SCOTUS and Their Pompous Petulant Pontificator

By Rich Kozlovich

My go to news site first thing in the morning is American Thinker, which I think is the absolutely best new site out there, they've even published one of my articles in the past.  There are a lot of articles appearing at AT by a large number of volunteer contributors, but they only have a few paid staff members, who on every Saturday different members of the AT writing staff put out a "Members Weekly Newsletter".  There are times these pieces are so good I wished they'd publish them on line.

One such article is by Mike McDaniel entitled, It was always clear that Justice Jackson would be a disaster, but she's worse than anyone could have anticipated.

Biden committed himself to a DEI nominee, and a black woman fit the bill, who could easily have been called a "mediocre" left wing ideologue right from the beginning.  A left wing ideologue totally unconcerned with reality, or the law starting, out with her exchange with Republican Senators who asked her to define what a woman was.  She couldn't.  Why?  She's not a biologist was her answer.  But they all failed to drive a stake into the heart of her nomination when they all failed to ask her if she was a woman.  As Mike notes the answer to that question might have ended her nomination.  

It  was apparent her understanding of Constitutional law is abysmal after Senator Ted Cruz asked her to take a position on that which is foundational to the Constitution, Natural Rights.  

After doing what all these Biden nominees have done consistently, answering questions not asked, over and over again, finally Cruz asked if she held a position on Natural Rights, yes or no.

She answered saying she held no position on Natural Rights.  Well that's foundation to the very existence of Constitution, and for any law student to have no opinion is impossible, but for a federal jurist, and one being nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, that's not just impossible, it's a deliberate lie.  A lie in an attempt to avoid exposing the fact she's not a jurist, she's a radical left wing ideologue and an activist.

• The judicial tyranny of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson 'Why bother with the Supreme Court? Let's just take a poll'

Recently Justice Amy Coney Barrett smacked her hard and heavy dealing with birthright citizenship, something rarely done on the court, if ever.   Then she had to be schooled by ... of all people... Sotomayor on the President's legitimate Constitutional Article II powers as the chief executive with the authority to hire, and fire.  She claimed allowing him to do that would open the door to an Imperial Presidency, saying:

Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.....

Well, that's the job for the Legislative branch to address, not the judiciary.  

But the interesting thing is not one of the jurists took exception to Justice Amy Coney Barrett smack down, and Mike explains why.  She's an enormous pain in the butt.   Instead of asking questions for clarification she babbles on "mindlessly" and according to Mike:

Canny court watchers have noted the annoyance of the wiser justices at Brown Jackson's loud-mouthed antics.

I have to imagine when the Justices meet privately as a group to discuss issues her penchant for mindless rambling is almost unbearable.  Over the years I've served on boards of my industry's trade associations, and had that kind of babbling go on to the point I would get up and walk out of the room until they were done, and then they would start all over again, it become unbearable.   But they didn't serve on those boards for life, a SCOTUS justice does, how unbearable that must be.

As a side bar.  Who has consistently been the justice who asks the fewest questions and comments the least?  Justice Clearance Thomas, who I consider the finest justice to sit on the court in my lifetime.

She thinks the federal judiciary should be able to impose universal injunctions against the Executive at the district level, requiring both the Executive and the Legislative branches to acquiesce their Constitutional authority to unelected minor judges.   She claims she fears an Imperial Presidency that will destroy "democracy" but has no concerns about an Imperial Judiciary that really is destroying democracy by destroying the rule of law.   An Imperial Judiciary where her feelings are far more important than the laws written by Congress and anything written in that dusty old document called the United States Constitution.  

Mike ends his article with this paragraph:  

Brown Jackson's petulance in these two most recent cases suggests Kagan and Sotomayor realize Brown Jackson is not up to the minimum level of competence required of the Court and are no longer going to try to keep her blazing incompetence and leftism under the radar. She's too overtly leftist even for them.

Sotomayor apparently thinks Jackson is blazingly incompetent?  How shocking is that?  Jackson is arrogant, pompous, petulant, and grossly incompetent, and ya just can't fix stupid.  But when you put a person with those combined qualities in a position of power,  they're unbearable.  Ketanji Brown Jackson is another excellent example of why there needs to be a 28th Amendment to fix the Founders gravest error.  Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary. 

I've written much about the federal judiciary, along with age and term limits, some of which are listed below. 

