Have you been following any of the Supreme Court Ketanji Jackson confirmation hearing?

Following.

Maybe she doesn’t remember the specifics of each case.

I did watch a little of it yesterday (Tuesday) and I saw that Lindsey Graham (R-SC), was a total dick. He admitted that it was payback to the way Barrett and Kavanaugh were treated. I thought Jackson handled herself exceptionally well and didn’t get flustered.

I’m watching it.
Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, and Blackburn have been complete morons in their questioning. Lindsey is a jerk, but these four have been jaw-droppingly stupid.

I’m thinking she doesn’t remember the specifics of the cases mentioned. If she makes one misstatement, they will be all over her. Again.
I don’t know which senator kept bringing up children’s books, but he was a total jerk about it.

I can’t stand all the performative posturing so I am not paying attention. Cut to the chase and confirm!

@chyna That was Cruz.

Have been following, but not closely. The parts I’ve caught have been as ridiculous as expected.

No. I know who she is and have for a a while.

She has been clear that her sentencings followed recommendations from prosecutors and probation officers, and were in line with other jurist, including those appointed by Republicans. The fact that the sentencing complaints were all taken out of context was well documented in the press as a non-issue.

Cruz brought up issues that have nothing to do with her being a judge. Graham had a tantrum and stormed out.

I missed it today. The NY Times has a link to it but when I clicked on it, it said they were taking a lunch break.

No. I have other things to do.
If she makes it, she makes it. If she doesn’t, she doesn’t. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

On another site, right-wingers are panicking and calling her a “pedophile sympathizer” and urging people to write their congressman to stop her confirmation.

Jaysus.

Not really, just occasional radio news clips. I can’t do anything about it, so no need getting emotionally invested. What’s bound to happen will happen despite the amount of time I spend following.

True you can’t do anything about the confirmations, but you can watch to if your senator is acting like a douche wienee and not vote for him next time.

That’s right @chyna

Hell. It’s gotten so simple. R=stupid, racist, homophobic, mysogenic republican. No vote.

Republicans have become the Trump party !

I’ve probably watch 30 minutes total, but it’s just five minutes here and ten minutes there. So much of it is bullshit, and I’d say the same during the last four Supreme Court hearings, I can’t remember much before that.

I did catch Ketanji saying she is the first Floridian to be nominated. I liked that :).

I haven’t been following closely and have only caught some of the highlight reels. I do see a whole lot of condemnation about the senators asking the questions, but if you go back to the past couple of confirmations and watch how the Dems handled themselves, I’d suggest the Repubs are at least keeping to the topic of her performance and her record. They aren’t asking her if she drinks during the day, they aren’t asking her about her religious beliefs, they aren’t trying to throw her out for made up sex charges. They are questioning her about her views on her own rulings, and on some of the hot topics such as CRT in an elementary school…a school on which she serves as a board member. Things she should know a great deal about and which she should have specific views. I do have to say that I see her avoiding a whole lot of questions that she ought to be able to answer. Especially if she is asked her opinion on things. I understand her reluctance to give personal opinions and she isn’t the first nominee to do so, but that brings up the problem. Every single judge/justice is a human being. They all have personal feelings and opinions. And being human, their beliefs and their experiences play a part in how they view different cases. And if you are going for a position for which you cannot be removed, I believe congress has a right to ask about your views and expect answers. That applies to ALL justices that have been or ever will be nominated.

Asking Kavanaugh about drinking goes to his character. He admitted he and his friends did goofy or stupid things after drinking. The senate wanted to ensure he was not an alcoholic. Also, one of his classmates claimed he was bellligerent or aggressive when drunk.

@chyna And yet they don’t ask Judge Jackson about that. There was no indications that Kavanaugh was a drinker so to start down that path is nothing but attempted smear. With Justice Barrett it was her religious beliefs. The Dems were trying to make a huge deal out of that. The Repubs this time are sticking to Judge Jackson’s views on pertinent topics (which she refuses to divulge) and to her thinking when she issued sentences that were below the norm (which she tries to step around). Even the time she left an opening to discuss her religious beliefs, the Repubs did not bite. Not faulting her, I’m sure she was coached to basically answer nothing in as non-offensive way as possible. In her spot that might be the best option.

@seawulf575: Yes, she was asked about her religious beliefs by the Republican from South Carolina. That was two days ago.

The reason for asking Kavanaugh about his drinking is because of the accusation of him raping the girl in college, so yes, there was a good reason to bring up the topic with him, @seawulf575.

@seawulf575 It was appropriate to ask Justice Barret about her religious beliefs because she had made public statements that she would follow her beliefs to restrict other people’s rights as outlined in SCOTUS precedent.

I love that there are cameras everywhere!
Ted Cruz finished one of his rants, and immediately whipped out his phone to see how many times he was mentioned on Twitter. Cameras got it all!

@seawulf575 It was appropriate to ask Justice Barrett about her religious beliefs because she had made public statements that she would follow her beliefs to restrict other people’s rights as outlined in SCOTUS precedent.

It was very obvious that some of the Senators’ questions were just platforms for them to make a speech and get their digs in.

@zenvelo So it is fair to ask Judge Jackson about CRT then since she is on the board of a school that teaches it and she has made public statements in favor of it. So you support that she should have had to answer those questions instead of dodging them?

@jca2 And that same accusation brings up another aspect of how the Dems dealings are worse than the Repubs in the confirmation hearings. A woman came forward with an “accusation” that no one can corroborate, not even the people she said were there. It was vague and unsubstantiated. And Sen Feinstein found out about this weeks before she toted it out at the hearings. If it was valid or had substance, it would have made more sense to bring it up before the hearings to get it investigated. Not at the end of the hearings when there was nothing else to try stopping his confirmation. Basically he is a good guy that had a good record and who handled himself with decorum throughout the process. But the Dems had to do something to stop him. So why, with the knowledge she had, did Sen Feinstein sit on it? Why didn’t she get it out before that?

