Republicans on the board: Would you vote for Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court?

[NC.Lion]

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

 

[NewEra 2014]

I would vote for her. Not because she is a great legal mind, but because I might need a favor from the Dems someday.

On principle though, she and Sotomayor are hacks.

 

[TN Lion]

No freaking way would I vote for her.

 

[Jerry]

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

I have to cop to being an Independent rather than a Republican. But I am a conservative in any case...and no way in Hell would I vote for this person to sit on the Court.

It's bad enough that she's a rabid leftist and friend of child predators. Those are bad things but not disqualifying under the rules that once existed...before Dem-Media changed them.

There was a time when Presidents were presumed to have the prerogative to name a person who aligned with their ideological preferences as long as he or she were otherwise well credentialed and qualified. Elections have consequences and all that jazz.

Those days ended with Robert Bork when Dem-Mediacrats turned the nomination process into a scorched-earth game of power politics. They've continued down that road ever since, leading to the bloodbaths surrounding the Thomas and Kavanaugh nominations.

Consequently what we've got now is Dem-Mediacrats carrying out campaigns of character assassination against highly reputable jurists...or at minimum voting en masse against them in the Senate.

So basically the process has become hopelessly politicized, and that was the work of the Dem-Media Party. Because that's who they are.

Dem-Media plays for keeps and as American democracy has become a Republic of Judges and Bureaucrats, the Party is willing to do whatever it takes to win control of the biggest judicial prize of all.

If Republicans keep playing by the old rules, the ones prevailing when America was still a functional democracy...before one Party lost its collective mind...then they are chumps and fools. Which let's face it, a lot of them are. Otherwise, our country wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[bdgan]

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

I'd probably vote to confirm her because the next nominee would be worse.

 

[PSUEngineer89]

I doubt she is smart. Seriously.

Can she talk intelligently? By the standards of today, yes.

Do I think she thought the kids that understood geometry were “geniuses”? Absolutely.

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

I think you and I have different standards for smart.

I‘d like to see her LSAT score.

Or her math grades.

I’m sure they're not impressive.

 

[BW Lion]

She’s stupid and will be quickly marginalized by the real scholars on the SCOTUS.

 

[HartfordLlion]

F'k no. If she can't tell you what a women is tells you she is just a radical liberal hack.

 

[Hotshoe]

As an Independent, I supported her because she's the President's pick. That said, I'm disappointed in many of her sentencing responses. That she copped out on what is a women was beyond pathetic. She used the term female and woman numerous times. That's where we are in our society.

 

[PSUEngineer89]

As an Independent, I supported her because she's the President's pick. That said, I'm disappointed in many of her sentencing responses. That she copped out on what is a women was beyond pathetic. She used the term female and woman numerous times. That's where we are in our society.

And we need to oppose any person who is willing to be so ...... I don't even know the right word for it...fake?

Is that what these people are today? Simply fake people.

What real person won't answer a simple question like "can you define the term 'woman'"?

The midwit has been trained to respond like she did - essentially evading the question.

A real person would say, "Yeah, its someone with female anatomy." Or "Hey, its a loaded question, we all know what a woman is. We all also know there's an issue being asked about transgenderism and so forth"

That's what I notice more and more today...answers are all canned non-answers.

Also, Biden isn't president any more than I'm president.

She's the insane deep state's pick.

 

[NJPSU]

And we need to oppose any person who is willing to be so ...... I don't even know the right word for it...fake?

Is that what these people are today? Simply fake people.

What real person won't answer a simple question like "can you define the term 'woman'"?

The midwit has been trained to respond like she did - essentially evading the question.

A real person would say, "Yeah, its someone with female anatomy." Or "Hey, its a loaded question, we all know what a woman is. We all also know there's an issue being asked about transgenderism and so forth"

That's what I notice more and more today...answers are all canned non-answers.

Also, Biden isn't president any more than I'm president.

She's the insane deep state's pick.

Have you ever watched one of these confirmation hearings before? They rarely answer any questions from the opposing party. What she did was completely standard protocol for these things.

 

[LioninHouston]

Have you ever watched one of these confirmation hearings before? They rarely answer any questions from the opposing party. What she did was completely standard protocol for these things.

