SCOTUS

[UNI88]

As you were!

Although pressing BDK and Jelly to admit that strikes me as a Sisyphean task.

What a great phrase. You could've said 'fools errand' but you went high class. I like it.

I prefer Sisyphean or quixotic to fool's errand.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

Is there a difference between small L and small l?

Small l looks too much like a big i.

Usually big D's like to pretend to be big I's.

[CAA Flagship]

Small l looks too much like a big i.

Usually big D's like to pretend to be big I's.

Big D's get wet in small toilets.

[SDHornet]

Is there a difference between small L and small l?

I'm not sure size matters...at least that's what I've been told.

[Ibanez]

What a great phrase. You could've said 'fools errand' but you went high class. I like it.

I prefer Sisyphean or quixotic to fool's errand.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Quixotic is a favorite of mine. I've used that before but then I usually have to explain it.

[SDHornet]

[AZGrizFan]

I prefer Sisyphean or quixotic to fool's errand.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Quixotic is a favorite of mine. I've used that before but then I usually have to explain it.

Well if you have to explain quixotic then you’re probably wasting your time in that conversation anyways.

[Ibanez]

Quixotic is a favorite of mine. I've used that before but then I usually have to explain it.

Well if you have to explain quixotic then you’re probably wasting your time in that conversation anyways.

With rubes? Yes, I believe you are correct.

[Ibanez]

Masterful lesson.

[Ibanez]

I see that the Republicans are focusing on a few cases of child porn crimes and letting that set the standard. Curious...why not use those sentences of 20+ years? We are all more than 1 or 2 situations at work. But I understand this is politics and that doesn't matter. All she needs to do to get every GOP vote is to show up today, crack open a beer and cheers the committee.


And btw I love how when asked about court-packing she uses Amy Coney Barret's answer about leaving policy to Congress and it's seen as a dodge. These proceedings aren't about the nominees record - it's about cheap political points for their respective bases. Graham seemed to give Jackson some trouble for her religion as payback. I like her answer that it won't guide her, we don't need judges making decision based off the Bible, Torah or Koran instead of the US Constitution. Democrats have to own that, they put too much emphasis on a person's religion as if it's the only thing that matters and as a a professional judge, the nominee won't be able to separate his/her religion from the Constitution.


I may be getting my judges confused, but by some of Jackson's responses, you get the sense that she doesn't really subscribe to the Constitution as a living document like Gorsuch.

[CID1990]

I see that the Republicans are focusing on a few cases of child porn crimes and letting that set the standard. Curious...why not use those sentences of 20+ years? We are all more than 1 or 2 situations at work. But I understand this is politics and that doesn't matter. All she needs to do to get every GOP vote is to show up today, crack open a beer and cheers the committee.


And btw I love how when asked about court-packing she uses Amy Coney Barret's answer about leaving policy to Congress and it's seen as a dodge. These proceedings aren't about the nominees record - it's about cheap political points for their respective bases. Graham seemed to give Jackson some trouble for her religion as payback. I like her answer that it won't guide her, we don't need judges making decision based off the Bible, Torah or Koran instead of the US Constitution. Democrats have to own that, they put too much emphasis on a person's religion as if it's the only thing that matters and as a a professional judge, the nominee won't be able to separate his/her religion from the Constitution.


I may be getting my judges confused, but by some of Jackson's responses, you get the sense that she doesn't really subscribe to the Constitution as a living document like Gorsuch.

Lindsey is getting some payback for Kavanaugh and Comey-Barrett, like he said he would.

But he’ll vote to confirm. It would be very inconsistent of him not to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I see that the Republicans are focusing on a few cases of child porn crimes and letting that set the standard. Curious...why not use those sentences of 20+ years? We are all more than 1 or 2 situations at work. But I understand this is politics and that doesn't matter. All she needs to do to get every GOP vote is to show up today, crack open a beer and cheers the committee.


