Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of this court session.

[Derec]

Has this question ever been asked before?

Probably so. KBJ's answer to the question was great though.

 

[Derec]

Meanwhile, Josh "Soft on Illegal Porn" Hawley...

Why do you call him "soft on illegal porn" when he is faulting KBJ for imposing too lenient sentences? Did you misunderstand or are you just shitposting at this point?

Anyone remember when Kavanaugh was angry about being asked if he liked beer? And Judge Jackson is being accused of letting child molesters get off easily. I mean, both sides are just as bad, amiright?

One side asks the nominee about their judicial decisions. The other side asks the nominee what parties they attended at 17.
No comparison.

 

[Derec]

Quite a stretch to call it a conflict of interest. How would she personally benefit from her opinion?

You do not need to personally benefit.

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Weird question again. Why would she be any more biased than any other justice who went to Harvard?

I think benefiting from the policies before the court is different than just being a Harvard graduate.
But I just saw that in her case, her involvement runs deeper. She is a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers.
Do you still think she should not recuse herself?

You said "most likely." But so what if she was? Harvard also discriminates against non-legacy students in favor of legacy students. Why do you care either way? Did you apply and get rejected and are still stewing about it?

If legacy admissions were a matter before the court, I think any Harvard legacies should recuse themselves too.

You're concerned that a liberal will be on a 6-3 conservative court?

I am not concerned about true liberals, but leftists (if KBJ is one). Big difference!
And KBJ will sit on the court for decades. The court will not be 6-3 forever. Balance could be shifting soon actually, given Clarence Thomas' hospitalization.

Gives you the vapors, does it?

Can we forego cheap personal shots please?

One of your cringiest smear names yet, and that's saying something.

Not fair to the real Red Sonja, I know.
It's just based on Sotomayor's name and her being the most left-wing justice on the court right now.

 

[Derec]

I worry about Obergefell v Hodges for the same reason.

I think Obergefell is much safer actually.

The public opinion on gay marriage is moving solidly in the pro direction, and Republicans are now roughly evenly divided. Contrary to that, US is very divided on abortion and that has remained relatively stable over time.

 

[southernhybrid]

Grassley seems a bit senile. SCOTUS needs term limits. Damn! This country is fucked up.

SCOTUS or Senate? Both are probably good ideas.

I'm fine with both, but SCOTUS concerns me more, as such a small number of people have so much power. At least members of the Senate are elected.

 

[southernhybrid]

I watched that as well and was wondering what the fuck Lindsey was going on about. What an asshole! Now, I'm watching that idiot Cruz questioning her. They attended law school together. OMG! This is going to be entertaining.

Lucky for her that she didn't attend Princeton, where he used to walk into the women's section of the dorm wearing nothing but a paisley bathrobe.

Nothing entertaining about it. If I could afford the lawyer I'd sure SH for promising entertainment. Lyin' Ted is too stupid to entertain anyone over the age of 24 months. I kept wishing 'Tanji would rip his head off, but she's just too professional. And black. She might get away with it if she was white...

I thought it was pretty entertaining the way she was able to look so much better and brother than him.

AS for all the nonsense about the child porn sentencing. I read some articles where it was mentioned that the conservative judges also gave sentences that were below the guidelines because there was a consensus that the guidelines were too harsh and they needed to be revised. I think she did an amazing job yesterday. She will make a great justice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, Josh "Soft on Illegal Porn" Hawley...

Why do you call him "soft on illegal porn"...

These things need to be exposed... I mean what Josh Hawley apparently wants exposed.

Anyone remember when Kavanaugh was angry about being asked if he liked beer? And Judge Jackson is being accused of letting child molesters get off easily. I mean, both sides are just as bad, amiright?

One side asks the nominee about their judicial decisions. The other side asks the nominee what parties they attended at 17.
No comparison.

Well, certainly the question is why is Hawley allowed to be a Senator based on his preferences of digital file viewing. We are in a Judicial review hearing for a SCOTUS nominee and he is talking about his choice of porn, which is also totally illegal? He has a problem, he needs help!

 

[Elixir]

I bet she won't cry and say she loves beer.

I also bet she also won't be asked about what she may or may not have been doing when she was 17 or what parties she may have attended.

I guess now is as good time as any to finally come forward and say that KBJ molested me when she was 17. Now, I do not remember exactly when or where, but it is true. You can ask my good friend, Keyser Söze. Also, something something second door.

I demand FBI do a full investigation at this late stage, no matter how long of a delay that causes to the nomination process.

Oh, no, we must follow form and refuse to allow witnesses to anything we don’t want to hear about!

