It had to be done
Ketanji Brown Jackson is very likely to be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Yesterday the country heard from a woman who was well qualified for the position and came off as very likable. She is also very likely to be the most left leaning member of the Court. We might suspect that based on who appointed her in addition to all the information that was held back by Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin. If we had any doubts, we now know it thanks to the interrogation provided by Sen Ted Cruz yesterday.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/ee25728a66ec5459f1e25d04d9897f0e/Cruz%20CRT%20SCOTUS%20REUTERS%20TT%2001.jpg)
In one-on-one questioning, Cruz first noted that Jackson had called the thesis of “The 1619 Project,” the infamous & discredited New York Times project that examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil: “provocative.” Then, he used her position as a board member at the private Georgetown Day School to question her views over critical race theory.
Cruz: “If you look at the Georgetown Day School’s curriculum, it is filled and overflowing with critical race theory,” Cruz claimed, holding up copies of books that he pointed out as being assigned or recommended in the school’s curriculum.
Jackson: “I have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas — they don’t come up in my work as a judge, which I am, respectfully, here to address,” Jackson responded when asked whether she was comfortable with the lessons in one of the books Cruz mentioned, " Anti-racist Baby" by radical racist Ibram X. Kendi.
He said the "stunning" book was being taught at the school and asked Jackson if she agreed "with this book that’s being taught to kids that babies are racist?”
Jackson: “Senator, I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or though they are not valued or though they are less than their victims, that they are oppressors. I don’t believe in any of that.”
Cruz then asked whether she agreed with New York Times Magazine staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones that one of the primary reasons why colonists declared independence from Britain was to preserve the institution of slavery.
Jackson responded that this revisionist theory of history is “provocative” and “not something that I’ve studied” and “it doesn’t come up in my work.”
She said she discussed the 1619 Project at the University of Michigan when she was asked by the school to speak on Martin Luther King Jr. Day because it was a topic of intellectual debate familiar to the students. Does anyone buy that?
Cruz noted that critical race theory originated from critical legal studies professors at Harvard Law School, where both he and Jackson studied, “who are explicitly Marxist.” In case anyone didn't know what was going on in institutions of "higher learning."
Cruz also questioned her on the fact that in nearly every sex offender case she was involved in, she handed down "substantially" weaker sentences than the guidelines provided. He demonstrated that Jackson's average sentencing was 48% less than what prosecutors asked for in all cases allowing judicial discretion, referencing one case where she sentenced the offender to three months in jail, when the federal sentencing guidelines said 10 years. Other Republicans had mistakenly framed it as a sex offender issue. It was Cruz who correctly framed it as a "soft-on-crime" issue.
Later that night Sen Cruz was a guest on the Sean Hannity show. Cruz told Hannity that "they claim not to know anything about whatever they believe, and then they get on the bench and they vote hard, hard-left." "And I think there's real reasons to have concerns that that if Judge Jackson becomes Justice Jackson, that we will see a vote on the far left, very possibly the furthest left of any of the nine justices, particularly on criminal justice issues."
Cruz hasn't voted for any of Biden's appointments and it's clear he won't be voting for Jackson. Other Republican Senators might. The Senate Minority Leader has yet to make up his mind. Who Knows....the Republicans seem destined to win back the congress in a big way and some may not want to do anything to diminish the current projections.
One thing we now know for certain - we at least know what we are getting and we can thank Sen Ted Cruz.
Tags
Who is online
426 visitors
"All of those questions are fair game," said Cruz. "Will you follow the law? What does your record indicate? Will you protect the rights of every American citizen regardless of race, regardless of party, regardless of view? That’s what the focus of this hearing should be."
In one-on-one questioning, Cruz first noted that Jackson had called the thesis of “The 1619 Project,” the infamous & discredited New York Times project that examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil: “provocative.” Then, he used her position as a board member at the private Georgetown Day School to question her views over critical race theory.
Cruz: “If you look at the Georgetown Day School’s curriculum, it is filled and overflowing with critical race theory,” Cruz claimed, holding up copies of books that he pointed out as being assigned or recommended in the school’s curriculum.
Jackson: “I have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas — they don’t come up in my work as a judge, which I am, respectfully, here to address,” Jackson responded when asked whether she was comfortable with the lessons in one of the books Cruz mentioned, " Anti-racist Baby" by radical racist Ibram X. Kendi.
He said the "stunning" book was being taught at the school and asked Jackson if she agreed "with this book that’s being taught to kids that babies are racist?”
