The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Supreme Court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Updated)

News reports indicate President Biden has made his choice to replace Justice Stephen Breyer


Multiple news outlets are reporting that President Biden has decided to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Jackson is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and previously clerked for Justice Breyer. If confirmed, Judge Jackson will be the tenth Supreme Court justice to have previously clerked on the Court, and the third justice nominated to replace the justice for whom they clerked (the prior two being Chief Justice Roberts (Rehnquist) and Justice Kavanagh (Kennedy).

Nominating Judge Jackson fulfills President Biden's campaign pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Jackson is almost certain to join the progressive wing of the Court. There is also no question that Judge Jackson is qualified to serve on the Court. Her qualifications and experience compare favorably with many prior Supreme Court nominees. While she is not the sort of nominee that most Republicans would prefer, we do not have a Republican President, and elections have consequences.

Judge Jackson's nomination and confirmation would diversify the Court in more ways than one. She would be only the second justice currently sitting with experience as a trial court judge, and the only sitting justice to have worked as a public defender. She also served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In other respects, such as educational background, she would not diversify the Court at all. Like the Chief Justice and Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Breyer, Jackson attended Harvard Law School. (Four other justices -- Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Sotomayor -- attended Yale.) Update: As Jamal Greene notes, some of Judge Jackson's educational background would help diversify the Court as "she would be one of only three justices on the Court to have attended a public (or non Catholic) high school, and one of only two, with Alito, to have attended a non-magnet public school."

Once Jackson is nominated, the confirmation process will kick into high gear, with all of its attendant jousting and theater. Her supporters will attempt to bullet-proof her from criticism, partisan opponents will try to paint her as outside of the mainstream, and White House attorneys will coach her to say little of import. Barring something truly unexpected, however, she will be confirmed, perhaps even with slim bipartisan support, and October Term 2022 will open with Justice Jackson on the Court.

Update: I blogged about (And was somewhat critical) of Judge Jackson's first published opinion as a judge on the D.C. Circuit in this post.

[Note: Revised to clarify that, if confirmed, Judge Jackson would be one of only two currently sitting justices to have served as a trial court judge.]

NEXT: The Roots of Wokeness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Every effort should be made to block this awful choice. Radical. Ivy indoctrinated. Idiotic. An unmitigated national catastrophe of bad jugement. Bork her to the utmost.

    1. When I say, idiotic, wasn't she the one who was perplexed by Justice Thomas' conservative views? I then briefly listed what the Democrat Party did to black people over the past 250 years, including the exploding murder rates of today, from fifth grade American History.

      1. "from fifth grade American History."

        Where Behar rode the short bus to!

        1. QA, leave, "short bus," alone. It's a slur against the disabled. As you use the term, to imply cognitive disability, it is doubly inappropriate. You have no notion what range of cognitive abilities might be included among children challenged by various conditions. The smartest kid in the school could be riding that bus.

          1. QA is the Queen of Ad Hominem. He/she/they can't help it.

            Finally got tired of the clutter. The board is a lot cleaner without Behar and Queen the Insult Comic Dog. If I want to watch personal insults I can pull up a video of Don Rickels.

            1. Sorry, I don't give autistic authoritarians like Behar some kind of pass.

              1. There might be more of us autistic and aspy types than you think, right here in the commentariat.

                And I think you're fundamentally wrong. Behar is just dumb. And neurotypical.

                More to the point, and something I don't single you out for, because it's all too common, midwits who think they can handicap SCOTUS picks are amusing at best!

          2. Oh get bent Stephen. Behar is either an awful autistic authoritarian or a fucking nut or both. I'm happy to point that out, no short busers other than him are going to get their feelings hurt over it.

            1. Hi, Queenie. If you ever need a letter of recommendation for a job, please, do not hesitate to ask me for one. I will gladly write it.

            2. "Oh get bent Stephen."

              Anti-gay slurs now too? You're just a regular Archie Bunker, aren't you.

              1. The origin of get bent is not as an anti-gay slur.

                Or, at least, that's not the clear origin.

                1. Oh, he doesn't know, it was a pathetic 'judo' attempt his algorithm ordered him to employ.

                  1. It's not like you don't employ anti-gay slurs, even if that wasn't one.

                    But only if you don't think the person is gay, of course.

    2. An unmitigated national catastrophe of bad jugement.

      Why do we never see any mitigated disasters?