My 28th Amendment Commentaries: 

1. What if We Could Rewrite the Constitution To Fix the Republic
2. It's Time For a Twenty Eighth Amendment! 
3. The Founding Fathers Greatest Error? Lifetime Appointments to the Federal Judiciary!
4. The Need For a 28th Amendment Becomes More and More Apparent!
5. More Evidence of the Need for A 28th Amendment, II
6. The Federal Judiciary Needs Purged With Age and Term Limits
7. More Evidence of the Need For a 28th Amendment
8. Covid and the SCOTUS Swamp, Part One
9. The Supreme Court has taken up residence in the swamp

And SCOTUS isn't the only problem.  The nation's judiciary is out of control. Here's the link to

Ketanji Brown Jackson's Race to the Top

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags: The Ketanji Brown Jackson Story: In Conclusion, 

 

During the time she was "running" for a seat on the court there was all this clabber about Ketanji Brown Jackson being one of America's great legal minds from the leftist media.  That actually turned humorous because she couldn't give a definition for what a woman is. After all, she's not a biologist.  That came out so smooth it clearly had to have been rehearsed.  Which means one of the nation's "greatest legal minds" needed coaching?  Did I get that right?  I didn't miss anything there did I?

So then what is the definition of a "great legal mind".  Clearance Darrow was considered one such person.  He pridefully would debate anyone on anything, and would willingly take either position in the debate, and usually won.  But what did he believe in?  Did he believe some things really are right and some things really are wrong?  To quote Shania Twain:  "That don't impress me much."

Over at American Thinker Andrea Widburg posted this article, Justice Barrett gives Justice Jackson the nastiest judge-on-judge smackdown I’ve ever seen, saying:

With apologies to Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson must have been appointed based on her XX chromosomes (even though she doesn’t know what a woman is) and her melanin level. Take those away, and she is a truly dim bulb. But now that she’s on the Supreme Court, she’s a dim bulb with dreams of an all-powerful (leftist) judiciary.

However, showing that the more intelligent people on the Court have finally lost patience with her, in today’s excellent decision saying that lower courts may no longer issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett gives Jackson a smackdown the likes of which I’ve never seen in a Supreme Court decision.

In the article she links posts showing some public comments.  

• OMG Justice Amy Coney Barrett basically implied Ketanji Jackson is too dumb or unwilling to read "legalese" - literally her JOB description She is the most unqualified justice in Supreme Court history. DEI.
• Ketanji Brown Jackson is a great example of how DEI feeds racial prejudice. When you elevate morons just because of their skin color, people get the mistaken idea that all people of that skin color are morons. It's a terrible thing to do to people.
• Everyone on the Left loves to note that Biden made Ketanji Brown Jackson the first black female Supreme Court justice. But they never give him any credit for appointing the first mentally handicapped justice. That’s ableism, and it’s wrong.

Jackson has no desire to have her views, many of which are hardly based on any rule of law, impugned by a bunch of  “mind-numbingly technical query”.  C'mon man, all that legalese is really boring, and since she's absolutely sure the real job of the federal courts is to tell everyone, including the President to do as they're told and shut their mouths, the Constitution, and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, notwithstanding, there's no need to waste time on legalese. 

Anyone with a brain knew she was a dunderhead right from the beginning, and now I would love to see what former Speaker Paul Ryan, who’s related to her through marriage, and claimed she was an excellent choice to be a SCOTUS justice thinks now. Don’t hear much from him these days, and that's a good thing. 

However, there is one person who really appreciates her.  Sotomayor.  Now she’s no longer the dumbest member on the court.  In the race to be the courts number one nitwit she's reached the top, but it is a close race.   The fact is the only bench Jackson is qualified to sit on is a park bench.   

Update, 6/29/25: 

•  Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson: “What Good is the Constitution?” “Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!” Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson is laughably unqualified for the position she was appointed on based on only three things: none of which had anything to do with her ability to understand the law, its history and the relevant precedents. Let alone the Constitution. But she is a radical leftist and what she lacks in reasoning ability, she more than makes up for in her dislike of America. Here’s where the two come together in her dissent.......
•  The Martian chronicles - Yesterday we took a look at Justice Barrett’s dismissal of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Trump v. CASA, Inc.. Justice Jackson’s overlong and underthought dissent seems to me most notable for its poor writing. It reads like a New York Times op-ed column, or rather like 10 of them. Times readers are probably her intended audience. On X James Taranto draws attention to “[a]n underappreciated passage of Justice Jackson’s dissent............Jonathan Turley assesses the merits of Justice Jackson’s dissent in “The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

