Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

ok righties and lefties tell me i am right or wrong? trump pushed kav because he wanted a stooge in the SC to further his agenda's and i am not talking abortion.............

Oh yeah, Trump talked openly about how he "saved" Kavanaugh's career and he'd have been destroyed if it wasn't for Trump backing him up, no doubt he believes Brett "owes" him some favors. 

 

Deeper down, it's the Conservative Federalist Society that 'helps' Republicans pick their judicial nominees. Almost all Conservative supreme justices have been a member of or have close ties with the Federalist Society.

[aubiefifty 16,680]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Oh yeah, Trump talked openly about how he "saved" Kavanaugh's career and he'd have been destroyed if it wasn't for Trump backing him up, no doubt he believes Brett "owes" him some favors. 

 

Deeper down, it's the Conservative Federalist Society that 'helps' Republicans pick their judicial nominees. Almost all Conservative supreme justices have been a member of or have close ties with the Federalist Society.

i never knew this so i will have to google them.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

21 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

Lacking any grounds for opposition, Republicans are resorting to slime.

[bigbird 60,368]

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48 

 

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3

 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22

Alito (HW) = 58-42 

 

Kagan (O) = 63-37

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 

 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 

 

Why is that?

 

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

[auburn41 492]

45 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Why is that?

Obviously......the only explanation.......is because those damn Republicans are so partisan🤣

Edited March 22, 2022 by auburn41

[bigbird 60,368]

1 minute ago, auburn41 said:

Obviously......the only explanation.......is because those damn Republicans are so partisan🤣

What do you call it when one group demands certain behaviors from another group while not subscribing to the same behaviors?

[CoffeeTiger 5,082]

51 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48 

 

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3

 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22

Alito (HW) = 58-42 

 

Kagan (O) = 63-37

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 

 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 

 

Why is that?

 

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

You can't really make a useful comparison without actually looking at the opposing party voting record on those confirmations, so I've provided this info below. 

The Result?

-Obviously Republicans have controlled more supreme court picks. 

-Clinton's nominees of Breyer and Ginsberg were uniquely popular among both parties. Really the only picks that got wide support from both parties. 

- HW Bushes' pick, Roberts got 50% Democrat support. 

- Both of Obama's picks were opposed by Republicans as much as any Democrat opposed Republican picks

- Trumps picks were all supremely unpopular and controversial.

Gorsuch, after Republicans blocked Obama from picking a replacement with with the excuse that it was too close to the election (Something they would later ignore with barrett)

Kavanaugh with the whole raping, and running around frat houses slapping girls with his penis thing...

Then Barratt which Trump and Republicans hurriedly rushed in right before they lost control in the election.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48  - 11-46

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9 - no # but obviously majority support from Republicans

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3 -33-9 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22 - 22-22 

Alito (HW) = 58-42  - 4-40 

Kagan (O) = 63-37 - 5 -36 

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 - 9-31 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48 - 3-41 

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48 - 1-46 

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 3-43

 

5 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Obviously......the only explanation.......is because those damn Republicans are so partisan🤣

 

like I've pointed out above, Outside of Clinton's 2 popular picks and then one of HW Bushe's pick, neither Republicans nor Democrats have provided much support for the other parties nominees. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[AUFAN78 3,889]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i am always in your hearts and minds...........

When the shoe fits fidy. 

[DKW 86 7,410]

On 3/21/2022 at 2:00 PM, I_M4_AU said:

In 1991 Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote, so this quote is a little bit of a cherry pick.  I doubt the Republican's will present a witness accusing her of unspeakable things.  I could be wrong, but playing the race card so early doesn’t bode well for the Democrats.

With Biden leading the Lynching Machine...

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by DKW 86

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

9 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Kavanaugh with the whole raping, and running around frat houses slapping girls with his penis thing...

Then Barratt which Trump and Republicans hurriedly rushed in right before they lost control in the election.