  2. I'm not averse to having a former defense lawyer on the Court, and was never going to actually like any plausible Biden nominee. It could have been worse.

    Actually, given the track record of Biden nominations, it could have been awesomely worse; Just getting a sane nominee is something of a triumph with this administration.

    1. As a prosecutor, I welcome the prospect of a former public defender on the court. The difference between theoretical criminal law as it is discussed in academia, and actual criminal law applied by state court judges is massive. A trial judge may see hundreds of warrantless search fact patterns in a year. A Justice sees what, two or three?

  3. Can’t wait to see Republicans show their disdain for the Sixth Amendment by attacking her for representing criminal defendants.

    1. Hey, lawyer. 20% of convicted people are innocent. The defense bar stinks.

    2. Have I *ever* said anything to suggest disdain for the 6th amendment? I'd say that having been a defense lawyer is the only point in her favor I see at this moment, it's a perspective the Court needs.

      1. No. But you’re also not the end all be all of Republicans. And if the Senate Judiciary Republicans’ behavior towards a freaking innocence project lawyer is any indication: they absolutely will show their disdain for the concept of criminal defendants having lawyers and rights.

        1. Well, it's not as though she's not predictably going to show disdain for the concept of citizens in general having certain rights that you'll find actually enumerated in the Constitution. Liberals aren't all "Rah, rah, rights!" they're actually quite hostile to some very important civil liberties.

          But I think you'll be surprised, the sort of conservatives who comment here are not, typically, hostile to defendants having substantial procedural rights.

          1. "The sort of conservatives who comment here are not, typically, hostile to defendants having substantial procedural rights."

            1. Again, they are not on the senate judiciary committee.

            2. Bob is a thing.

        2. "Senate Judiciary Republicans’ behavior towards a freaking innocence project lawyer"

          In all seriousness, could you fill me in on those details?

          1. Could this be the person?



            "She served as an advisor to the transition committees for Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in 2017 and Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón in 2020, both of whom have adopted policies that involved declining to prosecute certain non-violent crimes."

            That seems to be what got the Republicans asking questions. Krasner and Gascón are controversial for letting certain *guilty* people off the hook.

            1. Look at Cotton's comments. He was incredulous that the "courts" could overlook evidence of someone's innocence for 20 years. Even though her very job proves that they do that all the time.

              1. If Cotton said that, then he is...special.

                  1. That link conflates Cotton's dumb remarks with Cruz's valid criticisms of her buddies Gascon and Krasner.

                    1. The last time I checked Cotton was a fairly successful GOP official.

                    2. I'm sure he is, but he and Cruz are different people.

                      I do not propose to give blind loyalty to every single member of one wing of the duopoly.

          2. At this point, Cotton just tried to make Morrison feel guilty for taking on the case at all.

            “As he walked to the execution chamber, on the night of his execution, he looked at a warden and smirked, and said, ‘This ain’t happening. You all are taking me back,’” said Cotton. “Are you proud that you encouraged such defiance of convicted murderers?”

            1. Tom Cotton is a lousy person.

              Fortunately, the American culture war and better citizens are making his stale, ugly thinking increasingly irrelevant in modern Amerca.

              1. Your first sentence is true.

                1. That first sentence was an understatement. The second is more balanced.

  4. Just another liberal bloc voter, same as the other candidates would have been.

    Pro-abortion, anti-gun rights etc.

    1. Might get something useful out of her on defendants' rights, I suppose, but, yeah: She's going to be all in on invented rights, and hostile to the actual enumerated rights the left has in its cross hairs.

      1. Lol Bob doesn’t think defendants should have rights. So he’s not going to consider that “useful”

        1. So, where did Bob say that?

          1. In LTG's head.

            1. No. It's laid out in his comments over the years.

          2. I don't think the constitution mandates taxpayer paid lawyers. And that most of the Warren Court crim law decisions were bad law.

            The rest is in his brain.

            1. Well, I don't think it mandates taxpayer paid lawyers, either. Doesn't mean it isn't a good policy to provide them for indigent defendants, it's just that the Constitution in general doesn't mandate positive rights.

              1. Read or reread Gideon. If the state doesn't provide appointed counsel, then trials are just show trials and the right to not have liberty taken away without due process is essentially only available to people who can afford it. Which isn't a right at all.