Update, 6/30/25: 

•  Justice Jackson Is Even Worse Than We Thought - We’ve previously covered Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in Trump v. CASA Inc., yet it somehow manages to be worse than we initially thought. I think we can easily say that her dissent proves that she’s not a serious member of the Supreme Court...........The Supreme Court should be a fortress of reason — not a stage for activist grandstanding. At PJ Media, we’re exposing the radical rewrites and restoring common sense to the conversation. Become a PJ Media VIP today with the code FIGHT for 60% off and get privileged access to in-depth reporting, zero ads, and a community of true constitutionalists. The stakes have never been higher — join us and help keep the judiciary in check. Take action — join today!

Update, 7/1/25:  

•  Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Thunderclap Heard Around the Republic - Andrea Widburg called it “the nastiest judge-on-judge smackdown I’ve ever seen.” She wasn’t wrong. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in Trump v. CASA, Inc. was sweeping and ferocious—and for good reason. Jackson’s dissent did not merely differ in tone or jurisprudence. It was a judicial manifesto, a radical blueprint to recast the federal judiciary as the final, universal enforcer of national policy. Justice Barrett met fire with fire—and then buried the dissent beneath the ash.................
• Marlow: We Can’t Remove KBJ from SCOTUS, But We Can Mock Her for Being a ‘Dumb Libtard’ - Marlow said that Justice Barrett’s opinion that was essentially saying Jackson is “a dumb libtard” last week, “does usher in an era where we’re going to have to use mockery and ridicule for Ketanji Brown Jackson. … [T]here is, of course, nothing we can do. We can’t remove her from the bench or anything, but you can make fun of her and you can hold her up as an example of the problems with DEI hires.".......
• Constitutionally Illiterate Imbecile - This nasty, intellectually dull totalitarian that puppet Biden put on the Supreme Court has actually upheld the authority of lower level federal judges over the President of the United States.........Even this Constitutionally illiterate imbecile understands her own radical ideology: All things leftist are upheld; all things nonleftist are struck down. It’s really as simple as that. This is the dictatorship that “progressives” seek to impose. They will not stop until they get it.............

Update, 7/9/25: 

Just like the many hours long ramblings and mumblings of Cory Booker and Hakeem Jeffries, her multi-page dissents say nothing, but just like Booker and Jeffries, her dissents demonstrate dumb is infectious, and the desire to demonstrate that lack of smarts with an overwhelming attempt to explain how dumb is really a super power.  

• Ketanji Jackson’s wacko dissent to a Supreme Court order allowing agency heads to plan to trim their departments- It’s no secret that Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the United States Supreme Court because she is a black woman.* In other words, she was not chosen for her judicial acumen, but for her political identity. That goes a long way to explaining the absolutely lunatic dissent she issued to a Supreme Court order. That order stayed a California district court judge’s ruling blocking President Trump from ordering agency heads to produce plans for possible “Reductions in Force.” What makes Jackson’s dissent even crazier than its lack of any intellectual foundation is her open hostility to her fellow justices and the president...
• It Gets Worse for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as She Gets Schooled by Sotomayor - Progressive Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that the Court can’t declare an order of President Trump’s to be unconstitutional if the order does not actually exist. Sotomayor told Justice Ketanji Jackson that she agrees with her that President Trump can’t restructure federal agencies in a way that is inconsistent with constitutional mandates. However, that question is not before the Court...........
• First It Was Barrett - Now Even Sotomayor Embarrasses Ketanji Brown Jackson with Her Opinion in SCOTUS Ruling - It was bad enough for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson when the court’s conservatives were shredding her legal chops to pieces in published opinions............Justice Sonia Sotomayor got attention for having to remind Jackson — whose opinion in a universal injunctions case decided last month drew widespread mockery — that her opinion didn’t actually deal with the the matter before the court...............

 

Obama Ordered Drone Killing of American in 2011

Susan Daniels Jun 24, 2025, @ Susan's Newsletter, Originally posted on July 3, 2024

If it was not our own country the Democrats are destroying, the whole thing would be a hoot.

Democrats went into full panic mode over the recent Supreme Court decision giving partial immunity to President Trump. The screeching started immediately that if Donald Trump returns to the presidency he could order the SEAL teams to kill people arbitrarily. Apparently, Biden is not the only one suffering from cognitive loss.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown are the ones who said that Trump would have people killed. Both judges, not known for their intellect, seem to have forgotten that Obama is the one who killed an American. And President Joe Biden let thirteen Marines die in Afghanistan. Hillary let four people die in Benghazi.

