Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Time will tell, of course, but she claims to be a "Scalia-type" originalist. I haven't read her rulings but what happens on lower courts is not always consistent with what happens on SCOTUS. Some folks called her answer in defining a woman as "dumb" and "evasive" but that answer was on the same level of inappropriate as the question in this setting IMO.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

For someone who was unwilling to (or couldn't) define a woman, I can see how someone would believe her to more progressive than just liberal

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

BS on BS

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

For someone who was unwilling to (or couldn't) define a woman, I can see how someone would believe her to more progressive than just liberal

---

That was a ridiculous piece of political theater but she could have handled it better.

I challenged this board to look up statutory definitions; nobody did.

That question was inappropriate as it called for an answer that is equivalent to judging without hearing the merits. Get into the statutory weeds and you'll understand.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

Funny nothing matters. Bork put 5his lady to shame and Biden led the lynching. But for her, nothing matters...

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

Funny nothing matters. Bork put 5his lady to shame and Biden led the lynching. But for her, nothing matters...

---

Qualifications matter. She was highly qualified. Her opponents failed to land any punches.

The worst thing you can say about this nomination is what I said when candidate Biden promised to nominate a Black woman: stupid move. Promise to get a list of the best and brightest and then pick a Black woman. You don't get votes in 2020, you have to win, choose a nominee, and run again to benefit but it's still a better route.

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

So coming out of Baylor Law you would view Public Defender office as a successful job search?

How many of the Partners or even Associates came from Public Denfendrr?

How many top criminal attorneys came form Public Defender or would even hire someone that's top choice coming out of law school was PD?

I know dont matter.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

So coming out of Baylor Law you would view Public Defender office as a successful job search?

How many of the Partners or even Associates came from Public Denfendrr?

How many top criminal attorneys came form Public Defender or would even hire someone that's top choice coming out of law school was PD?

I know dont matter.

---

The public defender's I'm talking about didn't go there from law school; three were ADAs, the fourth a long time defense lawyer.

Partners at civil firms don't usually have an criminal experience. SCOTUS has never had a public defender. Her viewpoint will be valuable.

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

So coming out of Baylor Law you would view Public Defender office as a successful job search?

How many of the Partners or even Associates came from Public Denfendrr?

How many top criminal attorneys came form Public Defender or would even hire someone that's top choice coming out of law school was PD?

I know dont matter.

---

The public defender's I'm talking about didn't go there from law school; three were ADAs, the fourth a long time defense lawyer.

Partners at civil firms don't usually have an criminal experience. SCOTUS has never had a public defender. Her viewpoint will be valuable.

---

Funny, I agreed with you when I saw her on paper. Qualified. Then I watched her in real life. Opinion changed completely, she is not US SC material. State SC, sure. As for your comments.

Didn't land any punches?? Did you watch the confirmation? She bumbelled through it.

She didn't answer the questions and she was snarky in her responses. She has 1 appellate opinion in a year and she has been overturned for judicial over reach.

Her biggest achievement is she attended Harvard and was a Public Defender, a job which any Texas Southern law grad can get.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

So coming out of Baylor Law you would view Public Defender office as a successful job search?

How many of the Partners or even Associates came from Public Denfendrr?

How many top criminal attorneys came form Public Defender or would even hire someone that's top choice coming out of law school was PD?

I know dont matter.

---

The public defender's I'm talking about didn't go there from law school; three were ADAs, the fourth a long time defense lawyer.

Partners at civil firms don't usually have an criminal experience. SCOTUS has never had a public defender. Her viewpoint will be valuable.

---

Funny, I agreed with you when I saw her on paper. Qualified. Then I watched her in real life. Opinion changed completely, she is not US SC material. State SC, sure. As for your comments.

Didn't land any punches?? Did you watch the confirmation? She bumbelled through it.

She didn't answer the questions and she was snarky in her responses. She has 1 appellate opinion in a year and she has been overturned for judicial over reach.

Her biggest achievement is she attended Harvard and was a Public Defender, a job which any Texas Southern law grad can get.

---

She's black and she's a woman (although she doesn't know the definition). That's all that's required to be a justice in Biden's world. How cool.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

She has been overturned for Judicial over reach.

"Brown Jackson often served as a one-woman "resistance" to President Trump's agenda, including on core Democratic Party concerns like labor unionization and immigration. Consider:

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, in 2018, Judge Brown Jackson slapped down significant portions of three Trump executive orders involving federal government bargaining with labor unions. (She also ruled in favor of public-sector unions in her first published opinion on the D.C. Circuit earlier this month.)

In Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson enjoined the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security from implementing its plan to expedite removal of illegal aliens who had arrived in the country within the last two years.

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

All three of these anti-Trump district court opinions were reversed on appealthe first two unanimously, and involving Democrat-appointed progressive luminaries among her current D.C. Circuit colleagues. These cases involve heavy-lift opinions (each spanning from 118 to 122 pages), executive power and the Trump administration, core questions of administrative and constitutional law, and hot-button political concerns."

This doesn't cause pause in whether she will rule on law or be an activist?

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

For equally applicable takes, she might have also said "unicorns are not horses" and "gravity; not just a good idea - it's the law."

Granted, she wouldn't have been quite so absurdly political and working as a democrat operative from the bench.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

She made a decision that was to get a result and overturned, the Judges that overturned her were Dems. She was wrong. Here is what they said when they (Judges) overturned it.

'There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal within statute or bounds to the secretary's independent judgement. The forceful phrase of 'sole and unreviewable discretion,' by its exceptional terms. 'Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.'"

That is pretty damn clear and she still did it to get the result she personally wanted. Isn't that not:

A - a stinging censure that she clearly knowingly went where she shouldn't
B - a bit more than a technicality? She didn't miss a deadline, she made a ruling that that she did not have the authority to make. A ruling that stopped a legal policy. That is a bit more than a technicality.
C - Activism

Come on, have a shred of credibility.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

Which part?

---

The sentencing for pedophiles comes to mind.

---

As was shown, her sentencing did not deviate from other judges. Every case has a punishment range; some will fall in the lower end and deservedly so.

I would be more suspicious of a judge who slammed every defendant with the max, as that shows a lack of judicial temperament.

---

How many opinions has she written?

How many times overturned?

Also, being a Public Defender is not necessarily a positive, they don't get our brightest and best, yet that is a positive for the Supreme Court? I know one, who is there due to a catastrophic divorce. An Attorney ends up at the PD, there is a reason.

---

Don't know, not proven to be an issue.

I have known some terrific PDs, better than most retained.

---

So coming out of Baylor Law you would view Public Defender office as a successful job search?

How many of the Partners or even Associates came from Public Denfendrr?

How many top criminal attorneys came form Public Defender or would even hire someone that's top choice coming out of law school was PD?

I know dont matter.

---

The public defender's I'm talking about didn't go there from law school; three were ADAs, the fourth a long time defense lawyer.

Partners at civil firms don't usually have an criminal experience. SCOTUS has never had a public defender. Her viewpoint will be valuable.

---

Funny, I agreed with you when I saw her on paper. Qualified. Then I watched her in real life. Opinion changed completely, she is not US SC material. State SC, sure. As for your comments.

Didn't land any punches?? Did you watch the confirmation? She bumbelled through it.

She didn't answer the questions and she was snarky in her responses. She has 1 appellate opinion in a year and she has been overturned for judicial over reach.

Her biggest achievement is she attended Harvard and was a Public Defender, a job which any Texas Southern law grad can get.

---

She answered lots of questions. But for a good thirty years committee members have been asking for pre-judgment responses and most nominees know better than to bite.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

She made a decision that was to get a result and overturned, the Judges that overturned her were Dems. She was wrong. Here is what they said when they (Judges) overturned it.

'There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal within statute or bounds to the secretary's independent judgement. The forceful phrase of 'sole and unreviewable discretion,' by its exceptional terms. 'Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.'"

That is pretty damn clear and she still did it to get the result she personally wanted. Isn't that not:

A - a stinging censure that she clearly knowingly went where she shouldn't
B - a bit more than a technicality? She didn't miss a deadline, she made a ruling that that she did not have the authority to make. A ruling that stopped a legal policy. That is a bit more than a technicality.
C - Activism

Come on, have a shred of credibility.

---

No, it is not a stinging censure. It's a difference of opinion on a newly developing area of the law. The appeals court simply found that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case. They went on to say that Trump's absolutist claim was "shaky" on the merits and to criticize the breakdown of accommodation that caused the court to get involved in the first place.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits. Jurisdiction is more than technicality. She had no right to pass judgment or give her opinion, that was expessidly given to the AG. Whether she agreed or not was immaterial and judicial overstepping. That is big, no a mere technicality.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences.