And btw I love how when asked about court-packing she uses Amy Coney Barret's answer about leaving policy to Congress and it's seen as a dodge. These proceedings aren't about the nominees record - it's about cheap political points for their respective bases. Graham seemed to give Jackson some trouble for her religion as payback. I like her answer that it won't guide her, we don't need judges making decision based off the Bible, Torah or Koran instead of the US Constitution. Democrats have to own that, they put too much emphasis on a person's religion as if it's the only thing that matters and as a a professional judge, the nominee won't be able to separate his/her religion from the Constitution.


I may be getting my judges confused, but by some of Jackson's responses, you get the sense that she doesn't really subscribe to the Constitution as a living document like Gorsuch.

Lindsey is getting some payback for Kavanaugh and Comey-Barrett, like he said he would.

But he’ll vote to confirm. It would be very inconsistent of him not to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well he's a flip flopper so if he doesn't, it'll be consistent of him.

Lindsey is very unhappy that Childs didn't get the nod. I hope this is all theater, Jackson gets his approval and Childs takes Jackson's seat.

[CID1990]

Lindsey is getting some payback for Kavanaugh and Comey-Barrett, like he said he would.

But he’ll vote to confirm. It would be very inconsistent of him not to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well he's a flip flopper so if he doesn't, it'll be consistent of him.

Lindsey is very unhappy that Childs didn't get the nod. I hope this is all theater, Jackson gets his approval and Childs takes Jackson's seat.

Lindsey has always focused on qualifications, and has voted to confirm on that narrow test. Yes he wanted Childs and that’s why he is digging into Jackson a little. But I’m pretty sure he will vote yea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Blackburn should have followed up with
“Do you consider yourself a woman?
Of course Jackson would have had to answer ‘yes’.
Follow up to that: ‘How can you consider yourself a woman if you can’t even define what a woman is?’

[Ivytalk]

It will be 53-47 or 54-46. Hawley, Cruz, and Cotton have flamed out.

[SeattleGriz]

Can someone tell me why we give a shit about a vote that hasn't happened? Is it so he can be convinced to change his mind? If not, shut up.

[GannonFan]

Can someone tell me why we give a shit about a vote that hasn't happened? Is it so he can be convinced to change his mind? If not, shut up.

Because it's a vote that will happen and it's not out of the ordinary for a Senator, or Congressman, to declare how they will vote prior to the vote actually happening. This is pretty normal stuff, not sure why you're calling it out so.

[SeattleGriz]

Can someone tell me why we give a shit about a vote that hasn't happened? Is it so he can be convinced to change his mind? If not, shut up.

Because it's a vote that will happen and it's not out of the ordinary for a Senator, or Congressman, to declare how they will vote prior to the vote actually happening. This is pretty normal stuff, not sure why you're calling it out so.

Just wondering what the point is? Is there a prevote in which Joe M will change his mind because she won't get enough votes? If so, that's a really shitty reason. Flies in the face of his original tweet.

In my opinion, it's only done to appease monetary interests or piss selected groups off. In other words, marketing for money.

Just vote and let's talk why later.

Thank you for replying. I'm not trying to be a dick to you, and hope I didn't come off that way in replying. I've been an angry whiney bitch all day. Don't know what crawled up my ass.

[GannonFan]

Because it's a vote that will happen and it's not out of the ordinary for a Senator, or Congressman, to declare how they will vote prior to the vote actually happening. This is pretty normal stuff, not sure why you're calling it out so.

Just wondering what the point is? Is there a prevote in which Joe M will change his mind because she won't get enough votes? If so, that's a really shitty reason. Flies in the face of his original tweet.

In my opinion, it's only done to appease monetary interests or piss selected groups off. In other words, marketing for money.

Just vote and let's talk why later.

Thank you for replying. I'm not trying to be a dick to you, and hope I didn't come off that way in replying. I've been an angry whiney bitch all day. Don't know what crawled up my ass.

The guy is normally a swing vote, this nominee is certain to get out of committee so she will come up for a vote, and he's just showing his cards that he will vote for her. Again, I don't see what's so abnormal about this. Other senators are doing the same thing in drips and drabs - this is just how it's done.

