Cracks Appear in G.O.P.'s Opposition to Jackson
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The support of Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination was a counterpoint to the bitterly partisan confirmation process so far.
WASHINGTON -- A nearly unified wall of G.O.P. opposition to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson cracked slightly on Monday as two more Senate Republicans said they would side with Democrats in supporting her, paving the way for her confirmation as the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.
Senators Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined a third Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, in lending their support to Judge Jackson, defying deep resistance in their party to the nominee. The G.O.P. opposition was underscored anew on Monday when all 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against the nomination.
That prompted Democrats to use an unusual procedure to force the nomination out of the deadlocked panel with a vote of the full Senate, which agreed to the move by a vote of 53 to 47.
The three Republicans gave President Biden at least a modicum of the bipartisan backing he had hoped for ahead of a confirmation vote now expected as early as Thursday. And it was a counterpoint to the bitterly partisan debate over Judge Jackson, in which Republicans on the judiciary panel attacked her as a liberal partisan with a questionable record, glossing over her qualifications and experience in hearings that featured the airing of conservative grievances, accusations of leniency toward child sexual abusers and divisive questions, including how she would define the word "woman."
In a statement announcing her support for Judge Jackson, Ms. Murkowski, who is not on the committee, said she was backing the nominee in part to reject "the corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year."
She also praised the judge's "qualifications, which no one questions; her demonstrated judicial independence; her demeanor and temperament; and the important perspective she would bring to the court" in replacing Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Mr. Romney, in his statement, called Judge Jackson "a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor."
Their support came after another contentious day in the Judiciary Committee, during which Republicans spent hours vehemently reiterating their opposition to her elevation. The N.A.A.C.P. called the resulting deadlock in the panel a "stain" on the committee, and Democrats moved immediately to force the nomination to the floor with a vote of the full Senate.
"We shouldn't have to be taking this step, but we are moving forward all the same without delay despite Republicans opposing her in committee," Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said before the vote.
In the Judiciary Committee meeting on Monday, Republicans rehashed the main attack lines against the judge that dominated a combative set of confirmation hearings last month, calling her a progressive activist who was soft on crime, while Democrats praised her qualifications and demeanor and said Mr. Biden's nominee deserved to be confirmed.
"This is a historic moment for the committee and America," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the panel.
While they did not dispute the import of Judge Jackson's nomination nor her legal qualifications, committee Republicans continued to rail against her on a variety of fronts, even as some prominent conservatives called their criticisms baseless. They criticized the sentences she handed down in child sex abuse cases, her refusal to state a personal judicial philosophy, her past representation of terrorism detainees as a public defender and her deep support among progressive advocacy groups.
"This choice of Judge Jackson was really embraced by the most radical people in the Democratic movement to the exclusion of everyone else," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former supporter of Judge Jackson who has become a fierce opponent.
It was a mark of how bitterly divided the chamber has grown over approving Supreme Court nominees, once regarded by members of both parties as a matter of allowing the president his chosen candidate to serve on the court.
Though Republicans complained about past Democratic treatment of Supreme Court nominees named by Republicans, Monday's meeting was far different from the one Democrats held when they considered the nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991, when Mr. Biden led the panel. At the time, rather than uniting against him en masse, Democrats agreed to send his nomination to the floor without a recommendation, despite their deep misgivings amid allegations of sexual harassment against the nominee. On Monday, Republicans refused to take a similar step, citing their view that Judge Jackson was too liberal.
"We are supposed to be trained seals over here clapping when you nominated a liberal," Mr. Graham said. "That's not going to work."
He warned that when Republicans next control the Senate, they would routinely deny Democratic judicial nominees they considered too liberal a hearing before the judiciary panel.
Republicans continued to question Judge Jackson's credibility, citing her resistance to calls to outline her philosophical approach, with Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, saying the response showed a lack of candor.
"Someone of her impressive caliber surely has a judicial philosophy, but maybe she just doesn't want to talk about it," Mr. Cornyn said.
In response, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Republicans of creating a caricature of Judge Jackson that is "so far out of the lines" of reality considering her deep credentials and experience. He said he had heard from people who asked: "How could they create these exaggerations? How could they disrespect a person like her, who has done everything right in her life and in her journey?"
