Breaking News Justice Breyer Retiring (US SCOTUS)

[49ersfootball]

For What its worth, she seems like a nice person.

Who will NEVER get any GOP vote in the United States Senate.

 

[Tiamat]

So, Ketanji Brown Jackson is Biden's official pick for SCOTUS....thoughts?? Observations?? Not too familiar with her myself.

Ketanji Brown Jackson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For What its worth, she seems like a nice person.

She may very well be, but she's getting nominated to SCOTUS, and will be going through the nomination process in DC. As it is often said, "You want a friend in Washington/Wall Street/Hollywood/politics/etc., get yourself a dog."

 

[Bacle]

 

[Abhorsen]

Put Roy Moore on the bench.

Not because of any merit, but because he's a complete maniac whose dissenting pieces would be a delight to read. Plus he's one of the few former Judges with the guts to call for states to disobey the SCOTUS when it's rulings are blatantly criminal.

We need more erosion of the mystique of our institutions not less.


A SCOTUS justice should be considered with that in mind.

Fuck no, last thing we need is a pedo on the bench, even as a joke. And no, sapping the power of SCOTUS (which comes directly from it's generic respect by Americans) by putting Moore on the bench directly helps Democrats. They hate the court (see the attempt at packing), and want to tear it down if they can.

If you want someone based, put Napolitano on the court.


As for Jackson, she's a shit judge. Which might be good in harming Kagan's ability to make coalitions, but overall bad everytime she writes an opinion. She's the only judge I think the Republicans have a prayer of not getting confirmed also. I just hope she's better than Sotomayor.

On the other hand, that's a fourth highly likely vote to scrap qualified immunity, which is great, and the resulting opinion would be assigned by Clarence Thomas (who likely gives it to himself or Gorsuch), so the opinion won't unleash stupidity. Just need a fifth somewhere, anywhere, and there's two candidates for it (both of the Trump judges).

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Fuck no, last thing we need is a pedo on the bench, even as a joke. And no, sapping the power of SCOTUS (which comes directly from it's generic respect by Americans) by putting Moore on the bench directly helps Democrats. They hate the court (see the attempt at packing), and want to tear it down if they can.

Moore isn't a pedo that was a bunch of lies by the FBI, he's also a militant anti globalist who had the balls to say everyone who fought in Iraq was gonna burn in hell for doing the bidding of a godless cabal of international glitterati types.

Personally I find that view absolutely repulsive but I want someone who would terrify big banks and tech companies and be open to them being trust busted or even declared terrorist organizations.

As to the SCOTUS. I want the mystique of American institutions destroyed so that the citizen can begin retaking them and forcing their managerial class to live in with a civic sword of damocles over their heads.

If you want someone based, put Napolitano on the court.

A lolbert kleptocrat? Sure 90s Napolitano maybe, 2000s Napolitano but the anti protectionist old man he became? Nah

for Jackson, she's a shit judge. Which might be good in harming Kagan's ability to make coalitions, but overall bad everytime she writes an opinion. She's the only judge I think the Republicans have a prayer of not getting confirmed also. I just hope she's better than Sotomayor.

Pretty sure she's a black supremacist, so she'll be at least as bad as Sonya and probably as retarded.

 

[Abhorsen]

Moore isn't a pedo that was a bunch of lies by the FBI, he's also a militant anti globalist who had the balls to say everyone who fought in Iraq was gonna burn in hell for doing the bidding of a godless cabal of international glitterati types.

No, that's not a buncha lies. The guy was known around town for it, and got caught in lies (like saying he never knew a girl who he signed the yearbook of, for example). I'd say the accusations are believable because the MSM weren't desperate enough to accept O'Keefe's sting (which is another point for Veritas: when they do catch the stinger for being unreliable, it means that the MSM are probably actually investigating the reports cause they have something real, instead of going fishing out of desperation).

Former cops knew about it and basically banned him from the mall for it. There's enough corroborating evidence from non-liberals (the Alabama cops from the 70s almost certainly aren't liberals, for example) that I believe it.

Personally I find that view absolutely repulsive but I want someone who would terrify big banks and tech companies and be open to them being trust busted or even declared terrorist organizations.

As to the SCOTUS. I want the mystique of American institutions destroyed so that the citizen can begin retaking them and forcing their managerial class to live in with a civic sword of damocles over their heads.

The Supreme Court is the only institution that actually limits the rest of the American institutions, so that's the only one I don't want to see damaged.

A lolbert kleptocrat? Sure 90s Napolitano maybe, 2000s Napolitano but the anti protectionist old man he became? Nah

Eh, protectionism is bad, I'd be fine with it. But Napolitano could stand on principle and shout at everyone, instead of standing on bullshit.

Pretty sure she's a black supremacist, so she'll be at least as bad as Sonya and probably as retarded.

I wouldn't be surprised, but source if you got one?