She wouldn’t have been able to tell anyone what a woman is. She IS one and still doesn’t know.

 

[MaconNitt]

Transgenderism is an issue that will no doubt reach the SCOTUS. No SCOTUS nominee is going to answer a question about a topic that can potentially come before them. She will already have to recuse herself from the case regarding Harvard because she sits on their board.

 

[Fac]

Have you ever watched one of these confirmation hearings before? They rarely answer any questions from the opposing party. What she did was completely standard protocol for these things.

Go back to your basement

 

[Hotshoe]

Have you ever watched one of these confirmation hearings before? They rarely answer any questions from the opposing party. What she did was completely standard protocol for these things.

No it wasn't.

 

[MaconNitt]

No it wasn't.

Barrett declined to answer many questions, citing precedent of earlier nominees

Nominees for the high court in modern times have deliberately avoided directly responding to questions. They point out that judicial ethics rules require that judges should not weigh in on any issue that could come before them.

Barrett cited the woman whose seat she would take — the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who established what became known as "Ginsburg rule." At several points Barrett reiterated that this meant "no hints, no previews, no forecasts."

Takeaways From Amy Coney Barrett's Judiciary Confirmation Hearings

President Trump's nominee deflected answering most questions, citing precedent that she can't weigh in on issues she may rule on. Weeks before the election, Democrats largely honed in on health care.

www.npr.org

 

[crazyivan77]

Barrett declined to answer many questions, citing precedent of earlier nominees

Nominees for the high court in modern times have deliberately avoided directly responding to questions. They point out that judicial ethics rules require that judges should not weigh in on any issue that could come before them.

Barrett cited the woman whose seat she would take — the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who established what became known as "Ginsburg rule." At several points Barrett reiterated that this meant "no hints, no previews, no forecasts."

Takeaways From Amy Coney Barrett's Judiciary Confirmation Hearings

President Trump's nominee deflected answering most questions, citing precedent that she can't weigh in on issues she may rule on. Weeks before the election, Democrats largely honed in on health care.

www.npr.org

When she was asked and couldn’t define “what a woman was”, that was meant to avoid forecasting that chicks with dicks will eventually come before the SCOTUS to demonstrate they’re just like all the other girls. And liberals will again lose the suburban women vote, and claim outrage.

When you run out of fake victims to profit off, this is what you’re left with.

 

[Hotshoe]

Lmao. I'm not talking precedent. I'm talking answering what the hell is a woman. To think, a Harvard educated, Black Protestant Christian cannot answer that question is beyond pathetic.

 

[MaconNitt]

When she was asked and couldn’t define “what a woman was”, that was meant to avoid forecasting that chicks with dicks will eventually come before the SCOTUS to demonstrate they’re just like all the other girls. And liberals will again lose the suburban women vote, and claim outrage.

When you run out of fake victims to profit off, this is what you’re left with.

what aboutism, two wrongs don't make a right

 

[MaconNitt]

Lmao. I'm not talking precedent. I'm talking answering what the hell is a woman. To think, a Harvard educated, Black Protestant Christian cannot answer that question is beyond pathetic.

It's politics, depends on whose ox is being gored, unless there is an 11th hour bombshell this was a fore gone conclusion made for C-Span

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

There's no way this woman would get my vote. Her non-answers were in fact answers -- that she is an extreme leftist political hack about to take a seat on our highest court for life. She in fact would support Critical Race Theory and the 1619 nonsense if those issues came to the court. She would probably find a way to rule in favor of illegal migrant rights over citizen rights.

White Christian Males ... ARE DOOMED.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I have to cop to being an Independent rather than a Republican. But I am a conservative in any case...and no way in Hell would I vote for this person to sit on the Court.

It's bad enough that she's a rabid leftist and friend of child predators. Those are bad things but not disqualifying under the rules that once existed...before Dem-Media changed them.

There was a time when Presidents were presumed to have the prerogative to name a person who aligned with their ideological preferences as long as he or she were otherwise well credentialed and qualified. Elections have consequences and all that jazz.