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.brettkavanaugh.beer/

 

[laughing dog]

Do you think it is also reasonable to expect Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan and John Roberts to recuse themselves as well? They are all Harvard Law graduates.

No, because they were not beneficiaries of Harvard's racist admission policies.

How do you know? Besides, they may wish to protect the image of the vaunted alma mater. In any event, using your standards, they have a conflict of interest.

FFS, Dereck Chauvin was an experienced officer who showed extreme brutality and excessive use of force over 8 minutes.

What he did was bad, but it was not worse than what Noor did. Certainly not five times worse, and yet he will end up doing five times the time. Because there were nationwide riots for Floyd but not for Dammond.

You are entitled to your opinion. Most people who are informed about the Floyd and Dammond tragedies do think what Mr. Chauvin did was much worse.

Mr. Noor acted in a split second. There is no reasonable parallel between the two cases.

There isn't. Floyd was a career criminal. Dammond was innocent. Floyd needed to be restrained. Noor had no reason to pull a weapon on Dammond. Floyd had high amounts of fentanyl and meth in his system that undoubtedly contributed to his death. Dammond's death is solely due to the bullet Noor shot at her.

All totally irrelevant to the issues. Neither Mr. Floyd nor Ms Dammond deserved to be killed, but both were killed by police officers. That is the reality, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise.

And your insinuation that the Mn AG (who did not prosecute either case) somehow went soft on Mr. Noor because he is a black Muslim is pure racist bullshit.

He did not personally prosecute the cases, but he was involved in the Chauvin prosecution. He also inserted himself into the Daunte Wright case. He could have retried Noor after the idiotic decision to reduce his sentence to a virtual slap on the wrist, but he chose not to. In other words, he goes hard against white cops, but is soft of a black Muslim one.

The state AG's office did not try either case, so your argument is nonsense. Not that it will stop your bigoted insinuations.

 

[Copernicus]

The Republican smear campaign is in high gear now. Yesterday, Cornyn and Graham went after KBJ with the totally false accusation that she had called President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "war criminals". She was asked why she had called them "war criminals" in defending her "Taliban" client. The brief they mentioned did not actually do that. Basically, it claimed that her client had been tortured and that torture was a war crime. Bush and Rumsfeld were named as two of the four respondents in the complaint because of their official government capacity. The client himself was ultimately released without being criminally charged.

Bush and Rumsfeld were two of the four respondents Jackson and her colleague named in each of the filings, along with two commanders at Guantanamo. However, Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, CNN legal analyst and expert on military justice, said that since the rules for these kinds of filings essentially required the President and the secretary of defense to be named as respondents – Jackson’s filings made clear that Bush and Rumsfeld were being sued in their official capacity – “it’s more than a little misleading to suggest that claims in that lawsuit are necessarily claims about the named respondents personally.”

Source: Fact check: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2005 ‘war crimes’ allegation was about torture

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone remember when Kavanaugh was angry about being asked if he liked beer? And Judge Jackson is being accused of letting child molesters get off easily. I mean, both sides are just as bad, amiright?

One side asks the nominee about their judicial decisions. The other side asks the nominee what parties they attended at 17.
No comparison.

The questions about drinking were after the allegation of a drunken sexual assault.

Interesting, Sen. Graham apparently likes the stuff to. Talking about it quite a bit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

said that since the rules for these kinds of filings essentially required the President and the secretary of defense to be named as respondents –

When a Navy ship runs aground, the Captain is held responsible. If he had the Conn, he did it. If he was near the Conn when someoen else was driving the boat, the CO is the one who said that officer ahd his confidence in driving the boat.
If he was in his bunk, dead to the world, he's the one who signed the OOD's qual card and said, "You can drive the boat in my place.'

If you want the big desk and the spiffy office (or the slightly above average ready room), you get responsibility for The Buck.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Republican smear campaign is in high gear now. Yesterday, Cornyn and Graham went after KBJ with the totally false accusation that she had called President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "war criminals". She was asked why she had called them "war criminals" in defending her "Taliban" client. The brief they mentioned did not actually do that. Basically, it claimed that her client had been tortured and that torture was a war crime. Bush and Rumsfeld were named as two of the four respondents in the complaint because of their official government capacity. The client himself was ultimately released without being criminally charged.

Bush and Rumsfeld were two of the four respondents Jackson and her colleague named in each of the filings, along with two commanders at Guantanamo. However, Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, CNN legal analyst and expert on military justice, said that since the rules for these kinds of filings essentially required the President and the secretary of defense to be named as respondents – Jackson’s filings made clear that Bush and Rumsfeld were being sued in their official capacity – “it’s more than a little misleading to suggest that claims in that lawsuit are necessarily claims about the named respondents personally.”

