Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	More than def of a woman
Date:	3/29/2022 12:05:23 PM (updated 3/29/2022 1:05:07 PM)

Sen. Sasse, whom I have had many doubts, cannot support USSC nominee Jackson for very cogent and thoughtful reasons:

Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation. Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role. Instead she seemed to imply, like Justice Elena Kagan, that originalism is just one of the tools judges use – not a genuine constraint on judicial power. Judge Jackson’s record makes it clear she has more tools in her toolbox.

It’s important to study the McGahn case, one of the few times Judge Jackson was asked to decide a novel constitutional question. Instead of carefully examining the constitutional principles, rooted in the text, that should have governed that case, Judge Jackson created a new, implied constitutional right to sue; discounted separation of powers principles; and, under the guise of abstract “constitutional values,” shoehorned policy views about the presidency into her opinion. This is a pattern. In Make the Road New York and in AFL-CIO v. Trump – which Judge Jackson described as two of her most important cases – higher courts unanimously reversed Judge Jackson for exceeding her authority. As I made clear in our Tuesday and Wednesday exchanges, it is one thing to explain a judicial philosophy but quite another to agree to judge bound by such a system of restraint...I am grateful for Judge Jackson’s service and wish her and her family the best as she takes her seat on the Court, but I am unable to consent to the nomination.”

Yet he is being castigated by the left as racist, sexist etc etc.....Same ol, same ol

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	More than def of a woman
Date:	3/29/2022 1:42:01 PM

If you understand Democrats like we do it was already abundantly clear that no one ascribing to originalism could vote for whomever they nominated.  As I've watched portions of the hearings it is very clear that she doesn't want to say anything that could upset the loony left...like providing a definition for a woman.  But her rulings and the reversals, even by left leaning courts, is to me quite enough to vote no.  And it would be the same answer if she were an old white guy.  I think they realize that she only needed to convince Manchin and Sinema and she was in.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	More than def of a woman
Date:	3/29/2022 1:58:08 PM

The one Senator to which these words: sediment, ooze, silt, mud, muck, residue, slop, mire, slime, slush, slob (Irish), dregs, gloop, and grease ball,  most describe is Manchin.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Come on….
Date:	3/29/2022 2:12:07 PM

Can’t we just call it a two tokens for one appointment.  After all, that’s what stupid, mentally ill Biden called it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	More than def of a woman
Date:	3/29/2022 2:45:42 PM

Yeah, I've never understood the fascination on the right with Manchin as if he is anything other than an opportunistic sleaze bag that does just enough to keep the people of WVa voting for him.  He is so out of step with the state that its a miracle he keeps getting reelected.  Shows the power of incumbency.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	More than def of a woman
Date:	3/29/2022 9:17:54 PM

It didn't matter how she answered any of the questions or what her history is - she is the token being used by Biden to pander to the black vote.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Dems have enough votes to get her confirmed with Harris casting the tie vote.  

Funny though, here Biden made such a big deal about putting a black woman on the Supreme Court and the one he chose cannot define what a woman is - so what was the big deal about making it a woman if Dems cannot define "woman".  Just more of the nonsense of this Administation.  

At least Clarence Thompson has recovered.