                1. That doesn't mean that the right to counsel in the Constitution is a right to subsidized counsel, any more than freedom of of the press means that the government has to hand out printers to people who can't afford them.

                  1. That's an erroneous comparison. Defendants don't have a choice as to whether be prosecuted or not.

                    1. If it's so obvious, why did it take until 1973 to notice?

                    2. By that logic why did it take until 2000 and whatever for the individual right to keep and bear arms to be recognized?

                    3. Why did it take until 2008 to notice for the second amendment? This is extremely bad logic.

                    4. Yeah, that IS extremely bad logic, I'm shocked you tried it.

                      Setting aside that Miller DID recognize an individual right, and that right had shown up as dictum in previous cases... The reason it took that long was that thanks to the Slaughterhouse Court the 2nd wasn't being incorporated, and for most of the country's history, the federal government wasn't trying to infringe the right, so there were no cases. Same reason you'd have trouble finding 3rd amendment precedents.

                      It's patently obvious that the federal government HAS, all along, been holding trials. So there had been no lack of occasions for this to be litigated.

                  2. That doesn't mean that the right to counsel in the Constitution is a right to subsidized counsel,

                    Of course it does. That's exactly the point LTG is making. If you don't have a lawyer your liberty can be taken away without due process. The Constitution says government can't do that.

                    Why did it take until 1973?

                    I don't know, but it's not much of an argument. Why did Brown take until 1954?

            2. So yes. You don't believe criminal defendants have rights. Because functionally that is what would happen if you got your way.

              1. "functionally"

                Defendants had fair trials even when Earl Warren was locking up Japanese Americans in camps.

                1. "Defendants had fair trials"

                  *Citation needed*

                  Again, I refer you to the Scottsboro Boys case. Or really the entire history of the South.

                2. " Defendants had fair trials even when Earl Warren was locking up Japanese Americans in camps. "

                  What kind of bigoted, backwater, poorly educated, uninformed, right-wing loser would say something like that?

                  Bob from Can't-Keep-Up Ohio.

                  Who is precisely the type of disaffected, fringe clinger this white, male, movement conservative blog cultivates as an audience.

            3. Bob, so how do you have trials for poor defendants without taxpayer funded lawyers? Can’t punish criminals without a trial first.

              1. How did we have them before Gideon?

                States are welcome to pass legislation to do this.

                1. And when they don't? Like Florida did? Or when they don't fund them, like in Louisiana?

                2. "How did we have them before Gideon?"

                  Functionally, we didn't.

                  1. "Functionally, we didn't."

                    That's crazy. We had criminal defense lawyers. There were even states that appointed counsel to poor people, ever see To Kill a Mockenbird?

                    You are saying no poor person ever got acquited. I'd like to see evidence of that assertion.

                    1. Acquittal doesn't mean the process was fair. All-white juries acquitted white people who killed black people in the south. Those were both an 1) acquittal 2) not fair proceedings.

                    2. You are saying no poor person ever got acquited. I'd like to see evidence of that assertion.

                      Nobody is saying that. It's beyond nonsensical to claim that because some poor people got acquitted defendants don't really need lawyers

                      What I will say is that many poor defendants got convicted who wouldn't have been had they had a lawyer.

                3. So the right to a trial by jury with the assistance of counsel doesn't exist in a state that declines to fund indigent defense? Are there any other things in the Bill of Rights that you think the states can so easily cancel?

                  America sees itself as a beacon of freedom and individual rights. The norman condition is that we are. How we treat indigent, unpopular criminal defendants is one of those tests as to are we really who we say we are. And unfortunately we have historically failed that one, although we're a lot better now that we've been historically.

                  1. " Are there any other things in the Bill of Rights that you think the states can so easily cancel?"

                    Sure. By your sort of reasoning, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist in any state that doesn't supply the indigent with firearms.

                    1. That's a silly analogy. The Bill of Rights keeps the government from taking your gun away and it keeps the government from taking away your freedom without a trial.

                      How do you have a constitutional trial without a defense lawyer?

                    2. Its not silly, there are no words in the 6th amendment that even imply "free".

                    3. By having a trial. The government can't forbid you from having the benefit of counsel. That's all the right to counsel implies.

                    4. It’s not really a trial if you have no clue what’s going on because you’re poor and uneducated and don’t have a lawyer. It’s a farce.