In September 2011 President Barack Obama ordered the drone killing of American-born Anwar 

Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki in Al Jawf Governate, Yemen. A previous attempt failed. Why was the Muslim community here not protesting and burning buildings? Was it because they understood that Obama was a Muslim traveler and was forgiven for killing one of their own?

The DOJ released a memorandum three years later that described the killing as a lawful act of war. Civil liberty advocates called it an “extrajudicial execution.” Obama actually had an American killed and Sotomayor, who had been on the SC bench since 2009, didn’t care then.

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971. His family, including his father who was a Fulbright Scholar, returned to Yemen when Anwar was seven years old. He returned in 1991 to study civil engineering at Colorado State University and graduated in 1994. He left the U.S. in 2002 for the UK and returned to Yemen two years later. He was involved with al-Qaeda and spent time in prison there.

While in Yemen, al-Awlaki had a relationship with U.S. Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal  Hassan. Hassan attended the funeral of al-Awaki’s mother and the two emailed each other at least 18 times between Dec. 2008 and June 2009. Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer said: "E-mailing a known al-Qaeda sympathizer should have set off alarm bells. Even if he was exchanging recipes, the bureau should have put out an alert.”

 

Hassan, a practicing Muslim, was stationed at Fort Hood, Killeen, Texas. On November 5, 2009, he fatally shot thirteen people and wounded thirty more. He was yelling “Allah Akbar” as he gunned down his unarmed victims.

From The Hill (04/21/15) “Obama, having repeatedly assured us Islam—by definition—is a peaceful religion, reasoned one conducting such a violent attack cannot be Muslim. Thus, it was not Islamic ideology but a hostile workplace that led to the attack.”

Years later the dead and wounded were awarded Purple Hearts but denied financial benefits because of Obama’s mandate of workplace violence.

On August 28, 2013 Hassan was sentenced to death after a trial that cost $5 million. One armed person, with one round in a gun in 2009, could have stopped Hassan, saved lives and $5 million.

One hundred and forty-eight victims and family members of the attack filed a lawsuit on November 5, 2012, against the government, Hassan and his estate.

January 23, 2019 (Reuters) - “A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has dismissed wrongful death claims against senior U.S. government officials and civilian employees brought by victims of the 2009 mass shooting at the Fort Hood military base in Killeen, Texas, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 others.

“U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said on Tuesday night she lacked jurisdiction over claims by roughly 150 victims and family members against the secretary of defense, secretary of the army and FBI director because the United States was not also named as a defendant.”

Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Susan Daniels is a private investigator and the author of The Rubbish Hauler’s Wife versus Barack Obama: A True Story which is available on Amazon.com.

Politics like we have never seen.  Recommend Susan’s Newsletter to your friends. Also, there's a video here I can't reproduce.  Go to the original to view it.

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dog-Whistle

July 10, 2023 By Mychal Massie @ Daily Rant  

The easiest way to identify a hopelessly lost cause is to listen to the gurgitation of idiocy coming from those advancing and/or sponsoring said cause.  A prime example of same is/was, the outrageous claim written into her dissenting opinion by associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Ketanji Brown Jackson in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

In what appeared to be a last ditch effort to give a single digit salute to the other six Associate Justices of SCOTUS whose decision effectively ended melanin-coded affirmative action as consideration for admission Jackson threw everything at the wall hoping something would stick.

Her attempt to redeem an unfair, racist practice of disqualifying students based on the absence of melanin, was fair and realizes equality. She argued: “diversity saves lives” and is essential for “marginalized communities.”  She asserted that diversity is for the “betterment” of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

She wrote: “For high-risk black newborns, having a black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”  A ridiculous opinion prostituted in an amicus brief filed by lawyers representing an association of medical colleges postulating that for “high-risk black newborns, having a black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug; it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live,” (See: 2020 Study that examined mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015.)

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Attorney Ted Frank, a senior attorney at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, destroyed Jackson’s poorly constructed dissent rightly observing: “So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges ‘all of us’ to ‘do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.’  Instead we should watch where we’re going.”

Knowing Jackson’s kind as I do, nothing dissuades me that her mischaracterization was intentional for the purpose of entrenching her bastardized narrative.  However, what has been omitted in the spate of op-eds condemning Jackson’s opinion was her pathetic attempt to craft and indemnify the falsity.