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. That right there should be disqualifying. DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist Papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

---

I disagree with her willingness to rule on cases where the Courts have no jurisdiction to get the result she wants. I think that makes her unfit for the US SC. Trying to put political activists on the US SC is a serious issue I have with the Dems. The Reps seem to put Justices that agree with their views on the Constitution, but are no way near as activist as pretty much all the Dem's choices. Look at the list. Name me one modern US SC Justice the Republicans have put on that is an activist? Maybe Alito is as close as you get, but he in no where near Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and now Jackson. The Courts are arbitrators, not policy makers.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

---

I disagree with her willingness to rule on cases where the Courts have no jurisdiction to get the result she wants. I think that makes her unfit for the US SC. Trying to put political activists on the US SC is a serious issue I have with the Dems. The Reps seem to put Justices that agree with their views on the Constitution, but are no way near as activist as pretty much all the Dem's choices. Look at the list. Name me one modern US SC Justice the Republicans have put on that is an activist? Maybe Alito is as close as you get, but he in no where near Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and now Jackson. The Courts are arbitrators, not policy makers.

---

Judges get reversed all the time. It wasn't clear whether there was jurisdiction, and since the case never reached the Supreme Court, it's not totally clear even now. You should be more concerned about what your executive is hiding from you and why.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

---

I disagree with her willingness to rule on cases where the Courts have no jurisdiction to get the result she wants. I think that makes her unfit for the US SC. Trying to put political activists on the US SC is a serious issue I have with the Dems. The Reps seem to put Justices that agree with their views on the Constitution, but are no way near as activist as pretty much all the Dem's choices. Look at the list. Name me one modern US SC Justice the Republicans have put on that is an activist? Maybe Alito is as close as you get, but he in no where near Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and now Jackson. The Courts are arbitrators, not policy makers.

---

Judges get reversed all the time. It wasn't clear whether there was jurisdiction, and since the case never reached the Supreme Court, it's not totally clear even now. You should be more concerned about what your executive is hiding from you and why.

---

This is from the Panel. Seems pretty clear. But, if you think that the Judicial Branch has primacy and is an instrument to create policy, than I guess that is ambiguous.

'There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal within statute or bounds to the secretary's independent judgement. The forceful phrase of 'sole and unreviewable discretion,' by its exceptional terms. 'Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.'"

I really do not get why you are attacking my position so hard. These are my opinion. Clearly, the Dems disagree as they have consistently pushed activist judges that believe they are there to right social wrongs based on their personal opinions. I do not expect them to agree.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

---

I disagree with her willingness to rule on cases where the Courts have no jurisdiction to get the result she wants. I think that makes her unfit for the US SC. Trying to put political activists on the US SC is a serious issue I have with the Dems. The Reps seem to put Justices that agree with their views on the Constitution, but are no way near as activist as pretty much all the Dem's choices. Look at the list. Name me one modern US SC Justice the Republicans have put on that is an activist? Maybe Alito is as close as you get, but he in no where near Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and now Jackson. The Courts are arbitrators, not policy makers.

---

Judges get reversed all the time. It wasn't clear whether there was jurisdiction, and since the case never reached the Supreme Court, it's not totally clear even now. You should be more concerned about what your executive is hiding from you and why.

---

This is from the Panel. Seems pretty clear. But, if you think that the Judicial Branch has primacy and is an instrument to create policy, than I guess that is ambiguous.

'There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal within statute or bounds to the secretary's independent judgement. The forceful phrase of 'sole and unreviewable discretion,' by its exceptional terms. 'Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.'"

I really do not get why you are attacking my position so hard. These are my opinion. Clearly, the Dems disagree as they have consistently pushed activist judges that believe they are there to right social wrongs based on their personal opinions. I do not expect them to agree.

---

Well, you said she was unfit because she was reversed on a jurisdictional issue. That's a rather extreme position. And again, the panel agreed with her on the substantive issue, which is where the policy-making really happens. All courts make policy. They don't legislate, which is different.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

liberal judge replacing a liberal judge, not surprised coming from a democrat administration. Same thing from a republican administration.

Biden didn't do her any favors by saying that he would only consider a black female, but he couldn't help himself from pandering to the female identity group and the black identity group.

He would've come across more genuine and his pick more qualified if he kept his mouth shut and just nominated her. But in the end, like so many times before, he can't keep his mouth shut.

---

we replaced a liberal judge with a progressive judge....replacing a judge who would at least pay deference to the Constitution with one who will seek to redefine it wholesale.