Those days ended with Robert Bork when Dem-Mediacrats turned the nomination process into a scorched-earth game of power politics. They've continued down that road ever since, leading to the bloodbaths surrounding the Thomas and Kavanaugh nominations.

Consequently what we've got now is Dem-Mediacrats carrying out campaigns of character assassination against highly reputable jurists...or at minimum voting en masse against them in the Senate.

So basically the process has become hopelessly politicized, and that was the work of the Dem-Media Party. Because that's who they are.

Dem-Media plays for keeps and as American democracy has become a Republic of Judges and Bureaucrats, the Party is willing to do whatever it takes to win control of the biggest judicial prize of all.

If Republicans keep playing by the old rules, the ones prevailing when America was still a functional democracy...before one Party lost its collective mind...then they are chumps and fools. Which let's face it, a lot of them are. Otherwise, our country wouldn't be in this mess.

What a pantload of partisan crap. "It's all Dem-Media's fault." Tell that to Merrick Garland. Particularly in the wake of the 30 day confirmation of Coney Barrett. Just 35 days before the 2020 election.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Also, Biden isn't president any more than I'm president.

I know. STOPTHESTEAL, right?

Good thing you have your calculus skillz to fall back on ...

 

[PSUEngineer89]

Lmao. I'm not talking precedent. I'm talking answering what the hell is a woman. To think, a Harvard educated, Black Protestant Christian cannot answer that question is beyond pathetic.

I'll take a computer science engineer from Indiana State University over a Harvard educated lawyer any day.

One of those things requires thinking, the other....only conformity and rote repetition.

 

[RoyalT12]

I doubt she is smart. Seriously.

Can she talk intelligently? By the standards of today, yes.

Do I think she thought the kids that understood geometry were “geniuses”? Absolutely.

I think you and I have different standards for smart.

I‘d like to see her LSAT score.

Or her math grades.

I’m sure they're not impressive.

You are psychotic.

 

[RoyalT12]

I'll take a computer science engineer from Indiana State University over a Harvard educated lawyer any day.

One of those things requires thinking, the other....only conformity and rote repetition.

Do you live in moms basement? Your constant promotion of your myopic and self serving view of “intelligence” and dehumanizing of what most people would consider truly intelligent speaks to an out of work future mass murderer plotting the killing of those he views as fruit flies. You need help. More accurately, hospitalization with supervision.

 

[RoyalT12]

She’s stupid and will be quickly marginalized by the real scholars on the SCOTUS.

She is more qualified than any justice currently sitting you moron. Are you officially affiliated with a local clan chapter? I’m assuming yes.

 

[Hotshoe]

Do you live in moms basement? Your constant promotion of your myopic and self serving view of “intelligence” and dehumanizing of what most people would consider truly intelligent speaks to an out of work future mass murderer plotting the killing of those he views as fruit flies. You need help. More accurately, hospitalization with supervision.

From the clown that calls everyone Nazis. Shut up Francis.

 

[RoyalT12]

And we need to oppose any person who is willing to be so ...... I don't even know the right word for it...fake?

Is that what these people are today? Simply fake people.

What real person won't answer a simple question like "can you define the term 'woman'"?

The midwit has been trained to respond like she did - essentially evading the question.

A real person would say, "Yeah, its someone with female anatomy." Or "Hey, its a loaded question, we all know what a woman is. We all also know there's an issue being asked about transgenderism and so forth"

That's what I notice more and more today...answers are all canned non-answers.

Also, Biden isn't president any more than I'm president.

She's the insane deep state's pick.

Your the insane part of this conversation

 

[RoyalT12]

There's no way this woman would get my vote. Her non-answers were in fact answers -- that she is an extreme leftist political hack about to take a seat on our highest court for life. She in fact would support Critical Race Theory and the 1619 nonsense if those issues came to the court. She would probably find a way to rule in favor of illegal migrant rights over citizen rights.

White Christian Males ... ARE DOOMED.

Snowflake bigots like you are funny . Embarrassing that you actually live in my country but funny nonetheless.