Democrats defended Judge Jackson's record, noting -- in line with several independent analysts -- that her sentencing history has fallen well within the mainstream of the federal judiciary, and accusing Republicans and conservative groups of distorting her record. They pointed to her strong support from law enforcement groups and said that many Trump administration nominees had issued similar sentences but were uniformly approved by the same Republicans lining up against Judge Jackson.
Democrats said the Republican assault was as much about the coming midterm elections as it was about Judge Jackson herself.
"The principal goal here is about stirring up political division and scoring political points," said Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware.
The support of the three Republicans undercut the assault by their colleagues.
In her statement, Ms. Murkowski said the judge's backing "from law enforcement agencies around the country is significant and demonstrates the judge is one who brings balance to her decisions."
Though some Republican members of the panel once contemplated boycotting the committee vote to erect a procedural roadblock to Judge Jackson, they quickly abandoned that tactic. But none would support moving the nomination out of committee to expedite her consideration on the floor.
Even as Republicans on the panel uniformly said they would oppose her, many offered her personal and professional praise.
Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who on Monday said that Judge Jackson would be the most extreme liberal ever to sit on the court, called her charming and talented.
"I've known her for 30 years and always liked her personally," he said.
J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge revered by conservatives, who supports Judge Jackson, said Mr. Cruz was badly distorting her record.
"I would not hesitate to retract my endorsement of Judge Jackson for the Supreme Court if there were anything at all to Senator Cruz's statement, but there is not," he wrote on Twitter. "In fact, quite the opposite is the case."
Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, said the Republican opposition was disappointing but not surprising. She said the strong response to Judge Jackson showed that the public was not persuaded by the Republican attacks.
"People watching knew exactly what was going on," she said. "And they weren't buying what they were selling."
Republican opponents argued that their opposition was based on substance and not personal animus.
"This is not about the content of her character," said Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
Three Republicans is not enough, but it does make her confirmation bi-partisan, and shows the essential illegitimacy of Republican attacks on her at the hearing last week.
Actually all it shows is that some Republicans didn't think the issues brought up were enough to preclude a yes vote. Anything else is just reading more into it than it deserves.
First off, there were no attacks on her despite Democratic histrionics. Get real.
Democrats have and have had all the votes they ever needed to confirm her, so saying otherwise is just a lie.
I have noticed that NOW you want it all to be bipartisan, but were cheerleading for Kavanaugh to not get confirmed because he likes beer and some yahoos claimed shit that was found to be not credible.
Democrats should be rejoicing that their pick will be a bipartisan one and should take notes on how that works for the next GOP nominee.
There were far more attacks by the liberal left on Cavanaugh and Barrett than there have been on Jackson so far.
Nonsense. Kavanaugh was never even vetted. Barrett is a hypocritical lying bitch!
Democrats like to pretend that isn't the truth.
That is nothing but bullshit, and it looks like everyone but you knows it.
Your word isn't good enough to prove your silly claim. Provide a link.
Tom Cotton said she will coddle criminals and terrorists. I hate to break it to you, but that is an attack.
Only in deluded leftists minds.
Yet Cotton and all the rest of them are turning a blind eye to Ginny Thomas being a domestic terrorist with her involvement on J6.
Quit while you are behind, its not going to get better.
Probably because they are all smart enough to know that Ginny Thomas hasn't been charged with anything and has absolutely NOTHING to do with confirming Biden's pick.
That is what is commonly called a diversion or deflection.
It isn't like I ever expected your posts to get any better, JR.
You are entitled to your opinions.
Gee, using that as an example, that makes Kavanaugh's confirmation a bipartisan one and shows the illegitimacy of Democratic attacks on him at his hearing, too!
Bravo!
Three Republicans is not enough
Lol.. Three Democratic Senators in total voted for the last three Republican nominees combined.
As usual, the Republicans are the less partisan and more professional group and managed to go through a confirmation process without embarrassing the Senate.
Mitch McConnell , a Republican, is the one who broke with long standing Senate tradition and passed the confirmation of a GOP SC nominee with the barest minimum of votes. In other words the "nuclear" option . Then we had the Merrick Garland nomination fiasco. Not only are Republicans not innocent in the debasement of the SC appointment and confirmation process, they are guilty.