                    5. And that doesn't distinguish it from a lot of trials WITH counsel.

                      Look, I am NOT arguing with you on policy, I think the government SHOULD provide the indigent with counsel, as a matter of policy.

                      I'm just saying I don't think that policy is actually constitutionally mandated. A lot of policies I think are, or would be, a good idea, are not constitutionally mandatory.

                    6. “And that doesn't distinguish it from a lot of trials WITH counsel.”

                      Once again your ignorance is not expertise. You actually have no idea what it’s like because you have zero experience in this area: Or did you become an experienced attorney in the last 24 hours?

                    7. Nothing to do with forbid.

                      Read the amendment.

                      “The right to a speedy and public trial (blah blah blah) and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”

                      Y’all on the right proudly proclaim your love for the constitution but when the rubber meets the road you sometimes don’t really mean it. Where’s the harm in providing some poor guy a lawyer before you bury him in prison.

                    8. No harm at all, but that doesn't mean the text you're citing meant they were entitled to have counsel paid for by the government. For most of the country's history it wasn't interpreted as meaning that.

                    9. How else are they gonna have counsel, Brett? Pick one off the magic attorney tree?

                      Note that you (and Bob) have no alternative solution other than “tough noogies, pal”.

                    10. "Where’s the harm in providing some poor guy a lawyer before you bury him in prison."

                      None. But a free lawyer is not in the Constitution. Words either mean something or we just do what we think is right.

                      Except others may have different concepts of "right".

                      Once you leave the anchor of text, you'll just drift.

                    11. Absent a “free lawyer” how do you assure that the provisions of the 6th are followed?

                      As I said before you (and Brett) offer no solution. “What we did before” doesn’t get it done. Gideon himself didn’t have a lawyer. And there were thousands upon thousands of Gideons out there.

                    12. Ridiculous analogy, Brett.

                      You can't be deprived of liberty without due process. You will agre that the Constitution says that, won't you?

                      Well then, how is being convicted in a trial in which you didn't really understand the procedures and didn't know what you could or couldn't do in your defense, while the other side had the full power of the state, "due process?"

                      It simply isn't. Get over your hyperformalism and realize that it is possible to say, "The Constitution bars the government from doing X. In order to make this restriction effective we must do Y."

                    13. Well, bernard, get over your left-wing conviction that, if you have a right to something, somebody somewhere is obligated to give it to you. All having a right to something means is that you can't be actively prevented from getting it yourself.

                      This was enacted before the welfare state, remember. People were expected to do for themselves, and other people getting out of their way was the only thing they were owed.

          3. He thinks Gideon was wrongly decided. He thinks every Warren Court criminal decision was wrongly decided. We're talking no Katz test. No exclusionary rule. No proportionality principle in sentencing. No incorporated right to a jury trial. And on top of that he is a strong defender of qualified immunity.

            He once said, "he could live with" the result in Powell v. Alabama (1932), which held that juveniles in capital cases were entitled to appointed attorneys under the due process clause. "Live with" as though it was a wrong choice that he just has to grit and bear.

            If you're at the point where you're taking Alabama's side in the Scottsboro Boys clearly don't believe criminal defendants should have rights at all.

            1. "He thinks Gideon was wrongly decided."

              Yes, I can read the Constitution.

              "He thinks every Warren Court criminal decision was wrongly decided."

              No, just most.

              "No incorporated right to a jury trial. "

              Every state provides for a right to jury trials.

              "where you're taking Alabama's side in the Scottsboro Boys"

              A lie. The Constitution says what it say, it doesn't have a side.

              1. The Scottsboro boys weren't even given the opportunity to retain their own counsel. The Constitution most certainly prohibits that.

                1. Yes, because it was the Jim Crow south. They ignored vast swaths of the Consitution when blacks were involved.

              2. "Yes, I can read the Constitution."

                Clearly you don't understand it, however.

                "No, just most."

                Let me guess the one you think is right, is Terry?

                "A lie. The Constitution says what it say, it doesn't have a side."

                Not a lie. You said you could live with it, not that it was correct. Which means you are taking Alabama's side. There are sides in court cases, dumbass. You took one.

                And the constitution says that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Show trials for black juveniles in the Jim Crow south is not due process. Even Justice Sutherland recognized that. Like, do you seriously not see how fucked up it is for you, in 2022, to be to the right of a conservative justice in the 1930s about the rights of black juvenile criminal defendants in the Jim Crow South? I will retract the criticism if you admit Powell was correctly decided and not merely something you could "live with."

