SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[NoCalMike]

Hawley was basically trying to cherry pick a few individual cases where it can be argued that sentencing was lenient and create a "judicial philosophy" out of it.  That was the problem with his questioning.  If he has an issue with sentencing guidelines and what/how they are used to determine sentences he can make that argument and advise on a different outcome, but this is the wrong forum for that.  All he was trying to do was get a good soundbite for cable news. 

[tshile]

He also cherry picked the facts. 
 

which is important to point out. 
 

the person that very recently slogged through her cases, by his own admission, and this case, was the one with very specific and sparse on details and offered no context. 
 

the person that was put on the spot held her own in arguing the general idea that she tried to be fair - and was specific that while she doesn’t recall details of that case, she does remember it being unique. 
 

I just feel like this is one of those textbook situations where you don’t need to dig into things too much to see what’s going on…

 

And you know Hawley read the entire case, multiple times, knows there was important context and nuance, and choose to not include it; even when she mentioned that she was missing those things and they are required to give a better answer. 
 

 

Listening to the npr recap now - he specifically said he read all of her statements/decisions in the case. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

It is funny how she smacked Ted Cruz around. 
 

he thought he was being clever. 
 

 

[Dan T.]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

 

the only real issue I take with all of this is that it ignores the idea that demand drives supply. By simply consuming child pornography, you are furthering the desire of someone to supply it to make money. I think that needs to be a bigger part of the conversation. Though in a different forum I would imagine (like debating legislation, if our legislators even do that anymore…)

I saw a clip of Judge Jackson - I believe it was from her opening remarks - saying what she tells all offenders convicted of possession of child porn, and she makes the exact point that you make here - dramatically and forcefully.   It is worth viewing as it also makes crystal clear she understands the devastating effect these crimes have on the victims.

[Fergasun]

Senator Mike Braun just came out and said that interracial marriage should be left up to the states and the Supreme Court shouldn't homogenize (ie. protect liberties and rights across the country). 

 

I find this crazy talk.  Maybe he "walked it back" but basically conservatives believe that our country, society, humanity. and government can't advance beyond the "original intent" of the framers for a "limited government."  Yes, an original intent where sickly slaves were 3/5th a person, woman couldn't vote, we didn't directly elect Senators and only certain people were given the unalieable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

[Dan T.]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

It is funny how she smacked Ted Cruz around. 
 

he thought he was being clever. 

 

 

 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

One of the npr hosts, speaking once they took a break for roll call, made a good point.  The reason why congress will never revisit the child porn guidelines issue, despite being asked to, is because no one wants their name attached to a bill that seeks to lower the sentencing guidelines for someone caught with child porn. 

 

Recall decades ago, when I was living in NoVa, the state passed a law that changed the laws on statutatory rape.  The new law was that having consensual sex with a girl aged 13-17 wasn't a felony, if the male was within two years of her age.  And same thing with a girl aged 9-12, if the male was within 1 year.  

 

Those things were still crimes.  They just weren't adult-level felony crimes.  

 

Shock of shocks, a year later, political opponents are running ads that Senator So-and-so had voted to repeal the law prohibiting having sex with 9 year old girls.  

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

basically conservatives believe that our country, society, humanity. and government can't advance beyond the "original intent" of the framers for a "limited government."  Yes, an original intent where sickly slaves were 3/5th a person, woman couldn't vote, we didn't directly elect Senators and only certain people were given the unalieable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

yeah original intend is just code for the rest of what t you wrote (more or less)

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

interracial marriage

Seriously this is a thing?

 

people are really into the idea of letting states decide whether interracial marriage should be outlawed?

 

My god I must live in a ****ing bubble or something. 

[China]

I wonder what this SC justice might think about interracial marriage:

 

[Fergasun]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

Seriously this is a thing?

 

people are really into the idea of letting states decide whether interracial marriage should be outlawed?

 

My god I must live in a ****ing bubble or something. 

He was just asked about it and gave an honest answer.  They don't want the Constitution to evolve... he basically equated it back to Roe v. Wade and the individual liberty for women to choose an abortion. "You can't pick and choose because that is hypocritical".   I don't necessarily believe that it is as black and white as "abortion" , "interracial marriage" , "gay marriage." 

 

 

But precisely this is why we have Article III judges to protect individual rights.  All these argument make me sick in light of the Texas "we will make a loophole to ban abortion".  The government is acting to permit individuals to enforce this law.  It is crazy that the Supreme Court allowed this scheme...

[Fergasun]

... 

...

Adding some white space for a seperate post.  I watched Cruz's questions.  For not being a "racist" he is certainly very upset about books that are "anti-racist."  God forbid we have teenagers read books called "How To Be an Anti-Racist".    Oh and that book and the "Antiracist baby" book were written by someone who won a National Book Award for a book titled: "Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America." 

 

It's actually disgusting that a Senator is using anti-racist ideas and books to attack an African American judicial nominee.  Like what is wrong with thinking perhaps that some version of history, ideas and national narrative ignores racism in our country.  And why are mostly white and certainly non black Senators so offended by that thought.

 

 

[Llevron]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

Seriously this is a thing?

 

people are really into the idea of letting states decide whether interracial marriage should be outlawed?