Source: Fact check: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2005 ‘war crimes’ allegation was about torture

GOP is pretty much going dark side on this one. She helps terrorists and child molesters. And this is after Sen. Graham tries to pull a 'but we wanted to put a black woman on the Supreme Court first'.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "When you’re showing off the next book you want banned with the perfect edges and everything to underscore to everyone you haven’t actually read it (pic link)" / Twitter
then
Nathaniel Mulcahy on Twitter: "@AOC given that many of the books he referenced are children's books, perhaps one of Cruz's motivations for banning books is that so many of them are above his reading comprehension level(link)" / Twitter
noting
Nathaniel Mulcahy on Twitter: "Today @tedcruz brought up several children's books during Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing. I would have thought a @Yale education would have resulted in someone being more erudite. Then I remembered he read "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor 9/24/2013 (pix links)" / Twitter
Showing pix of him with some children's books.

The book:
The End of Policing - by Alex S. Vitale

How the police endanger us and why we need to find an alternative

Recent years have seen an explosion of protest against police brutality and repression—most dramatically in Ferguson, Missouri, where longheld grievances erupted in violent demonstrations following the police killing of Michael Brown. Among activists, journalists, and politicians, the conversation about how to respond and improve policing has focused on accountability, diversity, training, and community relations. Unfortunately, these reforms will not produce results, either alone or in combination. The core of the problem must be addressed: the nature of modern policing itself. “Broken windows” practices, the militarization of law enforcement, and the dramatic expansion of the police’s role over the last forty years have created a mandate for officers that must be rolled back.

This book attempts to spark public discussion by revealing the tainted origins of modern policing as a tool of social control. It shows how the expansion of police authority is inconsistent with community empowerment, social justice—even public safety. Drawing on groundbreaking research from across the world, and covering virtually every area in the increasingly broad range of police work, Alex Vitale demonstrates how law enforcement has come to exacerbate the very problems it is supposed to solve.

In contrast, there are places where the robust implementation of policing alternatives—such as legalization, restorative justice, and harm reduction—has led to reductions in crime, spending, and injustice. The best solution to bad policing may be an end to policing.

 

[TSwizzle]

LOL;

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define the word 'woman' during the fiery second day of her confirmation hearing conducted by the Senate's Judiciary Committee. 'Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?' the senator asked. When Jackson claimed she had never heard the quote, Blackburn asked directly: 'Can you define the word ''woman''?' 'Can I provide a definition?' Jackson responded. 'No, I can't,' she declared, before adding: 'I'm not a biologist'.

Daily Mail

"I'm not a biologist"

 

[Politesse]

It makes sense you would find it laughable to defer to other's expertise in matters over which you are not personally expert. The Republican way is to just insist that your dumbass uninformed opinions must be "Science" no matter what the Ivory Tower says, right?

 

[TSwizzle]

It makes sense you would find it laughable to defer to other's expertise in matters over which you are not personally expert.

I don't defer to "experts" when it comes to knowing what a woman is, I've been married to a woman for 25+ years.

 

[TomC]

It makes sense you would find it laughable to defer to other's expertise in matters over which you are not personally expert.

I don't defer to "experts" when it comes to knowing what a woman is, I've been married to a woman for 25+ years.

One, I presume.
I can understand why you feel confident "defining" woman in that one instance.

But the world is far bigger than your own personal experience.

KBJ wasn't asked such a simple question. Frankly, I'm not as smart as she is. Probably not as well informed. But I could easily spend 5 hours explaining what woman might mean, in different times and places and contexts.
I'm confident that Graham wasn't interested in a lecture for the information. He wanted a shallow gotcha question that his base would spin into more power for Graham.
Because this isn't about the best nominee for SCOTUS. It's just another attempt to politicize SCOTUS nominations. One of the reasons I've come to despise the new GOP.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

It makes sense you would find it laughable to defer to other's expertise in matters over which you are not personally expert.

I don't defer to "experts" when it comes to knowing what a woman is, I've been married to a woman for 25+ years.

And plenty of people are married to women whose identities you would nevertheless contradict and deny, even there's no particular reason to idealize your personal experiences over theirs as benchmarks for neutral understanding. Personal arguments and opinions of that nature cannot be the basis for a fair and equitable legal system. This whole exchange makes me more, not less, convinced of the suitabilty of this judge for the position she has been nominated for. A judge should be more dicriminating and thoughtful concerning social categorizations than the average uninformed citizen might be.