@seawulf575 Judge Jackson said she has never studied CRT, let alone made a speech on it. She did make a reference to The 1619 Project in a speech, but also clarified ”...because it was, at least at that time, something that was talked about and well-known to the students that I was speaking to at the law school.”

Asking someone on the Board of a School about currculum matters is not relevant, and it has nothing to do with the job of being a Supreme Court Justice. Ted Cruz was looking for soundbites to boost his twitter feed.

So @seawulf575, you are trying to compare who acted worse, dems or republicans? Anyone that treats another human badly is a jerk. Is there a scoreboard, a point system?
I’m not sure what you are after here, but two wrongs never make a right.

@zenvelo She stated that CRT is a law school subject. But that is a cop out. When you teach the same ideas, to claim you don’t teach CRT is an attempt to use semantics to hide it. And the school on whose board she sits, does indeed teach the ideas. They have a whole program for it. Asking someone about the curriculum is relevant. It speaks to her ideals and her mindset…her character. It is every bit as relevant as Justice Barrett’s religious beliefs or whether Justice Kavenaugh ever drinks. It has EVERYTHING to do with a SCOTUS justice.

@chyna My statement was that as far as treating supreme court nominees goes, the Repubs are far more civil than the Dems have been for the past few. It makes me nauseated when I hear the Dems say stupid things like “It is time for congress to make the confirmation hearings less partisan.” They always pull crap like that out after they have tried every underhanded thing they could think of for several and now one of their nominees is in the hot seat.

As for what I’m after, I’m not after anything. I made a simple statement…my answer to the question asked. After that, I’ve merely been responding to questions and comments posed to me.

Cut and pasted from the NY Times today:

WASHINGTON — Several Republican senators repeatedly and misleadingly suggested during this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had given uncommonly lenient sentences to felons convicted of child sex abuse crimes.

But all of the Republican critics had previously voted to confirm judges who had given out prison terms below prosecutor recommendations, the very bar they accused Judge Jackson of failing to clear.

Just 30 percent of offenders who possessed or shared images of child sex abuse received a sentence within the range suggested by nonbinding federal guidelines in the 2019 fiscal year, and 59 percent received a sentence below the guideline range. And in general, it is not uncommon for judges to impose shorter sentences than what prosecutors have recommended.

“I listed these seven cases in which you had discretion and you did not follow the prosecutor’s recommendation or the sentencing guidelines,” Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said at Judge Jackson’s hearing on Tuesday. “I’m questioning how you used your discretion in these cases.”

Mr. Hawley’s point was echoed by three of his Republican colleagues: Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Cruz said the sentences imposed by Judge Jackson in cases involving images of child sex abuse were 47.2 percent less than the prosecutor’s recommendations on average.

“You always were under the recommendation of the prosecutor,” Mr. Graham told the judge on Wednesday. “I think you’re doing it wrong, and every judge who does what you’re doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited.”

But Mr. Hawley, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cotton and Mr. Cruz all voted to confirm judges nominated by President Donald J. Trump to appeals courts even though those nominees had given out sentences lighter than prosecutor recommendations in cases involving images of child sex abuse. Mr. Graham had also voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021 in spite of the sentencing decisions she had made as a district judge.

In 2017, Judge Ralph R. Erickson was confirmed by a 95-to-1 vote to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Graham voting in the affirmative. (Mr. Hawley was not yet a senator.) While serving as a district court judge in North Dakota, Judge Erickson imposed sentences shorter than the prosecutor’s recommendations in nine cases involving child sex abuse imagery from 2009 to 2017, averaging 19 percent lower.

In the case with the greatest discrepancy — in which a 68-year-old man pleaded guilty to possessing and transporting such illicit materials — prosecutors asked for 151 months and Judge Erickson imposed a 96-month sentence.

Judge Amy J. St. Eve was confirmed by a 91-to-0 vote in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. While serving as a district court judge in Illinois, Judge St. Eve imposed lighter sentences than prosecutor recommendations in two such cases. In United States v. Conrad, she sentenced a man who transported images of child sexual abuse to 198 months, 45 percent less than the prosecutor’s recommendation of 360 months.

All four Republican senators voted to confirm Judge Joseph F. Bianco to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2019. Previously, as a district court judge in New York, Judge Bianco sentenced three defendants to prison terms shorter than what prosecutors had sought.

At a 2013 hearing for a 25-year-old defendant who possessed and distributed illicit materials, Judge Bianco stated that the court had “discretion” to impose such sentences and spoke of “mitigating circumstances” — an echo of what Judge Jackson repeatedly told the senators during this week’s hearings. The defendant received a 60-month prison term, while prosecutors had asked for “a sentence above the 60 months.”

“The guidelines here are just way disproportionate under the facts of this case, and I don’t view them as particularly helpful in this case,” Judge Bianco said at the time. “I disagree with the government that this case is sort of in the heartland of normal cases. There are a number of mitigating factors in this case that I believe are compelling.”

Most recently, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Hawley voted to confirm Judge Andrew L. Brasher to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 2020. (Mr. Graham was not present for the vote.) As a district court judge in Alabama, Judge Brasher had sentenced a defendant to 84 months in prison, below the prosecutor recommendation of 170 months.

Ted Cruz’s daughters got to a school that is committed to “anti-racism”; the very thing he criticized Justice Jackson about her kid’s schoold.