 

My god I must live in a ****ing bubble or something. 

I think it had to be just that one guy and maybe a very few nuts. I can’t really imagine that’s a widely held opinion. 
 

though I wish Dems were smart enough to capitalize on it but whatevs I guess 

[skinsmarydu]

LMAO...MoJoe and panel were just talking about her Christianity "on a scale of 1-10"...someone said she should have replied, "I turn it up to 11." 

[tshile]

7 hours ago, Fergasun said:

It's actually disgusting that a Senator is using anti-racist ideas and books to attack an African American judicial nominee. 

I also find the standard “you know, I liked Martin Luther King Jr” opening comment when addressing a black nominee to be disgusting and disrespectful. 
 

I get that she’s far to smart, well mannered, and in a spot where she has to not give any sound bites and just sit there and take it. 
 

but man it’d be nice to see her dress one of them down for it. 
 

you know she’d do a fantastic job… judges have great experience in taking advantage of those spots when someone offers it up so nicely…

 

Somewhat on that mark - I’ve found her to have handled herself well. I have no real experience on the nomination process - I pay attention here and there but I hardly have lots of examples to drawl on. But just in the general sense of handling oneself when put on the spot - she’s done great. 

[Forehead]

8 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

 

Al Franken had a chapter on this in his humor book about being in the Senate, about how Ted Cruz is completely detested behind the scenes on both sides of the aisle.  It was hilarious to read.

[Dan T.]

18 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

Al Franken had a chapter on this in his humor book about being in the Senate, about how Ted Cruz is completely detested behind the scenes on both sides of the aisle.  It was hilarious to read.

 

One quote from him is something like "I like Ted Cruz more than most other Senators do.  And I hate Ted Cruz." 

 

But then he gives specific examples of the weaselly, underhanded, and self-serving things Cruz has done. 

[Dan T.]

Here's the real issue...

 

Republicans Accuse Supreme Court Nominee of Being Chosen by Biden

 

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a blistering attack on the Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senate Republicans accused the judge of having been nominated by President Biden.

 

Senator Josh Hawley led the charge, telling reporters that he had “conclusive evidence” linking Jackson to Biden. “Judge Jackson met with Biden, talked to Biden, and allowed herself to be nominated by Biden,” Hawley said. 

 

Senator Mitch McConnell called Jackson’s apparent ties to Biden “gravely troubling.”

 

Republicans Accuse Supreme Court Nominee of Being Chosen by Biden | The New Yorker

[Dan T.]

Thom Tillis just tried to throw a grenade and it blew up in his face.  

[Fergasun]

One more point on this.  I just read coverage from a right-sided news source.  

 

"Judge Jackson didn't know how to respond to Ted Cruz' questions and she threw the antiracist CRT author under the bus but is too dumb to realize this."

 

Also, she is getting attacked for being "too dumb to define woman"... so how can we celebrate her nomination as a woman when she doesn't know how to define herself as a woman?  

 

@tshile

This is really par for the course for the Supreme Court nomination hearings.  The minority party will spin their best to make political attacks.  I followed since Kagan -- Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett were all pretty typical. 

 

Kavanaugh's hearing was such an outlier that if you put it side-by-side to the others it would really be shocking. 

 

The best moment I remember from any of them was Kagan being asked my Lindsey Graham, "Where were you on December 25th?" (in relation to the shoe bomber) and she quipped "like any good Jew, I was at a Chinese restaurant".  But the old hearings do remind us some of the poitical debate. Like executive overreach concern during Alito hearing and a lot of war on terror questioning (I looked up some of the dissent to Alito).  

[Dan T.]

 

  

24 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

One more point on this.  I just read coverage from a right-sided news source.  

 

"Judge Jackson didn't know how to respond to Ted Cruz' questions and she threw the antiracist CRT author under the bus but is too dumb to realize this."

 

Also, she is getting attacked for being "too dumb to define woman"... so how can we celebrate her nomination as a woman when she doesn't know how to define herself as a woman?  

 

 

 

I see dumb people during these hearings, but they sure as hell aren't named Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Dan T.

[LadySkinsFan]

The Republicans are now saying out loud and in Congress what they've thought ever since the parties switched philosophies.

[88Comrade2000]

The gop may not stop her nomination but they are going to rough her up. They want the child predator supporter thing to stick.  
 

I still can see the 2 Dino Judas derailing this nomination and vote no.

 

No republicans will end up voting yes.

[PeterMP]

I will say, I like the idea of a Republican saying that inter-racial marriages should be left up to the states.  I'm not against anti-racial marriages and wouldn't support them being made illegal.

 

But if you are going to say you support and believe interpreting the Constitution literally be honest and consistent and that's being honest and consistent.

 

Let's have a real debate where people are being intellectually honest and consistent and see what American choose.

[88Comrade2000]

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I will say, I like the idea of a Republican saying that inter-racial marriages should be left up to the states.  I'm not against anti-racial marriages and wouldn't support them being made illegal.

 

But if you are going to say you support and believe interpreting the Constitution literally be honest and consistent and that's being honest and consistent.

 

Let's have a real debate where people are being intellectually honest and consistent and see what American choose.

Would Thomas vote to send it back to the states. If his state made his marriage illegal; would he leave his illegal wife.