And yet you have been shown time after time after time that it is. You should probably give up the ghost on the subject lest you open the window of your existence to be exposed to the multitudes. Probably too late at this point but honestly...........................
It is. School boards know it and parents know it. I know the liberal way is that if you repeat a lie enough people may start to believe it but parents are not buying what you are trying to sell. Good luck trying to convince parents not to believe what they actually see before the November elections.
And if repeating a lie 100 times doesn't work expect to be called ignorant and racist in an effort to bully you into compliance.
No, CRT is not being taught in public schools K-12. It doesn't matter how many times you say that's not true, you're incorrect, every time.
The morons who say it is being taught, are lying.
They are called parents and they don't lie when it comes to their kids, especially when they see it being taught for themselves. But you just keep lying to them, telling them to ignore what they see and call them names, I am sure that will help them see the light.
It is amusing that the same people that scream "follow the science" from the roof tops are the same ones screaming "Believe what I tell you, not what you see" from the same roof top.
They're morons fighting something that isn't being taught, and liars.
They are called parents and they don't lie when it comes to their kids, especially when they see it being taught for themselves. But you just keep lying to them, telling them to ignore what they see and calling them names in a feeble attempt to bully them, I am sure that will help them see the light.
And the parents are the morons LMMFAO. Some folks just have absolutely NO self awareness.
Watching them get so triggered over banning something they insist isn't being taught is better than anything on TV.
They seem to look for reasons to be triggered, they don't need to make sense.
[Deleted] Those who are fighting something that isn't being taught. Moron alt right parents fighting against something that doesn't exist.
[Deleted]
So sorry, but I am a stickler for actual quotes. What Ayn Rand actually said:
"He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction."
What is your problem with Judge Jackson?
That she did not blubber like Kyle Rittenhouse on live TV about of how mean gop senators were being to her and her affection for beer?
The confusion over this issue comes from the clear FACT that there is no CRT written "curriculum" in the public schools, but racial justice has been seeping in to both schools, business and society in general over the last few decades. More and more people are being made aware of the continued racial inequity throughout all levels of American society and that we still have a long way to go to be a "more perfect union". Americans with more than half a brain can see the wildly unjust outcome statistics and desire to do whatever they can to help fix it which starts with simply acknowledging that the inequities exist.
I believe what most conservatives consider "CRT" (as is regularly proven here on NT) amounts to any discussion about how white primarily conservative Christians have actually treated black Americans over the last 400 years (slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching, rape, beatings, abuse, etc.) or any mention of current systemic racial injustice. A common new deflection for them is of course to try and fling that racist prejudiced bag of shit record at the word "Democrat" even though they know that record is clearly white conservative Christians legacy regardless of which party they affiliated with. And clearly, today, many white conservative Christians would rather be caught in black face at a Southern Confederate antebellum party or out waving confederate flags along side swastika flags than to be seen hanging out with liberal or progressive Democrats.
So when any teacher or school board member thinks its perfectly fine to support any sort of school racial justice project, student idea studying inequity or discussion about anything that even touches on racial inequality that a teacher might bring up becomes "The school is teaching CRT!".
Even the out of context quote from the Detroit superintendent that said the school was "deeply using critical race theory" said “You wouldn’t necessarily see it if you follow — or have access to curriculum" because there isn't one they use that you can feel or touch. He was simply admitting that they encouraged teachers to be aware and conscious to racial injustice even within the existing curriculum because, as the Detroit superintendent Dr. Nikolai Vitti said “students need to understand the truth of history, understand the history of this country, to better understand who they are and about the injustices that have occurred in this country.”
It seems clear conservatives are against that idea, they oppose teaching children, especially their own, "the truth of American history" because apparently they're embarrassed by it. For some reason some right wing conservatives get their panties in a bunch if their children come home and ask them about slavery, segregation or ask why white people lynched thousand of black people or why their parents still fly confederate flags when the teacher said the confederates started the civil war to protect what they saw as their right to own other humans as cattle. All that is simply too uncomfortable for some weak cowardly conservative bigots and/or their descendants to talk about let alone allow their kids to be taught which is why their only recourse is to manufacture a straw man of evil anti-white racism, label it "CRT" and surround it with their tiki torches and pitchforks while chanting "Schools will not replace us!"...
Therein lies the rub DP. What you and I see as a simple reality, the right utterly rejects.
