I want to summarize these hearings and make them uncomplicated.
Basically, Democrats refused to ask any questions of substance and instead, drooled over the possibility of placing a relatively inexperienced Justice on the court simply because she is a black woman.
At one point, Sen. Booker gave an over-the-top praise of her while tearing up. It was worthy of an Academy Award.
Republicans attempted to question her, but the only responses received were tantamount to "I don't know." At one point, she even gave a smarmy stupid response to a question asking her what a woman is. Her smarmy response: "I'm not a biologist." I'm sorry, I'm not a vet, but I know what a dog is. I'm not a geologist, but I know what a mountain is.
This is what happens when we no longer concern ourselves with actual records and decisions, but merely politicizing the court.
‘Disqualifying’ words from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
After four long days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee, we are left with more questions than answers about what kind of justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court — and the answers the Senate received were troubling to the point of being disqualifying.
Judge Jackson repeatedly claimed to not have a judicial philosophy. Instead, she suggested that she uses a “methodology” that she has developed throughout her time on the bench: utilizing “the arguments of the parties, the facts in the case, and the law that applies in every case” as “inputs” that aid her decision-making.
The problem is that this “methodology” wholly lacks substance, and Jackson described more of a functional strategy used by every judge, rather than a philosophical lens through which she views the law. A judicial philosophy is needed to inform how the law is read and how it applies to the facts of any case.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/disqualifying-words-from-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson/
Basically, Democrats refused to ask any questions of substance and instead, drooled over the possibility of placing a relatively inexperienced Justice on the court simply because she is a black woman.
At one point, Sen. Booker gave an over-the-top praise of her while tearing up. It was worthy of an Academy Award.
Republicans attempted to question her, but the only responses received were tantamount to "I don't know." At one point, she even gave a smarmy stupid response to a question asking her what a woman is. Her smarmy response: "I'm not a biologist." I'm sorry, I'm not a vet, but I know what a dog is. I'm not a geologist, but I know what a mountain is.
This is what happens when we no longer concern ourselves with actual records and decisions, but merely politicizing the court.
‘Disqualifying’ words from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
After four long days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee, we are left with more questions than answers about what kind of justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court — and the answers the Senate received were troubling to the point of being disqualifying.
Judge Jackson repeatedly claimed to not have a judicial philosophy. Instead, she suggested that she uses a “methodology” that she has developed throughout her time on the bench: utilizing “the arguments of the parties, the facts in the case, and the law that applies in every case” as “inputs” that aid her decision-making.
The problem is that this “methodology” wholly lacks substance, and Jackson described more of a functional strategy used by every judge, rather than a philosophical lens through which she views the law. A judicial philosophy is needed to inform how the law is read and how it applies to the facts of any case.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/disqualifying-words-from-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson/
