely" question that left Blackburn with nothing. Touche!
Should have asked her if she was perjuring herself when taking her oath because she was. She in no way believes in upholding the Constitution.
As long as it is a political appointment, questions to determine whether the nominee's political views are outside the mainstream or not are fair game. And questions concerning his or her legal background and past decisions should always be part of the questioning.
The woman is a completely unqualified, virulently racist, affirmative action phony hack who perjured herself repeatedly and made a mockery out of the proceedings. She is an absolute disgrace and should be impeached from her current position as she has shown beyond all doubt that she is totally unfit for public office---bus driver, MAYBE.
"The woman is a completely unqualified"
The constitution doesn't require supreme court justices to be qualified. It doesn't require them to be judges, lawyers, law students, or even Catholics.
Qualified doesn't solely refer to certification.
For example Buttplug2 could have a teaching degree, but he's still unqualified to work with kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYkGN3p0WCU
"Winnie" previously claimed to be a class mate of Jackson's at Harvard who had personal run-ins with her and has failed to explain how this supposed racists has been married to a white guy for 30 years.
There is no evidence that Jackson benefitted from affirmative action, given her high school record, and given the circles she ran around fellow Ivy League law grads Cotton, Hawley, and Cruz, smarter than all of them.
But her SCOTUS appointment was almost certainly an affirmative action appointment. One Pres. Biden per-determined that his next candidate would be a black woman, her qualifications were rendered moot. The *only* thing that put her there was being a black woman. Which is unfortunate for her, because even though I disagree with her leanings, she seems to be an intelligent, erudite person capable of making legal judgements.
If Biden had said "I will appoint the best liberal legal mind we can find." and then Judge Jackson was the result, the situation would be different. But he said the quiet part out loud and forever tainted her.
"But her SCOTUS appointment was almost certainly an affirmative action appointment."
There's nothing unconstitutional about an affirmative action appointment.
"The *only* thing that put her there was being a black woman. "
That's enough, clearly. Whinging about it won't change anything.
Then mpercy, Sandra Day O'Connor by your reasoning was an AA appointment also, since Reagan campaigned in 1980 on appointing a woman justice. Trump promised Ginsburg would be replaced by a woman before nominating Barret, and then there is Thomas.
O'Connor was an AA appointment, you fucking dolt. Way to prove his point.
Absolute and utter bullshit. She is as thick as a brick and no more qualified than any of them.
And you're a racist liar "Winnie", or do you want to tell us more about your years at Harvard and how the "racist" Jackson has been married to a white guy for almost 30 years?
Ketanji Brown Jackson is a serial liar. She lied about not being able to define "woman" and she lied about not knowing CRT and not using it in her legal decisions. The questioning brought that out. That's really all there's to it.
Now, if you think that serial liars who believe neo-Marxist crap should be confirmed to SCOTUS, well, then she's your woman.
Surely being able to define 'woman' and knowing 'CRT' are both good things. I would expect as much from any judge or civil servant.
"woman.... biologist" was a squirrely answer to a squirrely question.
Touche.
What should have happened was a half dozen or so men and women coming forward to testify that she sexually assaulted them at a party 30 years ago. But the Republicans have no spine.
Did anyone on the committee ask if she would recuse from cases before SCOTUS where her husband might be part of a plot to overthrow the election?