They find it unacceptable to acknowledge that Americas founding economy and early growth as a nation was accelerated and enabled on the backs of the enslaved and the theft of Native lands. They seem to think that acknowledging that inequities exist somehow diminishes the accomplishments of their ancestors and therefore themselves.
Yet even they know the truth, so their only course is to deny, deflect and lie.
I think a lot has to do with turning a blind eye to injustice because some feel, perhaps even just subconsciously, that they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Life for them seems better as long as pretty much everyone they interact with on a daily basis is a white conservative Christian or a vetted token who never makes them feel uncomfortable with talk about systemic racism. It's clear many think to themselves "Hey, if I don't openly admit to my prejudice's, never tell someone why I chose the white candidate for the job over the black candidate, or the white prospective tenant over the black prospective tenant, pulled black drivers over 40% more than white driver while white drivers were more likely to be carrying contraband, sentenced black Americans to longer sentences than white felons who committed the same crimes, and I never owned a slave, then 'their' plight is not my problem!"...
What right wing conservatives are forgetting of course is that, even if they've done none of that themselves, their inaction and refusal to acknowledge the glaring racial inequality in American society, their turning of the blind eye, is just another expression of the continued legacy of the deep seated white conservative Christian racial prejudice and their descendants resistance to giving up the spotlight, the pedestal for white evangelical Christians in American society, where there's nothing wrong with public schools having Christmas, Easter and Halloween art projects, drama productions and prayer before sports games or at assembly's, but would never allow calligraphy from the Koran, a drama production about worshiping Baphomet or teachers leading students in prayer to Allah.
I once thought this was because just they're massive hypocrites, but I think the reality is closer to 'they're just gullible, heavily manipulated, poorly educated, misinformed partisan humans who were born into an area, region, family, heritage, legacy etc. that led them to absorb that sort of individualist, survival of the fittest and or most dominant, racist ideology'. And I don't just mean that about white conservative Christians, I think that's largely true for just about every faith that has extremists.
People here at NT sometimes ask me how I know that widespread racism still exists in America.
I know it because I see it. I have mentioned many times that I live in an integrated neighborhood in Chicago, according to the official boundaries of the neighborhood it is 60% black , although that is not necessarily the case on every block. Some blocks are almost all white and some are almost all black, and some are mixed. But it is an integrated neighborhood. Different races shop in the same stores, go to the same restaurants and other businesses etc, and are in the same community groups. It is also for the most part a very low crime area.
About a mile away to the west begins a different neighborhood. That neighborhood is about 90% white with a smattering of Asians , hispanics, and a few blacks who are on the fringe of the neighborhood. But 90% white. Its a large neighborhood, maybe 30,000 people, home to thousands of cops , firemen, teachers, and tradesmen that work for the city. The reason why this particular neighborhood has so many city employees is because Chicago has a residency requirement , you have to live in the city limits in order to get or keep a city job, and many of these people wanted to get as far away from black people as they could and still be a Chicago resident. This neighborhood roughly shapes as a peninsula if you will , surrounded as it is by suburbs on three sides.
I know a lot of people in the all white neighborhood, because much of my extended family lives there. I coached youth basketball at a school in the neighborhood for over 10 years. Been to the bars and restaurants many times.
This neighborhood has a city wide reputation for being full of racists. I have seen and heard with my own eyes people that I know are firemen or cops use the n word regularly and speak disparagingly of blacks, and to a lesser extent other racial minorities. I have seen it within my own family. This is the kind of place where if a black person is seen on a residential street, unless they have some sort of uniform on indicating they are working on something, they will be watched like a hawk and maybe even harrassed.
There are other neighborhoods in Chicago that are like this one. And I have no doubt whatsoever that many other cities around the country have similar neighborhoods , and the small town areas do too. And there are racists who dont live in racially segregated areas as well.
Racism exists on a scale. Not every racist is aggressive about it, many are more subtle and the practical effect of their racism may seem minimal, although I think it all adds up in the end.
Here's a question that is fair game too:
Based on your statement:
Since Cruz was exposed to the same 'critical legal studies', he must be one of those 'rabid indoctrinated extremists' you so decry, right?
Many, mostly conservatives, know when they are being indoctrinated, and take appropriate steps to avoid such liberal nonsense.
Cruz, apparently, was one of them.
Some people seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between "exposed to" and "indoctrinated by".
That's ironic since the indoctrinated believers in Trump's big lie, Qanon and so much other lunacy are all conservatives. Cruz, apparently, was one of them.
