Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republican Senators Trivialize Crimes against Children
This is what the RepubliCAN’T leadership of Mendacious Mitch McConnell has always been, is now, and will be if we let him and his gang control the Republican Party in the Senate. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Supreme Court nominee with a long history of supporting the latest supposedly victimized, misunderstood sexual minority, proudly promoted her record as one of progressive enlightenment. AND. Mittens Romney defended her and proudly voted for her confirmation, alongside Mitch’s Alaskan agent, Lisa Murkowski, and the Arlen Specter splinter faction member, Susan Collins. They did so with the full permission of Mendacious Mitch, and with the cover distraction of posturing conservatives like Senators Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, and Ted Cruz.
There were at least three currently active leftist judges matching the Biden regime’s additional screening criteria: African American AND Woman. Never mind the trans-agenda “problematization” of “Woman.” The left understands that the real agenda is to negate Justice Clarence Thomas, providing a counter-narrative to each opinion he writes defending religious liberty or distinguishing blacks’ real civil rights struggle from the social-sexual revolution of the alphabet alliance, started by Hugh Hefner. So, the official story was that three women were interviewed for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy caused by Stephen Breyer’s pending retirement at the end of this Supreme Court term in June.
. . . D.C. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, and South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs. …
Ketanji Brown Jackson
The 51-year-old judge has been rumored to be the President’s top choice since she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year.
Having served as a D.C. district judge since 2013, Jackson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the Circuit Court in June 2021 by a vote of 53-44, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voting in her favor. …
From 2007 to 2013, [Leondra] Kruger served as an assistant to the United States solicitor general and the acting principal deputy solicitor general, arguing 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including a high-profile religious rights case in which the court ruled against the Obama Administration. Kruger then joined the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where she helped strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned same-sex marriage, and uphold the Affordable Care Act.
In 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown named Kruger to the California Supreme Court when she was 38 years old. In her seven years on the bench, Kruger has developed a reputation as an attentive incrementalist, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2018 that she strives to perform her job in a way that “enhances the predictability and stability of the law and public confidence and trust in the work of the courts.” …
Judge J. Michelle Childs, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, has powerful allies within the Beltway.
South Carolina Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn has been openly campaigning for Childs’ nomination, telling Axios that he’s been advocating for Childs to the White House for the past six months—long before Breyer’s retirement was even announced. Childs, 55, also has earned plaudits from South Carolina Republican Sen. Graham, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. Graham told reporters on Feb. 2 that Childs is “somebody I could see myself supporting.” He warned that if Biden’s pick isn’t Childs, it could be “much more problematic.”
A senior statesman of the civil rights movement actively promoted a candidate for nomination, and her name was Childs, not Jackson. This candidate already had one senior Republican on board, so was sure to get “bi-partisan” confirmation. Rep. Clyburn delivered the southern states’ Democratic Party primary elections to Biden when he was feeling the Bern. Childs would seem to have been the best choice. Instead, the regime nominated a woman who spent her entire legal career, starting in law school, promoted leniency for a class of sex offenders against children. There could hardly be a more in-your-face nominee for lifetime tenure on the highest court in our land.
The Republicans, supposedly led by Mitch McConnell, were handed a golden opportunity to show they really stood for something about which ordinary Americans of every region and demographic care. They knew there was a massive popular movement against the radical sexualization of children by school officials. McConnell had a clear opportunity to score a win, forcing the Biden regime to withdraw a sexual politics radical candidate, replacing her with the preferred candidate of black leaders in Congress. Instead, Mendacious Mitch signaled surrender from the very beginning.
Faced with this planned failure of leadership, younger conservative Senators had the choice of mere rhetorical posturing or leading up. Hawley, Cruz, and Blackburn could have gone to the Senate floor and called out any senator who dared support Judge Jackson for normalizing her radical views on a class of sex crimes against children. In 1987, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, no relation to RBG, was forced to withdraw from nomination to the Supreme Court over personal marijuana use and reports that his wife, as a medical student, had participated in performing two abortions. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s career-long pattern of support for a class of offenders against children would seem to be the easiest possible case for forcing a nomination withdrawal or open defeat, as every Democratic senator facing the voters this year could foresee the political hit pieces running in the general election. It would have been an easily understood case for changing nominees.
Instead, Hawley and Blackburn settled for fundraising video clips and Cruz monetized his fake opposition with his podcast side hustle. The fake fight and the preemptive surrender on the Supreme Court nomination campaign reminds us of the disgraceful conduct of Republican congressional majorities after passage of Obamacare, and their long sabotage of our national sovereignty through perennial subversion of effective immigration control. McConnell even used the planned surrender on Judge Jackson’s nomination to promote his own return to power, claiming court nominees would be less radical if voters would just return Republicans to the Senate majority.
Yet, how radical could Jackson be if three Republican senators in good standing with McConnell voted to confirm her, with not a word from McConnell against Murkowski, Romney, or Collins? Why won’t they do the same again with every Democrat regime nominee, even if voters give Republicans a three-seat majority? So, we know that there will be no real opposition, no consequential legislative victories against the regime, if we allow the current crew of incumbent “leadership” to keep power through their preferred candidates in the primaries and the general election.