Think you mean accused regarding Kavanaugn……sure Barrett would have faced the same 11th hour scrutiny and sickness if she had a penis thing. Jmo

[DKW 86 7,410]

10 hours ago, bigbird said:

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48 

 

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3

 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22

Alito (HW) = 58-42 

 

Kagan (O) = 63-37

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 

 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 

 

Why is that?

 

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Your facts confuse the Narrative man...Damn you and your facts to hell....

[bigbird 60,368]

36 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Your facts confuse the Narrative man...Damn you and your facts to hell....

I'm just confused why it's not more widely discussed

[TexasTiger 12,800]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48 

 

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3

 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22

Alito (HW) = 58-42 

 

Kagan (O) = 63-37

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 

 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 

 

Why is that?

 

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Your premise is flawed. Kagan wasn’t remotely controversial and only got 5 Republican votes. 

[aubiefifty 16,680]

13 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

When the shoe fits fidy. 

i did not stutter young man.............

[bigbird 60,368]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Your premise is flawed. Kagan wasn’t remotely controversial and only got 5 Republican votes. 

I disagree.  I believe my premise is spot on. There may be an outlier, but the trend is intelligible.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

7 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I disagree.  I believe my premise is spot on. There may be an outlier, but the trend is intelligible.

Not really. Sotomayer only got 9. There were 60 senators caucusing with the Dems for Kagan and about that number for Sotomayer. Plus you totally ignored that Republicans didn’t even allow a vote on Garland— your calculus ignores that totally.

[bigbird 60,368]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Not really. Sotomayer only got 9. There were 60 senators caucusing with the Dems for Kagan and about that number for Sotomayer. Plus you totally ignored that Republicans didn’t even allow a vote on Garland— your calculus ignores that totally.

If there wasn't a vote, how can you discuss votes the nomination received.  He doesn't belong, I didn't add Miers either since he withdrew.

 

You don't agree with my premise and think it's flawed. Okay. I don't.  Neither will convince the other and I don't have the time I did yesterday. 

I truly hope you have a really good day.  

[TexasTiger 12,800]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

If there wasn't a vote, how can you discuss votes the nomination received.  He doesn't belong, I didn't add Miers either since he withdrew.

 

You don't agree with my premise and think it's flawed. Okay. I don't.  Neither will convince the other and I don't have the time I did yesterday. 

I truly hope you have a really good day.  

Basic math and I disagree with your premise. His friend Logic agrees with me, too, on Garland. 😉 But you have a good day, too. And War Eagle!

[bigbird 60,368]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Basic math and I disagree with your premise. His friend Logic agrees with me, too, on Garland. 😉 But you have a good day, too. And War Eagle!

Thanks, appreciate it.

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

So, why is so hard for a Harvard Law degreed lawyer to answer such a simple question?

This discussion starts about the 5:00 mark.

It appears Judge Jackson doesn’t want to answer.  She seems to avoid telling what she really thinks.  Why would this be controversial?

Other justices have been asked and they have answered personal belief questions.  She sounds disinguenous.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

11 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i did not stutter young man.............

And the shoe fit didn't it? 

[TexasTiger 12,800]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, why is so hard for a Harvard Law degreed lawyer to answer such a simple question?

This discussion starts about the 5:00 mark.

It appears Judge Jackson doesn’t want to answer.  She seems to avoid telling what she really thinks.  Why would this be controversial?

Other justices have been asked and they have answered personal belief questions.  She sounds disinguenous.

Why is a Senator asking such a question?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

43 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Why is a Senator asking such a question?

Because that topic is front and center at the moment........

[TexasTiger 12,800]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Because that topic is front and center at the moment........

From a possibly contested legal context?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

From a possibly contested legal context?

Not yet as far as I know. But the whole man/women/non binary topic has come up recently especially in sports. I definitely see where something at some point is going to end up in court. That’s why it was asked.