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

No, that's not a buncha lies. The guy was known around town for it, and got caught in lies (like saying he never knew a girl who he signed the yearbook of, for example). I'd say the accusations are believable because the MSM weren't desperate enough to accept O'Keefe's sting (which is another point for Veritas: when they do catch the stinger for being unreliable, it means that the MSM are probably actually investigating the reports cause they have something real, instead of going fishing out of desperation).

Former cops knew about it and basically banned him from the mall for it. There's enough corroborating evidence from non-liberals (the Alabama cops from the 70s almost certainly aren't liberals, for example) that I believe it.

From what I understand the signatures didn't match up and there were a bunch of other things that made it look like an op.

Him being a total pedo wouldn't surprise me because he's a fucking lunatic but my point was more put him there to expose the circus act.

The Supreme Court is the only institution that actually limits the rest of the American institutions, so that's the only one I don't want to see damaged.

It's been a bad joke since Bork got rejected and it's only becoming more corrupt and more progressive.

Eh, protectionism is bad, I'd be fine with it. But Napolitano could stand on principle and shout at everyone, instead of standing on bullshit.

Nah Peronism style protectionism is ruinous I agree with you there.

Teddy Roosevelt/Aramburo/Carribean style protectionism where you need citizenship and a loyalty oath to be a business owner and no banks that aren't credit Unions and favored nations type deals aren't inherently destructive.

They can be when multi-nationals just bribe citizens and use them as a front sure but there are ways to mitigate that.

I wouldn't be surprised, but source if you got one?

I may be confusing her with another Judge but It was about curtailing the first amendment of the ethnic majority on the grounds that their mere existence as a majority precludes them from needing codified protection.

...actually yeah I'm confusing her with a Miami Judge with a similarly goofy name my bad.

 

[Abhorsen]

It's been a bad joke since Bork got rejected and it's only becoming more corrupt and more progressive.

That's very much not true. Yes, Bork getting 'borked' was bad. But Scalia basically dragged the law profession from leftism by himself, and it's less corrupt and progressive now than ever, all with Originalism. Even liberal judges pay homage to it.

And this year, it's likely to hurt abortion, kill affirmative action, strengthen the 2nd amendment, etc.

Which is why, again, getting an Republican confirmation of Democrat judge would be big, as it basically concrete in the wins we get here as the Democrats reaffirm that the Supreme Court works by putting a judge in with Republican help.

But while politically there are advantages, IDK if she's a good enough judge from what I've read of her (as much as I prefer her politics to White's, for example).

 

[Bigking321]

Which is why, again, getting an Republican confirmation of Democrat judge would be big, as it basically concrete in the wins we get here as the Democrats reaffirm that the Supreme Court works by putting a judge in with Republican help.

The democrats have a bare majority. This is the chance to push for a moderate with actual respect for the constitution not some left wing radical that couldn't care less about the law and only cares if it helps her side or hurts ours.

 

[Abhorsen]

The democrats have a bare majority. This is the chance to push for a moderate with actual respect for the constitution not some left wing radical that couldn't care less about the law and only cares if it helps her side or hurts ours.

Hence my second paragraph:

But while politically there are advantages, IDK if she's a good enough judge from what I've read of her (as much as I prefer her politics to White's, for example).

But honestly, from a libertarian results based viewpoint (I differ in the results part), Jackson is as good as one can hope for. The moderate judges unite in that they don't care about individual rights. A progressive at least believes in some of them.

 

[Captain X]

But honestly, from a libertarian results based viewpoint (I differ in the results part), Jackson is as good as one can hope for. The moderate judges unite in that they don't care about individual rights. A progressive at least believes in some of them.

Only in a "for me but not for thee" sense.

 

[Abhorsen]

Only in a "for me but not for thee" sense.

No, the progressive judges believe in some individual rights generally. But they only believe in some. Generally, they are good on the 4th amendment, 1st amendment minus freedom of religion, anti-qualified immunity (note I didn't list a law here cause it's a judicial invention), and a few others. They are bad at freedom of religion, gun rights, most property rights, Chevron deference, etc.

Meanwhile, a moderate will find for the government on everything here.

 

[49ersfootball]

Fuck no, last thing we need is a pedo on the bench, even as a joke. And no, sapping the power of SCOTUS (which comes directly from it's generic respect by Americans) by putting Moore on the bench directly helps Democrats. They hate the court (see the attempt at packing), and want to tear it down if they can.

If you want someone based, put Napolitano on the court.


As for Jackson, she's a shit judge. Which might be good in harming Kagan's ability to make coalitions, but overall bad everytime she writes an opinion. She's the only judge I think the Republicans have a prayer of not getting confirmed also. I just hope she's better than Sotomayor.

On the other hand, that's a fourth highly likely vote to scrap qualified immunity, which is great, and the resulting opinion would be assigned by Clarence Thomas (who likely gives it to himself or Gorsuch), so the opinion won't unleash stupidity. Just need a fifth somewhere, anywhere, and there's two candidates for it (both of the Trump judges).

Going to laugh if Manchin & Sinema join GOPers in killing the nomination.