Published in Law
How is Brown Jackson qualified if she refuses to define what a woman is and will not agree that men and women have enduring physical differences? She also refused to answer the question of whether six year-old children should be allowed to choose their gender. It’s blatantly obvious that she is all for the transgenderism of letting people choose whether to be a man or a woman depending on how they feel, but she is too cowardly to come right out and say it because she wants to be confirmed. Neil, how does this qualify one for being a Supreme Court Judge?
On top of that she refused to acknowledge that a 20-week fetus is not at the stage of viability. She said that the right to an abortion is “One of the unenumerated rights of the Constitution,” when asked to cite where in the Constitution does it say abortion should be protected under Roe versus Wade. That is a legalistic way of saying it is a right defined by the Constitution without actually saying so!?! Again, how does this qualify her to be a Supreme Court Justice if she can simply make up rights that don’t exist whenever she wants?
I mean, if you’re saying “qualified in the same way that Sotomayor is qualified,” I guess . . .
But the attacks on her were not baseless. She’s a pedo-enabler.
I mean, once upon a time standards were such that Douglas Ginsberg withdrew his nomination after it had been revealed he’d smoked pot. And once upon a time the media was such that it was NPR that revealed that bit of information.
By education, experience, and intellect.
It isn’t a judge’s job to define what a woman is. If the law requires such a definition that is for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Are you arguing there are no unenumerated rights? Whether we like it or not (I certainly don’t), existing law says abortion is such a right.
Well she’s got a lot of experience going easy on child-porn offenders, that’s for sure.
She is not a pedo-enabler. That is a baseless accusation.
That is just nonsense. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/
All I know is what I read in the papers, but if she doesn’t know what a woman is — not being a biologist — and doesn’t believe in the concept of “natural rights”, as in ” the laws of Nature and Nature’s God — all the formal education in the world doesn’t make her qualified for SCOTUS, though she might be a good law professor somewhere.
It absolutely is a Supreme Court Judge’s job to define a woman. There are going to be cases involving men who claim to be women and vice versa. How can she rule if she doesn’t even know what a woman is? If you went to a job interview and refused to answer a simple question like that, how long do you think before they would throw you out the door? You could always argue on your way out “But it isn’t part of my job description!” And they would call “Next applicant!”
You are right on that one. I originally thought I heard her say that the right to abortion is in the Constitution “as an enumerated right” but I went back to listen to her again and she did not. She admitted that it is not in the Constitution. My bad.
You’d think such an admission would cause the left to throw her under the bus. But of course they understand that she’ll rule as if it’s in the Constitution, even though it isn’t.
That is not the case at all. Judges are not supposed to be blank slates..
No, it isn’t the Court’s job to define what a woman is. If Marsha Blackburn wants to legally define the word, she is in the ideal position to do so.
It is the case that legislatures define statutory terms.
It’s not. Your defense of her is weird.
It is. Read Andy McCarthy’s piece in NR. This attack on her is due to either ignorance or disingenuousness, your choice.
Is it called “The Conservative Case for Kiddie Porn”?
It’s funny how hating Trump causes one to embrace all manner of leftism.
Did you read the piece? https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/
Is Andy McCarthy now a leftist?
He is one of those “good government” dupes who is repeatedly ambushed by reality. And he always acts surprised when it happens.
Did you read the article?
There is also this one, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/
The courts define pretty much anything they want to. The Supreme Court redefined Obamacare fees as “taxes.” They define when life begins. They define religion, free speech, torture, pornography, abortion rights even without regard to the law, you name it.
Here is an example of the Supreme Court defining what it means to physically take something:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-supreme-court-expands-definition-of-4857357/
Look how long it took him to realize that the Russian Collusion investigation was fraught with problems. He defended the FBI many times both in his article and on shows. Slowly, it took about 18 months, he went from being “this has to be real” to “well, maybe they were a bit over-zealous, but there is smoke here” to “Hmm, this smoke appears to be odd” to “Wow, these guys might have not actually had a reason for their FISA warrant” to “Yep, this was wrong, but we shouldn’t punish anyone, we should just make sure it never happens again”. And that was as far as he would go.
And the next time it happens, I expect he will be exactly the same. He and Peter Robinson are both “shocked” entirely too often, especially for people of their age and backgrounds.
I read it when it was first posted, and re-read it again just now.
McCarthy’s thesis is as follows:
Yeah, read that and regreted it. Then again, I have regreted reading NR pretty consistently since late 2020.
With Peter I feel he just has such hope for the better nature of humans. With Andy, its more that the institution is always right and we should always trust the institution. Protecting it is more important than getting it “right”
Boomercons.
Now read the other I linked to, the one where he goes thru each case Hawley brought up. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/
Now read the other I linked to, the one where he goes thru each case Hawley brought up. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ho-hum-the-cases-senator-hawley-cites-show-judge-jackson-is-an-unremarkable-sentencer-in-child-porn-cases/
Yeah! I don’t know what the legal term is but there’s such a legal thing as common knowledge.
And really, is it up to the legislature to define the speed of light? Or can the legislature redefine it according to current social contexts? Or can they say that they can’t know what it is unless they weigh the expert opinions of a cross section of scientists testifying under oath? Is this the state of the law these days? I think if Neil is correct, then the rule of law and the condition of US jurisprudence is even worse than dead. It’s in a fairy tale land where law makers and judges say what’s what in the realm of reality.
This is literally psychotic. Or Wonderland.
And yet, as the saying goes, there does appear to be a method to their madness.