                1. Saying "I can live with it" means that it was an acceptable interpretation based on those facts.

                  1. Was it correct yes or no. No dodging.

                    1. Look up what "I can live with it" means.

                      Not my fault you don't know idiomatic language.

                    2. I know what it means.


                      It means you don't like it or think it is ideal but can accept the result grudgingly. so by saying "i can live with it" you are saying this is not an ideal result. I.e a result you would not prefer to something else.

                      Again: answer the question. Was Powell v. Alabama correctly decided, yes or no?

                2. The Jim Crow south violated many sections of the Constitution.

        2. LTG, you’re just making shit up. Bob said no such thing.

          Why can’t you try to discuss in good faith? Does it cause you physical pain?

          1. Oh, get off it. By his own admission Bob has a very truncated view of the rights of the accused.

          2. I'm not making shit up. I've read his comments on here about criminal cases. And one thing is clear: he doesn't believe defendants should have rights. I have several times in detail demonstrated to him that is the inevitable result of overturning the decisions he wants to overturn. He has never disagreed. Ever.

            Even when I laid it out like this: a juvenile defendant can be sentenced to death for a non-homicide after a "trial" where he doesn't have a lawyer or a jury. The evidence against him was seized by a warrantless wiretap. To the extent there is such a thing as an illegal seizure it couldn't be excluded. Evidence in his favor is allowed to be concealed or destroyed by the state.

            If you support that result, then you don't believe criminal defendants have rights.

            1. I've been donating four figures a year to the Innocence Project for more than a decade. I get how things are, and I'll gladly put my commitment to justice up against yours any day. Spare me the piety.

              My only point was you were arguing against something he didn't say.

              1. I think he quite fairly summed up Bob's position, which you're now finding out more about on this thread.

              2. You know you don't literally have to say things to figure out what they believe, right? I can read all his noxious comments and make a reasonable inference about what his beliefs are.

              3. I don't recall Bob saying every Warren Court criminal decision was wrongly decided explicitly.

                But I do know he has a dang near Sharia sense of what criminal law should be.

                I also know he doesn't like Marbury v. Madison.

                Bob is out there. I wouldn't take him as an example of any group but himself.

  5. Congrats to her on being born with the preferred racial and gender characteristics. That’s an accomplishment that no amount of hard work could ever equal.

    1. If you were a lecturer at Georgetown Law, you'd be out of a job.

      1. I don't have the necessary skin color to have been hired there to begin with.

    2. Black women make up about 10% of persons historically in this nation and one will finally join the ranks of the 100+ Justices we've had and it's driving people like Ben crazy.

      1. Once she takes her position, (I assume it will be something of a cakewalk, since she doesn't shift the Court.) women will be a third of the Justices, and blacks 2 of 9

        That makes women over-represented on the Court relative to the rest of the federal judiciary, and blacks over-represented relative to both the judiciary AND the general population.

        Why's it so important that you get both flavors in the same cone? What is this, a court, or a marble slab ice cream joint?

        1. "over-represented on the Court relative to the rest of the federal judiciary" where they are massively underrepresented.

          "Why's it so important that you get both flavors in the same cone?"

          What an obtuse way to understand this. Representation on arguably the most powerful branch of the American government is important for many reasons. One, it helps remedy the massive amount of discrimination that has made it so that this is, over two hundred years in, a 'first.' Second it helps legitimize the court. Third it provides a powerful, positive role model to the under-represented group. Fourth it will likely provide viewpoints that otherwise would not be there.

          As I've said before, conservatives get the importance of representation-but only when it directly involves them (they complain massively about their lack of representation in the media, academe, entertainment industry, etc).

          1. "provide viewpoints that otherwise would not be there"

            What would be an example of, say, a black woman's *distinctive* legal viewpoint?

            1. Black people and women generally have different experiences and views than white people and men.

              1. OK, what would be some examples?

                1. Your being silly. I could name dozens if not hundreds and so could you if weren't trying to be cute. Women know what it's like to have periods. They know what it's like to give birth, to take birth control, they have different bodies than men, etc., etc., so there's that. Likewise black persons generally have different experiences and attitudes about those experiences than white persons. They are much more likely to give their kids 'the talk,' to be the object of suspicion, there are epithets specifically for black persons, etc., etc. etc.