[Ivytalk]

Ben Sasse was probably the best GOP questioner of Judge Jackson. He asked thoughtful, substantive questions about policy and judicial philosophy that she generally answered. She says she subscribes to a form of originalism and backed away from the “living constitution” malarkey that Breyer champions. But was she pulling her punches? She left a mile-wide gap when asked about issues not mentioned in the text. My concern about her is unrelated to the sentencing kerfuffle: it’s whether she sides with the government too often in areas outside criminal justice.

This nominee is a bit of a dice roll, since we’re talking about a lifetime appointment. Biden is no friend of limited government, and he wouldn’t knowingly send up a black woman originalist. But he proved in his questioning of Bork years ago that he has no understanding of the Constitution, original or otherwise. That said, if I were Senator Sasse, I’d probably vote no on Jackson, because I don’t trust her to come through on her opaque claim to support originalism.

[GannonFan]

Ben Sasse was probably the best GOP questioner of Judge Jackson. He asked thoughtful, substantive questions about policy and judicial philosophy that she generally answered. She says she subscribes to a form of originalism and backed away from the “living constitution” malarkey that Breyer champions. But was she pulling her punches? She left a mile-wide gap when asked about issues not mentioned in the text. My concern about her is unrelated to the sentencing kerfuffle: it’s whether she sides with the government too often in areas outside criminal justice.

This nominee is a bit of a dice roll, since we’re talking about a lifetime appointment. Biden is no friend of limited government, and he wouldn’t knowingly send up a black woman originalist. But he proved in his questioning of Bork years ago that he has no understanding of the Constitution, original or otherwise. That said, if I were Senator Sasse, I’d probably vote no on Jackson, because I don’t trust her to come through on her opaque claim to support originalism.

Agreed, Sasse came through as an actual adult in a room full of politicians on both sides preening for the cameras. And yes, even a coherent Biden from decades ago was a mental lightweight when it came to substantive issues and topics, so he certainly has no grasp of who this nominee is other than being a black woman.

With that said, I'd vote yes on her. She's certainly no fire-breathing activist judge and I think she hews more towards originalism than what the left would prefer, but again, Biden did box things in with his race and gender mandate so they had to pick from what was available.

[CID1990]

Ben Sasse was probably the best GOP questioner of Judge Jackson. He asked thoughtful, substantive questions about policy and judicial philosophy that she generally answered. She says she subscribes to a form of originalism and backed away from the “living constitution” malarkey that Breyer champions. But was she pulling her punches? She left a mile-wide gap when asked about issues not mentioned in the text. My concern about her is unrelated to the sentencing kerfuffle: it’s whether she sides with the government too often in areas outside criminal justice.

This nominee is a bit of a dice roll, since we’re talking about a lifetime appointment. Biden is no friend of limited government, and he wouldn’t knowingly send up a black woman originalist. But he proved in his questioning of Bork years ago that he has no understanding of the Constitution, original or otherwise. That said, if I were Senator Sasse, I’d probably vote no on Jackson, because I don’t trust her to come through on her opaque claim to support originalism.

I agree that she’s a dice roll

If she is being honest, then I kinda like her. She definitely leaned originalist

But she was vetted and murder boarded by the Biden camp… did she say things differently to them? Because at this confirmation she has put forward some very conservative judicial principles

Time will tell, I guess. But the Dems are overdue for being hoodwinked by a SCOTUS nominee


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

It had nothing really to do with Jackson, but Graham crushed it when he asked about her religious beliefs. It highlighted why I can't stand liberals these days. I'm no fan of diehards of either party, but run of the mill libs are just as reprehensible.

[SDHornet]

Anyone thinking Biden's handlers would let him nominate someone that won't toe the progressive at least 95% of the time isn't paying attention or is just a complete idiot.

[Ivytalk]

Sasse has announced his opposition, more or less for the reasons I identified. The usual suspects in the progtard blogosphere are outraged.