 

[RoyalT12]

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

She is the most qualified nominee in years. It’s a no brainer. There is only one reason someone wouldn’t vote for her. And that reason is as plain as the color of her face . Fact

 

[TN Lion]

She is being dishonest about giving a chid pornographer two light sentences, one in 2013 and another in 2019. Three months in jail and six months for second violation. Cotton called her out on it.

Tom Cotton to Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Don't Find Your Testimony 'Credible'

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) told President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson he did not find her testimony "credible.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Hotshoe]

She is more qualified than any justice currently sitting you moron. Are you officially affiliated with a local clan chapter? I’m assuming yes.

She isn't remotely close to the most qualified. Lmao. Holy F are you ignorant. Compared to who she is replacing, Justice Breyer, she's a light weight.

 

[TN Lion]

On Wednesday, during day three of Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Cotton mentioned a case involving child pornographer, Wesley Hawkins, who the senator noted, “was convicted of a child pornography offense in 2013.”

“The sentencing guidelines for this offense called for a sentence of 97 to 121 months, or eight to ten years,” Cotton explained. “The prosecutors asked for 24 months; you sentenced him to three months.”

“We’ve heard a lot about this case and your three-month sentence of Wesley Hawkins,” the senator continued. “But you got another crack at him in 2019, judge. In 2019, you sent Wesley Hawkins back under conditions of confinement with the bureau of prisons for six months, with additional restrictions on his computer usage.”

“That’s twice the amount of time in custody that you sentenced him to in 2013. What did Wesley Hawkins do in 2019, judge?” Cotton asked, to which Jackson stated, “Oh, I don’t remember, senator. I have a lot of defendants who I’ve sentenced.”

Cotton went on to note that Jackson has “been asked repeatedly over the last two days over the Hawkins case.”

“It’s been in the news — for days on end,” he said. “This resentencing happened in 2019, and now you’re saying you don’t have any recollection of it. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection.”

The senator then took out a large board showing the order Jackson signed on April 17, 2019, adding, “There’s your signature over there, judge. You really don’t remember?”

Jackson maintained that she did not remember, stating, “Senator, that is a very, very common thing that judges do.”

LIAR

 

[jjw165]

 

[Jerry]

What a pantload of partisan crap. "It's all Dem-Media's fault." Tell that to Merrick Garland. Particularly in the wake of the 30 day confirmation of Coney Barrett. Just 35 days before the 2020 election.

My narrative of the history surrounding your Party's slimy politicization of the nomination process happens to be accurate, Laf. If it isn't, please do point out what I got wrong.

Regarding Garland and Barrett, first, both those nominations have to be understood within the context of that history. Second, the Republicans acted entirely within the rules of the Senate. Their behavior was not remotely as appalling and disgusting as was your Party's treatment of Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

Furthermore, it seems there was a distinguished Dem-Mediacrat who all the way back in 1992 declared that "once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

The gentleman who said that was none other than Joe Biden...back before his mind failed. So Garland's nomination was handled under the terms of the Biden Rule. Don't you just hate it when hard facts blow up your case.

 

[NJPSU]

Barrett declined to answer many questions, citing precedent of earlier nominees

Nominees for the high court in modern times have deliberately avoided directly responding to questions. They point out that judicial ethics rules require that judges should not weigh in on any issue that could come before them.

Barrett cited the woman whose seat she would take — the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who established what became known as "Ginsburg rule." At several points Barrett reiterated that this meant "no hints, no previews, no forecasts."

Takeaways From Amy Coney Barrett's Judiciary Confirmation Hearings

President Trump's nominee deflected answering most questions, citing precedent that she can't weigh in on issues she may rule on. Weeks before the election, Democrats largely honed in on health care.

www.npr.org

Thank you. These guys are clueless.

 

[Alphalion75]

My friends. I don't know if I'd vote for her or not. She does have more diverse legal background than all the SC justices. I do have concerns on her judgement involving cases of sexual abuse against women and child pornography. Her approach to punishment of these crimes is weak. She would not take away the use of computers from child predators. That's disturbing. I just feel that she lacks the necessary compassion for victims of crimes. A major issue in today's society.

 

[Fayette_LION]

After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

It would be NO! She's an activist judge which this country needs less of.

 

[NJPSU]