Ketanji Brown Jackson

by liberal japonicus

As a quick post, this WaPo article was interesting for the way it organized the information. Anyway, a thread to discuss, have at it.

Comments

[CharlesWT]

Some libertarian pundits have commented favorably on Jackson. Is that disqualifying?...

Biden undercut her by saying he was going to select a black woman. He should have just selected her and then said he selected the best candidate.

[liberal japonicus]

Some libertarian pundits have commented favorably on Jackson. Is that disqualifying?...

Dunno, how about tossing a link to see why they are commenting favorably?

[wj]

He should have just selected her and then said he selected the best candidate.

It would have made things easier now. The question is, did saying it during the campaign improve the chances of there being "now" to improve?

It is amusung to watch Republican Senators, who were among those voting, essentially unanimously, to confirm her for her previous two judicial appointments, struggling to find a plausible reason to oppose her now. The guys who are untethered to reality (Cruz, Hawley, etc.) have it easy; for the rest, it's more awkward.

[Marty]

I think she seems exceptionally qualified. She should get 75 votes at least. Just my take.

[hairshirthedonist]

I can't get my head around what a circus the process is. Not only senators, but a select group of senators on the judiciary committee - supposedly the ones most qualified to conduct these hearings? - acting like complete jackasses for the whole world to see. The absurdity of it is astounding.

I don't expect a process completely free of grandstanding/showboating, but this has been out of control. It's a farce.

[Marty]

hsh, after the last two of these this is pretty tame. Ultimately she isn't going to answer any substantive question even if asked. So it's all for show anyway.

[Hartmut]

It would have made things easier now.

I doubt that. There is in essence no one qualified that would not get that treatment from the current GOP.

What SCOTUS needs is a conflict of interest clause with teeth. Dem appointed justices regularly recuse themselves from cases for that reason, GOP appointed ones rarely do (and get attacked viciously in those cases for their lack of proper Parteilichkeit).

[CharlesWT]

- acting like complete jackasses for the whole world to see.

This is pretty much true no matter which party's president is doing the nominating.

[hairshirthedonist]

hsh, after the last two of these this is pretty tame.

Yes, especially as the first of the last two is concerned … if we’re talking about the nominee. “I like beer!”

[Hartmut]

If it was up to me, potential justices would have to get registered far in advance with a mandatory, regular and - most important - public background check for conflicts of interest, violations of codes of honor and potential criminal problems. Potential candidates would have to disclose all important details. Failing to do so before even getting nominated would automatically bar them from candidacy.
Of course, hearings and floor votes would have to be mandatory with given minimum times. In that case I am also all for actually implementing the 'McConnell rule' by law, so 'last minute' push-throughs would be legally impossible as well as procrastinations by not having hearings or denying a vote.
Of course, NONE of that will happen.

[hairshirthedonist]

The rot reaches to the SCOTUS. The spouse of a justice directly contacting high-level WH staff to urge them to overturn a presidential election. Thomas should resign. I doubt he will, but I guess it's possible ... theoretically - in the mathematical sense that there is some epsilon greater than zero representing the probability that he does.

[Girl from the North Country]

what hsh said.

[wj]

The rot reaches to the SCOTUS. The spouse of a justice directly contacting high-level WH staff to urge them to overturn a presidential election. Thomas should resign.

Especially since she has been actively involved in a variety of far-right activities for years. This is merely a more publicly visible case.

So no, he won't resign. At least, not over this -- a massive stroke of something might do it. But most likely, it's a matter of waiting for his lifetime tenure to expire.

[wj]

You do have to wonder what Mrs. Thomas' reaction was to the suggestion, by Senator Braun (R-Indiana) that the Court should reverse Loving v Virginia. After all, as a resident of Virginia, that would invalidate her marriage.

[nous]

Even more troubling (WaPo, via Vice - https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7w53e/ginni-thomas-qanon):

Ginni Thomas’ lobbying effort started nearly immediately after Election Day. On Nov. 5, 2020, she texted Meadows a link to a YouTube video from far-right former State Department official and conspiracy theorist Steve Pieczenik with the title “TRUMP STING w CIA Director Steve Pieczenik, The Biggest Election Story in History, QFS-BLOCKCHAIN.”

“I hope this is true; never heard anything like this before, or even a hint of it. Possible???” she texted Meadows.

“Watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states,” Thomas continued.

These texts are a word salad of QAnon terminology. QAnon adherents falsely believed that Trump had watermarked mail-in ballots to track potential fraud—the phrase “Watch the water” was popular on QAnon message boards. The reference to “QFS” in the video refers to a "quantum blockchain watermark" conspiracy that had just emerged in QAnon fever swamps that claimed that all mail-in ballots contained a secret watermark.

[hairshirthedonist]

With some people, you take what you can get in the context of low expectations. I'll take this.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/collins-will-vote-to-confirm-jackson-00021619

The Maine senator is the first — and could be the only — Republican to back Jackson’s confirmation. She was widely viewed as the most likely GOP vote for Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the high court, and Biden had lobbied Collins for her support, calling the senator to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy at least three times.

[CharlesWT]

One libertarian pundit's arguments for Jackson's confirmation.

"Earlier today, I submitted the following letter (PDF here) to the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighting what I consider to be Ketanji Brown Jackson’s most important qualification for the Supreme Court: She would be the first justice who worked as a public defender, and, unlike most of the other Justices, she never served as a prosecutor or other courtroom advocate for government.

Of course, as with any justice appointed by a Democratic or Republican president, we expect to have plenty of disagreements with a Justice Jackson; but as committed, consistent libertarians, we anticipate significant areas of agreement as well."
Confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson

The article continues with the text of the letter to the Judiciary Committee.

[hairshirthedonist]

I'll take that too! (I'll leave aside my expectation level for libertarians.)