                  All of those could color how someone sees a case.

                  1. There are women on the court. There's a person who's black. What special perspective does intersectionality bring?

                    (She seems qualified for a judicial post, by the way, I'm asking about the perspective she brings, not as an experienced jurist, but as an intersectional representative).

                    "Women know what it's like to have periods. They know what it's like to give birth, to take birth control, they have different bodies than men, etc., etc., so there's that."

                    I agree with you, but if I said it that would make me a heretic and a hater.

                    1. "What special perspective does intersectionality bring?"

                      Uh, that of being black and a woman?

                      I mean, this is a really basic aspect of our nation, how we've treated black persons and how we've treated women. She will be the only justice in two hundred years of justices who will have those experiences. The only odd thing is that it's taken this long to have one on the Court.

                      "but if I said it that would make me a heretic and a hater."

                      That's an interesting imagination you have there.

                    2. There's a big debate right now about whether one's sex is biological and determined, or a social construct subject to change. You and I happen to be on the right side of that debate, so I'm not going to be snarky about it - I'm saying you're right about women being biologically different from men.

                    3. They're biologically different and that in turn leads to different social experiences and then on top of that there's a lot of social roles stuff that also leads to different social experiences. When I started to actually talk at length with black persons and women about their experiences I was amazed at how different some aspects of their life are.

                    4. "Uh, that of being black and a woman?"

                      And a left-handed black lesbian pianist would, trivially, bring the perspectives of being left-handed, black, lesbian, and a pianist.

                      But what makes this combination particularly valuable, once you've already got the perspectives of left-handed people, blacks, and women on the Court? Does the concept of "diminishing returns" mean anything to you? Maybe at some point, instead of more thinly slicing the varieties of black/women/whatever, a Indian-American might be valuable, or an Inuit, or an Amish, or any of the umpteen thousand different identities that haven't been on the Court?

                      Or maybe we could just forget that crap and look for competent jurists, instead.

                    5. Or maybe we could just forget that crap and look for competent jurists, instead.

                      The "woke" followers of Critical Race Theory will explain to you that "competent" is just a racist dog-whistle. So there.

              2. Even granting that's true, there are black people and women on the Court already. Why does it have to be both in the same body?

                And how far are we going to dice this? Is the next unrepresented minority black lesbians? Black lesbian tennis players? Left-handed black lesbian tennis players?

                I think, even if I were to grant there were some value in representing groups on the Court, (I don't.) that the marginal gain once you start going for this sort of 'intersectionality' is pretty minor.

                Heck, Thomas's early life experience probably gifted him with some distinctive insights, as he came up from poverty, a pretty rare thing on the Court. Jackson is a child of wealth and privilege, and if there's any distinctive black woman experience in there, it's likely not the experience of the typical black woman. It's more like the usual Supreme court justice experience, actually.

                1. "Why does it have to be both in the same body?"

                  Because they would have the distinct experiences that a woman and a black woman would have.

                  "And how far are we going to dice this?"

                  That's being silly again. However far it needs to be 'diced' black women have made up about 10% of our population for our history and yet none has ever been on the Court. Our nation's treatment of black persons in general and black women especially is the biggest stain on our history, it's not far to 'dice' to finally have a black woman on the Court after 110 non-black women.

              3. "Black people and women generally have different experiences and views than white people and men."

                Everybody has different experiences.

                1. Forget it. Queenie is a racist. "White people" are all alike to her.

            2. DWB is a good place to start. She's probably been pulled over more than white people.

              1. Considering that I have been pulled over at least twice because I am white ...

                  1. Hey LTG -- your privilege is showing!!!!

                    1. You have some belief that white people some sort of immunity to cops being a$$holes and abusing their authority?

                      That "wrong neighborhood" crap works both ways and not everybody lives a segregated existence.

                    2. DWB, you are positing an are with a black-based power structure where whites are targeted?

                      That would probably make news than one angry white guy on the Internet.

            3. You know, Cal, I remember when Thomas was nominated. There was a lot of talk from his supporters about the value of his background and upbringing, how he would bring a different perspective to the court, etc.

              But suddenly all that is forgotten.

              1. Clarence Thomas thinks affirmative action is a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas. If he were principled, he would have declined to be nominated.

                1. And if the sponsors of the Green New Deal were principled they'd live in grass huts. That doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.