And deeeeeeeeeeflection!
Might I suggest you reread the block quote YOU provided and responded to, and to which I responded accordingly.
The topic at hand is Harvard, which is a hot bead of left wing lunatic indoctrination.
Yet, for every excellent ivyed institution of higher learning like Harvard there is a far far rightwing fundie bastion on useless degrees like Bob Jones University, Falwell's Liberty University and Texas A & M University...
Actually bugsy, I started this thread and the topic is the author trying to pretend that conservatives are inherently immune to indoctrination. There are members right here that refute that delusion, including the author himself.
Who gives a shit about who started the thread?
YOU block quoted a post then YOU responded to THAT block quote.
I, then, responded to your reply to THAT block quote, correctly at that.
Again, might I suggest you reread what YOU responded to, then get back with me appropriately.
Otherwise, I don believe "our readers" want to hear ti,
Wow, triggered?
Actually, I asked a question bugsy. Since you're speaking for Vic, got an answer?
Oh and BTFW, I could not care less whether you, OR 'our readers' think my responses are appropriate or not.
Carry on.
Ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not a leftist so it is actually impossible for me to be triggered, especially when some need to go to HD to vent their insecurities of one particular person.
THAT is truly being triggered.
"Oh and BTFW, I could not care less whether you, OR 'our readers' think my responses are appropriate or not"
This also demonstrates being triggered.
Carry on
We know who the triggered ones are also.
You look triggered to me every day here.
See, there you go again citing seeds/threads from elsewhere.
It drips with hypocrisy.
Secondly, your characterization of the HD seed having anything to do with insecurities is laughable.
[deleted]
What say you about a con posting ad nauseam META about feelers being hurt?
Actually, no bugsy. What it demonstrates is dismissal of valueless critique from obtuse sources.
Yes, we certainly do. They often seem to talk to themselves.
Cruz noted that both he and Judge Jackson went to Harvard Law School, where critical race theory originated. Yet of the two , only Jackson is accused of being sympathetic to critical race theory. I wonder why that is? (snort). Cruz mentioned a talk or paper Jackson gave where she mentioned critical race theory, as if the very mention of the term makes her a fellow traveler.
I think questions about race related to specific cases or legal dilemmas would have been appropriate to some extent, such as her view on affirmative action. Asking her if she approves of a book that purports to teach anti-racism to babies was ridiculous.
Republican after Republican embarrassed themselves yesterday.
Because one was susceptible to indoctrination and one was not. The point is both knew what was being taught.
Cruz mentioned a talk or paper Jackson gave where she mentioned critical race theory, as if the very mention of the term makes her a fellow traveler.
The context is that she mentioned it as part of what is considered in sentencing.
Asking her if she approves of a book that purports to teach anti-racism to babies was ridiculous.
Correction: A book that teaches racism.
Republican after Republican embarrassed themselves yesterday.
The only embarrassment was Dick Durbin who constantly had to provide cover for Jackson and withheld information from the committee.
Because she is black? [deleted]
It is entertaining to see the foot and mouth disease in action.
Oh, it's race again!
Calling people racist is an act of racism.
Assuming that black people are susceptible to indoctrination and that white people are not (as you plainly do in comment 2.1) is by definition straight up racism...
That's a real stretch and a lie, of course! [deleted]
That's right.
Let's analyze what JBB is claiming. Because I said Jackson was susceptible and Cruz wasn't, Jbb is claiming that I'm saying all blacks are susceptible and all whites are not. What a racist innuendo?
We shall see where this goes.
[deleted]
No, right off you assumed the black person was susceptible to indoctrination but that the white person was not and that is a racist sentiment...
[deleted]
Only if one wants it to be. You know. That old interpretation thing.
[deleted]
No, it is plain to everyone who can read it...
I'm going to report you to management for saying that I am susceptible to indoctrination on critical race theory.
For calling out in our face racist sentiments?
Good Luck With That! I asked for a call also...
You've been a leading proponent of CRT and "reparations."
Don't forget your commentary.
And don't worry, there won't be any split decisions this time.
[deleted]
Didn't ask you.
Actually, what I have said is that critical race theory is unnecessarily antagonistic, in that it does have the flavor of "all whites are racist" attached to it. I dont think it is particularly helpful to race relations, although I do understand its point. Do you? The point of crt is that civil rights legislation only took the country up to a certain point, a point that cannot be gotten past unless one recognizes systemic racism within American institutions, in particular the US legal system.