I can't even fathom the disconnect from reality it takes to make this argument. It was, of course, Democrats who started the process of "borking" nominees for purely ideological reasons. Meanwhile, Republicans continued to vote almost unanimously for Democratic nominees. Then Bush became President and Democrats decided opposing qualified justices wasn't enough, they were going to start filibustering them for reasons like being Latino. It wasn't until Democrats abused the system so thoroughly against Bush that Republicans even started objecting to Democratic Supreme Court nominees, 20 years after the Democrats started waging war.
All Republicans have done is start playing the game the way Democrats have been for decades. Don't whine when you get treated the way you treat others.
Stop with the facts, they confuse some people.
I think you did forget who started the nuclear option to begin with "The nuclear option was first invoked in November 2013, when a Senate Democratic majority led by used the procedure to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, other than nominations to the Supreme Court." All the Republicans did was expand what the Democrats started.
Stop with the trite backdoor insults, they bore 'some' people.
Truth hurts you doesn't it
"some" people could always stop reading them if they wish.
Oh, you mean we all have a choice and can choose to not read things which upset us?
Wow...who knew?
Votes for the more minor court nominees are usually extremely bi partisan. It is the Supreme Court that has become captive to the "nuclear option" and McConnell started it.
Sounds like just another rationalization as to why "it is OK when we do it".
"Good for me but not for thee"!
The lower court appointments are not as important as the SC appointments, which is why they generally have much more bipartisan support. Its not my problem if you dont get the distinction.
See 2.1.9
And also cause their heads to implode as well....
"Stop with the facts, they confuse some people."
Haven't seen any provided by Sean. Or you for that matter.
Just the typical projection, deflection, and denial - or you copying my response.
I wish it did, maybe you will supply some.
So now everybody is by obstructionist and that is somehow good?
I've had about all I can stomach from D's and R's, both.
On this particular nomination, I fail to see how anyone can call a person qualified for the position but vote against her. It strains credulity and points to the purely partisan mode that the country has denigrated itself to.
Let us not forget why they chose that option to begin with.
A republican campaign to deny Obama any judicial pics.
Stop trolling me, it is getting creepy.
Where did you imagine I said that? In a pre Bork world, Jackson, like ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would have been confirmed with 90 plus votes. That's the way it should be.
But Democrats can't go to ever increasingly insane means to prevent Republican nominees from being confirmed and then expect Republicans to roll over and pretend it's still a pre bork world. Demcorats started and continue to escalate the fight, until they stop acting like every nomination is a nuclear war, they can't expect Republicans too.
n this particular nomination, I fail to see how anyone can call a person qualified for the position but vote against her.
Did it bother you when almost every single Democrat opposed Alito, ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch despite their being at least as qualified as Jackson?
Probably should have told the many more Republicans who voted for Kagan and Sotomayor than Democrats who voted for Trump's nominees about that.
The Dems lowered the threshold for judicial nominees after years of obstruction from the repubs.
That was what I was talking about.
It is easy to blame one side and ignore what the other side was doing.
Lol. Were you alive for the Bush Presidency? When the Democrats serially filibustered Bush's lower court nominees?
t is easy to blame one side and ignore what the other side was doing.
Maybe look in the mirror?
I never said either side is innocent. I was not for them lowering the threshold. I was against it at the time.
Yet I can honestly say I know why they did it.
You on the other hand seem intent on only blaming one side of the isle for something that both sides have done.
Dem nominees got more votes because they were more qualified than the nominees reps chose.
It has been a long, slow decline from both sides. The part that really militarized it, IMO, is when the Mitch McConnell refused to place Obama's nominee on the Senate schedule.
Regardless, we need less political posturing for the purposes of pleasing the troops. The displays put on were so over the top as to be gross misrepresentations of the truth. And I cannot do anything about any past hearings, so do not "whatabout" me to death. Seems to me we have to make a choice between the "Nuh-uh, Nanny Nanny boo-boo" politics played by the current crop of people now emplaced in the seats of governmental authority and find people who are not clinging to and dependent on the entrenched and outdated Democratic and Republican power structure that no longer works to the will of the people but creates divisive issues to perpetuate their hold on power.