Jackson and those like her would have us forget and/or ignore the fact that the greatest cause of death and harm to so-called black infants are not a shortage of melanin visible doctors, rather it’s the unlimited number of crayon-colored doctors responsible for the murder of 25 million or more unborn crayon-color children.

Arguing from Jackson’s perspective, why isn’t she an outspoken supporter of pro-life causes?  Using her dissenting opinion, consider the following facts: “The aggregate number of melanin visible soldiers killed in military combat in the Korean War, The Vietnam War and every war since 1980 totals 18,515.”  Now, consider that doctors participating in the industrialized systematic extermination called abortion have murdered well over 20 million so-called black children.

Does Jackson know how many of the doctors participating in the satanic practice qualify as a color by her standard for being black?  My obvious point being according to her reasoning so-called black children should be paralyzed with fear and dread of both their mother’s and so-called black doctors.  Unless, she is prepared to argue that so-called white doctors are having abortion mill clinics intentionally set up in the urban neighborhoods for the express practice of being paid, i.e., employed by their mothers to exterminate them. If that is the case, shouldn’t the children be even more afraid of their mothers?

When one considers the juxtapositioning of my argument in conjunction with hers it is clear there are questions that demand answers.

Another thing: Jackson’s sinister and myopic dissent is intended to have this fallacious narrative entered in the SCOTUS public record as talking points for the left-wing lapdog media.  The verbiage of her dissent was nothing more than a “dog-whistle” to the leftwing-crazies.

One must ask why it is that the only way for color-coded liberals to have any hope much less opportunity of elevating their station in life, is to be an extreme zealot?  Jackson’s kind espouses immiseration and hopelessness.  They claim with straight faces: the only way to get ahead is through handouts and the bar of merit being lowered to the point that even rolling over it is viewed as a herculean effort.

There’s no fair way to institute supposed pigmentation-based affirmative action because; ultimately it all comes down to color of skin, which means those with the skin-pigmentation du jour are preferred over others regardless of their qualifications.

Take for instance ‘Joy-less’ Reid, the infamous-whatever-she-is employed by MSNBC.  She admits the only reason she got into Harvard was because of pigmentation-based affirmative action.  Her reward has been to be the face of hate-filled screeds that portray every as racist.  She’s MSNBCs in-house harridan who must forever view everything through a prism of aggrievement, animus, resentment and prejudice.

Even more egregious is that, as I’ve pointed out countless times heretofore, neither program nor country nor business entity can rise and sustain success by instituting policies of employing the least qualified.

 

 

About the Author Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here

McCarthy's Terrible Tuesday

By Rich Kozlovich

 Well, today's the day of McCarthy's reckoning, and the amount of CO2 emitted over who will be, or should be, the Speaker of the House has been amazing, and this piece outlines just how amazing that rhetoric is.  Will McCarthy get chosen? Will he get chosen on the first ballot?  He failed to get the votes needed in the Republican's closed session, but what will happen when the entire House votes? 

The Speaker of the House is a Constitutionally mandated position, so the entire House votes for the Speaker, unlike the Senate, where they make their own rules for leadership positions, and the rhetoric over this has been interesting, from doom and gloom to claims of mental illness of those who refuse to vote for McCarthy.  We even have good Ole Newt Gingrich wading in on this claiming  ‘Never McCarthy’ House Republicans have a psychological problem.  Wow!  Really?  

So those who stand firm for the conservative values they ran on have psychological problems but those who want to keep doing what's failed over and over again are sane?  Did I get that right?  Did I miss something? 

So that's what happened when Good Ole Newtie got on that couch with Nancy Pelosi and promoted global warming initiatives?  Did he had a mental breakdown? A psychological problem?  Or maybe, just maybe, he had a values problem?  I go for the latter.  Now, the man is a smooth talker giving the impression of great intelligence.  However, perhaps this is an illusion, because, believe it or not, he is a greenie!  Which makes him irrational and misanthropic and morally defective, and we already know he has the moral fiber of a goat. 

The fact is, Ole Newtie can tell you the sun is shining on Tuesday, and then claim on Wednesday it didn't shine at all. And do it with equally convincing zeal.  I wouldn't trust him to tell me day was light and night was dark.

It's being claimed chaos awaits a party that can’t unify itself, and I agree, but the Republicans are unlike the Democrats.  They're not unified, and this vote merely shows what everyone already knows to be true.  The Democrats are totally committed leftists who are working to destroy America, and vote in unity, and a frighteningly large number of Republicans are willing to help them, and all of those RINO's are voting for McCarthy.  