I dont particularly care for crt, but I dont go crazy over it either. It is one approach out of many.
As far as teaching kids that America is historically a racist country, I do believe school children should be taught that in an age appropriate way, because , first and foremost, it is undeniably true.
No need to explain it to me.
Someone has to.
Save it for the one who matters.
I guess some don't know how forums such as this work.
Stop making stuff up and putting words in other peoples mouth. It is embarrassing.
Except he didn't say it was because of anyone's race, it is you that is injecting race in it, as you seem to do for everything. That is pretty racist.
Ya! We're used to that.
Lindsey Graham asked Judge Jackson what her level of religious faith is "on a scale of 1 to 10". What does this have to do with being a Supreme Court justice? After he asked the question he admitted that he only goes to church himself about "three times a year".
What a fool.
Why did he do that?
It seems it was obvious to everyone but you. He was repeating what Justice Barrett was asked. He was pointing out the obvious: that Jackson got the respect that Barrett was denied!
The left absolutely hates it when they are held to the same standard as those on the right.
The Republicans went very soft on Jackson; and stuck to her record- and her other jobs as pertained to how it would affect her decisions under the law.
A board member at a private school doesn't have any idea what is being taught in the school curriculum? WTF is she doing on the board then? Seems that a review might be in order.
[deleted]
Really? Please provide a link of Barrett being asked that question Vic.
Tell you what, just give me a time stamp for that question from the C-Span videos.
“The left absolutely hates it when they are held to the same standard as those on the right.”
Pfft…how many more of these churlish exercises before we come to the realization there is no longer any ‘standard’?
It is now purely political and thus puerile partisanship…to absolutely no one’s benefit than to those shiftless opportunists mortgaging their souls to maintain their place at the trough.
Cruz seems terrified that Jackson might be hard left. That seems extremely unlikely , given that Jackson appeared to accept originalism as the currently prevailing theory of constitutional decision making. Originalism is a naturally conservative constitutional doctrine. I think the "hard left" was disappointed with many of her answers. And also the "hard left" description of Jackson as if that were a calamity must be measured against the fact that we already have hard right justices on the SC, most notably Alito and Thomas. Speaking of guilt by association, Justice Thomas' wife was seen attending Jan 6 festivities.
Right....
Because all of her sentencing and prior judicial and legal work lends credence to the fact that she will be a moderate to conservative justice.
She said what she needed to in order to get the nomination. She ducked, dodged, and dove around any question that could have pinned her down.
Anyone thinking she isn't going to preside as a far leftist is delusion.
Do you get whip lash from your hypocrisy and what about ism?
You are upset about hard right Justices? Have you looked at rulings by Kagan and Sotomayor? It is going to take some work for Jackson to get to the left of Sotomayor; but I am sure she is capable of it. She wouldn't have been nominated if she weren't. Aren't you one of the people that continuously denying the Biden's pay for play with Hunter; despite the growing evidence? That is a real crime. If you can prove Justice Thomas wife has broken any laws, then do so. Otherwise your entire line of reasoning screams false what about ism.
The old fall back of Hunter Biden, LOLOLOL let he know when he is conviced of a crime in something other than the RW empty heads.
She said what she needed to in order to get the nomination. She ducked, dodged, and dove around any question that could have pinned her down.
There’s no doubt that she already unofficially has the nomination. This whole farce is just the baptism of fire that this country has evolved to force on entrees to the SCOTUS. It’s a shit show by design, and an embarrassing spectacle showcasing an embarrassingly partisan procedure that this country attempts to use to ultimately define what is fair and unfair for citizens of these United States. In other words, it is what it is.
I agree. The whole thing is so the senators can hear themselves talk and hopefully get a soundbite on cable news TV and so a nominee can show their dancing skills and see how many questions they don't actually answer. The real question becomes why do people watch it?.
The real question becomes why do people watch it?
Good question. I guess in hopes to witness the holy grail of contemporary US politics, where a R sides with the Ds or vice versa? It’s like watching a modified golf tournament where high score wins, but the only way to score is a hole in one … but players are still playing to the best of their abilities regardless.
My understanding is that happened alot when confirming a supreme court justice in the past. Just another example of how far in reverse we have gone.
Are you sure?
Thank you for asking a real question!
I watch it for several reasons.
Mainly to learn more about the nominee (who may end up on the Court after all).
Even with stupid (and/or pandering) questions, I find it interesting to see how the nominee handles themselves.