Lol... You've got the strong Kool-Aid I see.
What a preposterous claim.
It is getting to the point that people are told they need to keep in line with what the party wants.
As soon as someone deviates they are immediately labeled.
It is now parties that run congress and not select individuals.
Oh, sure, we can pretend that is true if you want.
Trite backdoor insult? Just checking to make sure I know what one is.....
I'll let you know in 5 ...
It’s the old, tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth, gambit.
And that little fact is conveniently IGNORED by the left as they whine about bipartisanship and some imagined "attacks".
Did you watch GOP questioning of Jackson? It was embarrassing, childish, more ranting than questioning.
Have you ever seen a confirmation hearing (or most congressional hearings of any sort)that wasn't?
You didn't pay attention during the Kavanaugh questioning did you?
Was probably fascinated by Democrats trying to crack some yearbook "code" and upset because Kavanaugh likes beer!
Not as embarrassing as fabricating garbage like a "code" in Highschool yearbooks and some of the other BS we've seen during Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation.
So all the evidence against rapist Kavanaugh was fabricated?
How so when dozens of valid witnesses were never even interviewed?
Kavanaugh was never even vetted in the first place.
NOW you are finally getting it.
There were NO credible witnesses to anything claimed by histrionic Democrats.
That comment is a blatant lie.
On the 14 occasions on which Kavanaugh authored opinions that were considered by the Supreme Court, the Court adopted his position 13 times and reversed his position once.
Sounds like a pretty good judge if SCOTUS only overturned his decisions ONCE.
Exactly where did I say that? But it nice you seem to be finally catching on. You're only a few years behind.
If he weren't vetted then how did he make it onto the Supreme Court? Just walk in and take a seat like he's at McDonalds?
You obviously missed the confirmation hearings of the two previous Supreme Court justices. Jackson got a walk in the park by the right compared to the inquisitions the liberal left gave Justices Cavanaugh and Barrett.
“…a walk in the park by the right compared to the inquisitions the liberal left…”
…so it has become tit-for-tat, this-for-that, I vote no, quid pro quo…
…the one branch of our government that was rightfully intended to be apolitical, has unfortunately become subject to the most partisan of childish pursuits, to absolutely no one’s benefit.
"A walk in the park" because nobody made Jackson cry
And all three have horns on their noses and grey skin.
That is the fuckin truth. For sure.
She’s a perfectly good nominee and she’ll make a perfectly good Supreme Court justice. There really is, in my opinion, no good reason to reject her.
I would have rejected her for three reasons.
1. Since Biden said he was going to limit his voice for the position to a black woman, I wonder if she really is the absolute best choice there was. Maybe there is a Asian woman or man that would have been better or a native American or a Hispanic or possibly a white man or woman was actually the best candidate. I would feel more comfortable if he would not have said anything about what race and sex he was going to nominate.
2) her record of under sentencing child pornographers is a big red flag.
3) she was unble or unwilling to define of what a woman is.
First point: I agree he should have kept it to himself - or at least framed it differently. This was a campaign promise to get the base enthusiastic. I have always been uncomfortable with the way he approached it, even though I am glad to see a black woman on the Court finally.
Second point: I haven’t studied her sentences, but there are usually a long string of factors that influence sentencing, and public opinion on sentences rarely take all of them into consideration the way the judge has to.
Third point: I felt like that was an embarrassing, kind of unseemly gotcha question, but it also touched on a topic that could well come before the Court one day and so I think she was right to demur. It may up being like religious faith in that it is something the Court will choose not to define. It seems to me that if anyone defines it, it should probably be legislatures. Ultimately, definitions from biologists may not match what politicians come up with.
Agreed, too bad Democrats and Biden were not so inclusive the first time a black woman was going to be nominated for the SCOTUS.
Enter filibuster kid and his cronies .... no more Janice Rogers Brown ....
This just in....She has been confirmed.
As most people have known since the day she was nominated she would be.
Yeah but drama ..... they need more drama!
The vote to confirm was no surprise, neither was the votes of the 3 Republican Senators. No cracks... It was expected.