              2. I thought I was dealing specifically with the importance of an *intersectional* candidate.

                But, sure, someone who grew up in a working-class black family has a different perspective than a son (or daughter) or privilege.

      2. Are you so sure Ben would be driven crazy if Janice Rogers Brown were appointed to the Supreme Court?

        1. Cool made-up stories. I guess I appreciate that I’m now the subject of fan fiction.

    3. Disaffected, grievance-consumed, bigoted right-wingers are perhaps my favorite culture war casualties.

      Open wider, clingers.

  6. Sounds great. As long as she doesn't have any bizarre disqualifying views like believing in aliens or thinking men can bear children, she should be a shoe-in.

    1. "believing in aliens"

      Who does not believe in aliens? You can see them every day of the week if you go down to the Mexican border.

      1. Really? I go there all the time and all I see are noncitizens.

    2. believing in aliens

      Given the size of the universe "believing in aliens" isn't bizarre at all. What is bizarre is all the stuff about UFOS, abductions, or aliens otherwise interfering in human affairs.

      1. Correct, earthling - I mean, fellow human - there are no space aliens among us, and we're certainly not fattening you up to eat you.

  7. What this does evidence is that the hard left is in control, or the leadership believes they need to be appeased. Of the three choices that were thrown out, she is the most left and least moderate.

    1. I don't think you know what "hard left" is.

      1. Another one of thosr "socialism has never been tried" posts?

        In the spectrum of American politics, she represents the hard left. As do a number of Congresspeople, who have been giving heartache to the leadership, who know they turn off 70% of the American public.

        1. No. Because I've never suggested that. Simply pointing out that your version of what constitutes "hard left," even in America, is...incorrect

          1. But it is what you have inferred throughout your posts.

            1. I don’t think so. I don’t think I talk too much about economics. Rights for criminal defendants, QI being bad, having morals, and knowing history isn’t “socialism” or “hard left”

        2. As do a number of Congresspeople, who have been giving heartache to the leadership,

          Manchin and Sinema are "hard left?" Who knew?

    2. I figure Bored Lawyer just has 'this shows the hard left is in control' as a canned response to every action by a Democrat.

      Self-propaganda works.

      1. I figure Bored Lawyer just has 'this shows the hard left is in control' as a canned response to every action by a Democrat.

        Well, Bored Lawyer wouldn't be able to use that canned response if each action by the Democrats weren't one indicative of control by the hard left. As, for example, if Democrats would act every so often as if Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn, or Lyndon Johnson were still welcome in the party.

        1. No longer being in the 1970s doesn't make you the hard left.

          What if I said the lack of Ike-like characters in the GOP proved they were all hard-right? That would be ridiculous, and yet you pull the same nonsense here.

          1. What if I said the lack of Ike-like characters in the GOP proved they were all hard-right?

            And yet I hear arguments like that all the time.

            Well, actually, they take as a given that the Republicans are all hard-right. But they also lament that there aren't any Ike-like characters in the GOP, with the implication that if there were only a few, then they wouldn't characterize the entire party as hard-right.

  8. I have not read a single thing about Judge Brown-Jackson that would be disqualifying. Her judicial philosophy is not a grounds I would personally choose to oppose her. You know, POTUS Obama had this right when he said: Elections have consequences.

    POTUS Biden gets to make his pick, using whatever criteria he likes. 'Dems the breaks'. Let's see what the confirmation process yields. I expect to learn more about her thinking. Her resume is great; she is certainly qualified (as are many).

    I also want to see the difference in treatment between Judge Brown-Jackson, and the last three SCOTUS nominees. That will be illuminating. I did not care for how POTUS Trump's nominees were treated at all; it was wrong. I do not want to see that embarrassing spectacle repeated with Judge Brown-Jackson.

    One thing....For the next nominee, could we PLEASE get a justice not from the Ivy league!?

    1. "Elections have consequences."

      Just ask Bill Clinton - oh, wait, you said *elections.*

    2. I think we can pretty much guarantee that nobody on the right is going to risk breaking into the Capitol and confronting Senators in the hallways, the way was done for Kavanaugh. They'd have to be suicidal to try it. Probably no clawing at the doors of the Supreme court building as she's sworn in, for the same reason.

      This is really not a high priority nomination so far as Republicans are concerned, because she doesn't change the balance on the Court, and this time Biden refrained from nominating somebody known for bestiality or some other widely despised perversion.