In addition how thorough their knowledge of the law-- in this case I was impressed by how thorough her knowledge is.
Also, I have a general idea of most Senators' views-- and personality. But I find the things they say (even if they're lying) to be quite revealing about who they are-- their beliefs as well as their true character!
But then again. I'm a bit of an outlier-- ine of my first tendencies i n just about any situation is to see what if anything I can learn. ( Typical ENTP
)
Ginny Thomas also financed some of the Jan. 6 festivities.
Got a link for that line?
She also claimed that she knew little of CRT, yet mentioned it in one of her papers. She said a lot of things that are questionable. The questions will always be there until she serves her lifetime term on the Supreme Court.
“She also claimed that she knew little of CRT, yet mentioned it in one of her papers.”
As opposed to the multitudes who rail about it incessantly while knowing nothing about it. The new litmus test.
And claim that it's being taught in public schools K-12 AND IT'S NOT.
Link please
There you go again, holding other members to standards you fail to hold yourself to Vic.
You have it backwards: YOU SET THE STANDARD, I'M GOING TO SEE THAT IT'S ENFORCED EQUALLY.
[deleted]
Well gee Vic, if you want the standards to be enforced equally, you could start enforcing them and providing the link that I asked you for yesterday.
[deleted]
The only influence required is within your control. Post a link to prove your claim. Simple.
Oh, please do cite what rule I had made into a rule Vic.
Or is that just ANOTHER unfounded bullshit comment dumped here for 'effect'?
[deleted]
[Deleted]
That is a lie Vic. I posted a link to my request for a link. Every member here can see that you have NOT provided a link to support your claim.
Cite the rule Vic.
You and yours are all about making unfounded allegations about other members, rarely even trying to back them up.
It's a repulsive practice that diminishes the quality of the discourse in this forum and should be called out, which I for one intend to do whenever I see it.
[Deleted]
I haven't got a straight answer from Vic in so long I can't remember, if/when he deigns to...
Normally he fires a lame shot across my bow, closes the article and pretends he never saw.
crooksandliars.com /2022/03/fox-news-legal-analyst-calls-hawleys
Fox Legal Analyst Calls Hawley's SCOTUS Attacks 'Unfortunate'
John Amato 2-2 minutes 3/21/2022
On Fox News' America's Newsroom, former assistant US attorney and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy defended Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from the vicious attacks made by Senator Josh Hawley.
The ConservAnon Senator from Missouri, who supported Trump's attempted coup against the US government tried to use a QAnon Pizzagate-like lie about pedophiles against Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. to good use since many right-wing publications just repeated his words verbatim and refusing to comment or criticize his vile attack.
McCarthy commented, "Judge Jackson, who by all accounts is a fine person in terms of character and intellect...
Trace Gallagher brought up Sen. Hawley's QAnon-fueled "pedophile" attacks on the judge. "So there's a tendency for it to get a little bit ugly as it goes through the process..."
"I think that was very unfortunate on Hawley's part. "
McCarthy also said all he was on the bench many conservative judges considered some penalties for certain offenders way out of whack.
"What Hawley has done is conflate all of the offenses that are under the category of sex offender and suggest that she’s soft on all of that stuff, and I don’t think the case is there for that.”
Now you quote McCarthy?
What else did he say about Hawley?
Did he say he was a scumbag who supported the 1/6/21 insurrection, 'cause he did?
This is all the left has remaining in their "arsenal".
And it's failing too.
Just like many of today's gqp - the majority of them supported the 1/6/21 insurrection - and now all they have is deflection, plus projection, and denial.
Now?
When, in your opinion, should he have quoted McCarthy?
The rest of what McCarthy had to say was his real criticism of Hawley, namely that Hawley should have framed the issue based on her being soft on crime rather that making it about these types of crimes.
Interesting that instead of 'quoting McCarthy', you chose to characterize what he said.
Over multiple articles, McCarthy has eviscerated the Republican members of the Committee, specifically Graham, Hawley and Cruz. for making the hearing " into a good show for the base". McCarthy also called them out for intentionally distorting the facts.
In short, McCarthy's articles describe Republican incompetence and their sad attempt at gaslighting.
All three of those Senators have full staffs, some of whom are specifically tasked with preparing them for the Judicial hearings. All three are LAWYERS with the experience necessary to formulate a cogent argument to present to the American people.
Yet ALL three chose to pursue the same disingenuous course of inquiry which intentionally distorts Jackson's record to put on their little show for their base.