---

Neither her record nor the hearings support that.

---

Her record certainly does.

---

so do the hearings. %A0she consistently treated pedophile laws as systemically oppressive to minor attracted people, ergo issued minimum sentences. %A0

---

In Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, also in 2019, Judge Brown Jackson ruled that the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives could compel former Trump counsel Don McGahn to testify about White House conversations. Her opinion contains pithy statements like "Presidents are not kings" and "The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men."

---

Presidents not kings? Rule of law? How dare she? That's un-American!

---

She was overturned Sam. %A0She ruled against established Executive Power because she didn't like Trump's policy, a policy clearly within the parameters of the Executive Branch. %A0She did this several times, she was viewed as the Chief resister, that is not the Judicial Branch's role. %A0That is problematic, she made rulings to get a result not precedent or similar rulings for Presidents she liked. %A0That is the definition of activism.

You might not agree with the Unitarian Executive view, but it is well established and accepted even by impartial Democratic appointed Judges that overruled her.

My fear is that she is a toady for the Progressives and will rule regardless of what the law or precedent states. %A0Funny how Roe is settled law, when the primacy of the President within the Executive Branch is a much older more established policy. %A0I am starting to believe you like the Progressives are more interested in getting an outcome than staying true to the Constitution.

---

Actually she was reversed on a technicality. The substance of her opinion had a good deal of support among Democrats and originalist conservatives alike.

---

she was reversed on a technicality, she was technically wrong..

---

Right on the merits, arguably wrong on procedure.

---

No she was not right on the merits.

---

The appeals court disagreed.

---

The three court panel reversed her on it. She brought the Courts into a fight between the Executive and Lagislative branch, she believes the Courts can rule on everything.

I am really shocked that you believe judicial overstepping is such a meritless act. %A0 Read her opinion, she used inflammatory editorial language to back her political view in a court case. %A0That right there should be disqualifying. %A0DOJ never said the President is a king above the law, oy that this is a fight between branches of Govt, not the courts.

---

A judge can only rule on the dispute that's in front of her. It was Trump and the legislature (mostly Trump) who brought the branches into conflict.

As for the language, that's what's so funny about this -- Republicans shocked by references to things like the Federalist papers. These are not radical ideas in America circa 2022. They're core concepts of our democracy. Historically based court decisions are supposedly what we want as conservatives, but...I guess not always.

---

I disagree with her willingness to rule on cases where the Courts have no jurisdiction to get the result she wants. I think that makes her unfit for the US SC. Trying to put political activists on the US SC is a serious issue I have with the Dems. The Reps seem to put Justices that agree with their views on the Constitution, but are no way near as activist as pretty much all the Dem's choices. Look at the list. Name me one modern US SC Justice the Republicans have put on that is an activist? Maybe Alito is as close as you get, but he in no where near Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and now Jackson. The Courts are arbitrators, not policy makers.

---

Judges get reversed all the time. It wasn't clear whether there was jurisdiction, and since the case never reached the Supreme Court, it's not totally clear even now. You should be more concerned about what your executive is hiding from you and why.

---

This is from the Panel. Seems pretty clear. But, if you think that the Judicial Branch has primacy and is an instrument to create policy, than I guess that is ambiguous.

'There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal within statute or bounds to the secretary's independent judgement. The forceful phrase of 'sole and unreviewable discretion,' by its exceptional terms. 'Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.'"

I really do not get why you are attacking my position so hard. These are my opinion. Clearly, the Dems disagree as they have consistently pushed activist judges that believe they are there to right social wrongs based on their personal opinions. I do not expect them to agree.

---

Well, you said she was unfit because she was reversed on a jurisdictional issue. That's a rather extreme position. And again, the panel agreed with her on the substantive issue, which is where the policy-making really happens. All courts make policy. They don't legislate, which is different.

---

I said the cause of her reversal was the issue, judicial overstepping. In my opinion, For someone that will be in a position to rule on that boundary's location, it is problematic. That combined with her activism, known as the "go to Judge" to stop Trump. Makes her unfit. She is too political for that position. Being overturned several times for that same issue is the problem I have with her as a SC Justice.

I also do not think her time in the Public Defenders does not give her any special insight that is relevant to the US Supreme Court. Too limited a view.

Finally. in a year on the Appellate Court she had 1 opinion and it came out days before her nomination.

Those are my reasons for believing there are better candidates for the highest court in the land.