      1. Every SCOTUS nomination is high priority, period.

        But the behavioral difference I expect to see will be illuminating.

        1. Every SCOTUS nomination is a high priority for somebody. Replacing a member of a 3-6 minority with somebody whose jurisprudence will be basically indistinguishable from the other members of that minority isn't a high priority matter for people aligned with the majority unless they have some chance of making it not happen.

          Which we don't, here. It was either going to be Jackson or somebody else so far left you couldn't see the difference from where your average Republican stands. There was no other possibility.

          Which means we can enjoy watching the show and commenting on the stupidity of it, because nothing we care about is on the line.

    3. Can she account for where she was and what she was doing every day when she was a teenager though?

      1. Are you concerned she might have a Kavanaugh-level behavior problem?

  9. First off, this is a controversy of Biden's sole creation. He said he would appoint a person based solely upon gender and race. Then he did. in the terms of just about any other employment situation that would be illegal. Also, you beat into people's heads for two generations (to mostly save it) that affirmative action does not mean racial set asides or quotas, you know what they are going to start believing you. Then, when you go back on that and make a selection based purely on two protected classes, what do you expect the public reaction to be? If all Biden did was say, "I think the short list should be a diverse representation of America including some black women..." that would have taken the wind out of a lot of arguments even if it was just theater.

    Secondly, the media is completely ignoring the fact that this is going to make African Americans OVERREPRESENTED on the court. Currently there is 1 out of 9 seats occupied by an African American. That breaks down to almost parity with African American representation, as a percentage, in society. If Biden were interested in actual diversity and putting more people of various races, ethnicities, etc. at the table then he would have picked an Asian American or Indian American. But I'm sure the left will be surprised when these demographics start shifting toward Republican and will wonder why....

    1. Biden said during the primaries that he would nominate a black woman to SCOTUS. Kind of like Reagan said he would nominate a woman if elected. Both won, and the demographic choices were baked into the electoral cake.

      And anyone who thinks there has been a mainstream black voice on the Court for the past thirty years hasn't been paying attention.

      1. If you want to argue Clarence Thomas isn't "black" because of his politics, please do so. I'll just sit back here with some popcorn....

        1. Thomas is black. He is far from mainstream . . . and getting farther.

  10. We've had a white Jackson on the Court, now we'll have a Brown Jackson! [ducks for cover]

  11. Jackson this morning “The United States is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known “.

    That’s a hell of a good start.

    1. Now did she actually mean it or is that just what a speech writer told her to say?

      1. Why do you assume she has a speech writer in this context, you bigoted right-wing loser?

        1. Because politicians have speech writers. Politicians of all colors, flavors, and walks of life have professional speech writers. They are also closely coached on what they say to the press. And this wouldn't be the first time any politician had said something publicly that they don't really feel privately.

          1. Judges aren't politicians. The only "speechwriters" they have are their clerks, who aren't typically chosen for their ability to write applause lines.

            1. Ones that are nominated for the Supreme Court get speechwriters and consultants to prepare them for confirmation hearings. This is well known.

  12. Given Biden's track record on what he intends to do vs. what happens, I would question whether his nominee is, in fact, a black woman. She might turn out to be the next Clarence Thomas. Other than enriching himself and his family (death and drugs, whatever), what has he tried to do, that he actually accomplished?

    1. You are no kind of "Kristian".

  13. We'll see what the hearings bring, but based on this thread, the right has basically nothing but straws to grasp and impotent, white-grievance tinged rage.

    1. I think she'll be approved easily. As Brett said, there is nothing on the line for the opposition. My guess is somewhere around 60-40 in the Senate to approve.

      1. Ohh, numbers are a good question.

        Yeah, I'll opt of optimism and say you're right.

        Though there is always the possibility that Cruz or Trump or something something makes voting for her toxic in for the GOP some dumb way.

      2. That sounds about right. As I said, Biden managed to refrain from nominating somebody who was into bestiality, or otherwise insane. She's 'just' far left-wing, which is the best you could have expected, and she's not going to shift the balance on the Court one bit.

        So it's a free vote for most Senators, and a great opportunity to buy a tiny bit of good will with the opposing party, for whatever that's worth.

  14. While she is not the sort of nominee that most Republicans would prefer, we do not have a Republican President, and elections have consequences.

    Yes, including senatorial elections.

Please to post comments