THAT is what McCarthy has been saying for DAYS. Members here can confirm my assessment for themselves by actually READING McCarthy's NR articles from the last couple of days. I did.
Here is an ACTUAL quote from the end of one of McCarthy's articles:
So even McCarthy isn't claiming to have 'the receipts' on Jackson, but he IS criticizing Republicans for failing to pursue them and instead choosing to perform partisan theatrics.
BTW, McCarthy's article from yesterday illustrates just how bias the Republican's attack on Jackson's sentencing of those found guilty of child pornography really is.
Here is the definitive statement from the definitive article:
"Judge Jackson’s views on this matter are not only mainstream; they are correct in my view. Undoubtedly, Jackson — a progressive who worked as a criminal-defense lawyer — is more sympathetic to criminals than I am. If I were a judge, I’m sure I’d impose at least marginally more severe sentences than she has."
WOW! That some harsh criticism right there Vic. /s
[deleted]
Again, the gop's false grace isn't playing well in Peoria!
"False grace!"
From the political party that engaged in despicable practices against Justices Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett!
They dealt from the gutter.
Nyet. That's where the 'right' resides.
Hawley, Cruz and Graham oozed false grace...
Faldegras!
You should learn to read a poll.
If you've got polls proving me wrong, Bring Em!
What in the hell does that have to do with how Americans today are reacting to those gop senators smarmy condescending offputting displays of false grace at the Jackson hearing on TV yesterday?
Yes, I know you were asked, however, all of those polls are meaningless at this stage.
No, you were just being impertinent, again...
If you are going to reply to me at least try to be witty.
Not possible. Can only be whiny.
¿What do you think I was hired for?
Everyone, not just you ... this site is very Libertarian.
How is the pay?
I need a larger wheelbarrow.
LOL! It's about as far left as one can get!
Look at that, you got a sarcastic joke ... I'm truly shocked.
It's neither
As someone who believes a president deserves discretion In his appointments, I think Jackson will be confirmed and should be. There’s no glaring defects in her record and her claimed legal philosophy puts her within the mainstream of legal opinion.
the test will be once she’s on the court. Was she honest in explaining her legal principles, or simply lying to appear mainstream? If she testified honestly, she’ll be a fine addition to the court. If not, she’s disgraced herself. We will see.
How does one go about being radical on the Supreme Court anyway?
Have you heard of justice sotomayor?
If you had to guess, which was it (in your opinion)?
Personally I think she was honest (and yes, that's just my perception).
I think Jackson will be confirmed and should be
You must be pretty disappointed with how Republicans handled it then.
What does that have to do with my comment to Sean (not you, moth)?
One can either take a high road, or say “my opponents are cunts so we’re going to be cunts too” - but if you’re ok with the latter you don’t get to credibly make comments reserved for those who actually take a high road. Don’t you ever get tired of everything having to be explained to you?
It is provocative. I guess some people see that adjective as endorsement? But that’s not what “provocative” means. And I agree that it probably doesn’t come up in her work. I can’t think of a reason it would. Political people assume that everyone is thinking about whatever the issue of the moment is, but they aren’t. They’re just living ordinary lives.
What is that supposed to mean? Why wouldn’t we buy that? Is the author calling Judge Jackson a liar?
A lot of ideas have come out of Harvard Law School. That doesn’t mean everyone who goes there signs on to them. Why is it that Jackson is supposedly tainted by this association, but Cruz isn’t?
”Far left” makes it sound scary, but I don’t know what that would look like. I doubt Cruz does either. Frankly, the Court use a little more compassion and humanity when it comes to criminal justice issues. The addition of a former public defender is long overdue.
Could it be because is a far right-wing loon?
I don’t know if he started out crazy, but politics isn’t helping him. It’s well and good to try to make multiple arguments, but you have to recognize when some of those arguments drift into Looney Tunes territory. You start getting bent about this kind of lame stuff, making inconsistent arguments, etc. and all you do is convince everyone that you’re a nut job.
could use
"if Judge Jackson becomes Justice Jackson, that we will see a vote on the far left, very possibly the furthest left of any of the nine justices, ..."
Yikes, can't have that and especially on a 6-3 court! One wonders who the 'senator' views as being the furthest right of the 9. Cruz operates as if the further right you are the closer to the center you are ... an abuse of rational thinking and I doubt he believes a word he is spewing but he knows his audience will gobble it up. Cruz truly takes his performance 'art' to dystopian levels admired by the walking dead.
Are Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz Ignorant About Child Porn Penalties or Just Demagogic?
"As Hawley originally presented his case against Jackson, all that mattered was that Jackson had imposed sentences below the ranges recommended by the guidelines, without regard to whether those recommendations made any sense. As Cruz refined the critique yesterday, all that mattered was that Jackson had imposed sentences shorter than the ones recommended by prosecutors (which are themselves often less severe than the guideline sentences). When Jackson pointed out that judges also are obliged to consider recommendations from the federal probation office, based on a detailed assessment of the defendant and his conduct, Cruz confessed that he had not seen those.
"We don't have those," Cruz said . "The committee has not been given the probation officers' recommendation. We would welcome them."
A Washington Post analysis published last week found that Jackson "met or exceeded the probation recommendation" in four of the seven cases that Hawley had cited as evidence of her supposedly unusual lenience. In one case, Jackson's sentence was within the guideline range. In two cases, her sentences were less severe than the probation office recommended but still more severe than what the defense requested. "In other words," the Post reported, "only in two of the seven cases cited by Hawley did Jackson render a sentence that was below the probation office's recommendation."
If the Post was able to obtain this information last week, surely staffers working for Hawley or Cruz could have done so as well. The fact that they did not underlines how reckless and demagogic the attack on Jackson was."
I'll take BOTH for $500 Steve...
today’s high comedy:
Sen. Leahy to Sen. Graham: "You had a Republican member who went way the over time allotted, ignored the rules of the committee, badgered the nominee, would not ever let her answer the questions. I've never seen anything like it. I've been here 48 years."
He must sleep through alot of congressional hearings
I have many interests, but partisan bickering is no longer one of them. That being said, I did watch some of the hearings. I'm used to Congress pretending to ask questions when in most cases what they really want is to some politicking...to create a few sound bites for their constituents to see... My main take away? This woman is by no means a "radical". Also extremely brilliant!
Tucker Carlson on the easiest question ever posed:
I don't go to turds like Tucker to find the definition of a woman.
It’s hard to fathom the speed at which we went from “Believe all women” to “some women” to “I don’t know what a woman is”
[deleted]
[Obviously.]
The Washington Post confirms that the defendant Judge Brown Jackson sentenced to just 3 months—even though guidelines called for 8-10 years—continued to offend after being released.
I believe it's also been shown that while Judge Jackson did hand out some sentences like that, she is not the only judge who did so. If I remember what I read correctly, the majority of judges had handed out smaller sentences for such crimes regardless of guidelines or requests. I think the committee members did the right thing to bring up her past line of work but if they continue to hammer on it I think it matters little to the outcome of the confirmation. I do laugh however at the outrage coming from the Democrats over how "badly" Judge Jackson is being treated. Didn't the Washington Post also come out and state that Judge Jackson was being treated worse than Judge Kavanaugh had been treated? And I've also heard that Judge Jackson is being treated as being similar to Jackie Robinson. The comedy that is coming from this... oh my...
Judge Jackson is not the person I would like to have seen appointed, but presidents do get to choose who they want. And unless something absolutely mind-blowing (not likely) comes out Judge Jackson will be confirmed to SCOTUS. I suspect that the vote count won't be an even 50-50 either.
You are right and to an extent so was Jackson. The law was too rigid and broad. Many judges took similar action but few went so far as Jackson.
I think the committee members did the right thing to bring up her past line of work but if they continue to hammer on it I think it matters little to the outcome of the confirmation.
Agreed.
I do laugh however at the outrage coming from the Democrats over how "badly" Judge Jackson is being treated. Didn't the Washington Post also come out and state that Judge Jackson was being treated worse than Judge Kavanaugh had been treated?
Yup, wasn't that outrageous?
And I've also heard that Judge Jackson is being treated as being similar to Jackie Robinson. The comedy that is coming from this... oh my...
These progressives missed out on the Civil Rights movement, thus they try to recreate it. They have actually put a stain on it.
Judge Jackson is not the person I would like to have seen appointed, but presidents do get to choose who they want. And unless something absolutely mind-blowing (not likely) comes out Judge Jackson will be confirmed to SCOTUS. I suspect that the vote count won't be an even 50-50 either.
I agree with every word of that.
USA Today claims 'there's no simple answer' to what defines a woman following Jackson-Blackburn exchange.
So, we won't be hearing how USA Today is middle of the road, will we?