For weeks he's refused to make concessions to the conservatives in the House.   But now in the eleventh hour he's bending and now agreeing....sort of..... to some rule changes, such as making it easier to have a no-confidence vote to remove him from the Speakership, which has been limited to members of the leadership only.  

Normally there's no do overs for the Speakership, but while the position is Constitutionally mandated, the person isn't, and conservatives want to open that up to all the membership.   He's now willing to look at longer periods of time to read bills, not like this last minute vote for this 4000 page omnibus spending bill of 1.7 trillion dollars.  They also want "rules forbidding House GOP leadership from getting involved in primaries, and greater limitations on spending."   

If he'd agreed to these things before this would probably have been resolved by now, but he didn't and there must be a reason why.  And that reason is he's the weak leader conservatives fear he is and if he'd agreed to all this his days as Speaker would be numbered, or he'd have to grow a backbone and fight the good fight.  Not his cup of tea. 

At this point there are five members who claim they will absolutely not vote for McCarthy, Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Bob Good (R-Va.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), and Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), who has been striving to be Speaker of the House since John Boehner was ousted, and he wasn't chosen by the Republicans then.  It went to Paul Ryan, who turned out to be a disaster, he even raved about the intellect, character and integrity of Ketanji Brown Jackson, which showed  just how flawed Paul Ryan is. 

Until there's a Speaker in place nothing can be done in the House.  No rules nor any business can be adopted or acted upon.  And he wants to be Speaker, and he wants it badly.  But even if he wins, he's already damaged goods as a leader, and if it goes to a second ballot, or more, he's no leader at all, and with each successive vote he'll most likely lose votes, and as I see it, there are four things that play into this. 

One, as I've stated, the Speaker of the House is a Constitutionally mandated position and the entire House votes for the Speaker.  

Two, hard line conservatives in the House will absolutely not vote for McCarthy because they know he will cave in on important issues, which is clear that's what he wants to do or he wouldn't have been so adamant about the changes conservatives wanted. 

Three, he will not remove himself from contention for the good of the party or the nation because that takes character he doesn't possess in my opinion, which I outline in my article, You Can't Handle the Truth!  

And fourth, it seems clear McCarthy will be elected because, no matter what they're saying publicly, I think Democrats will cross over and vote for him because they know he's "Cav-in McCarthy", and that's good politics, and if I was the Democrat leader, that's what I would do.  And the reason for that is conservatives are urging Jim Jordan to challenge McCarthy and the last person they would want in the Speaker's Chair is Jordan, or someone like Jordan, versus Cav-in McCarthy.   

No matter how this plays out, McCarthy loses, even if he's chosen as Speaker. 

Ketanji Brown Jackson Again

By Rich Kozlovich

 

Well, tooting my own horn, I thought I did a thoroughly bang up job of outlining the issues surrounding Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearing to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court running this regularly updated log,  Biden Court Pick Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Not Looking Good Update!  Then there was yesterday's Cartoon of the Day.   And of course there were my commentaries:

1. Observations From the Back Row
2. My Thoughts On Ketanji Brown Jackson's Nomination
3. The Ketanji Brown Jackson Story: In Conclusion

Not to mention all by so many writers involving this nominee, but as time goes by the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper, so I hope this will be the last piece I will do, at least until the Senate defiles itself with her confirmation.  

So, here are my thoughts on this latest piece by Jordan Dixon-Hamilton on 29 Mar 2022, Ketanji Brown Jackson Disagreed with Expert Witness’s Definition of Pedophilia.  What? Did she actually say that?  

She's unable to define what is a woman because she's not a biologist.  Right?   Okay, biology is a science, and she's trained in law, so her logic is biology is outside her purview and expertise.  Okay, clearly a lie - clearly a quick, smooth but dumb answer - clearly prepared by dumb coaches - but at least there's a smattering of logic in that response.    

But now she claims her child porn and pedophilia rulings are predicated on her disagreement with medical and psychology experts on this subject, also considered a science, but based on her previous position, isn't that outside her training in law?  But in spite of that...... now ...... she knows better than they?  

Does that sound like a dichotomy in logic to anyone besides me?   How does she explain that?  Biology is outside her realm of knowledge and expertise, but psychology and medicine aren't?  The answer's simple. She lies when it suits her because that lie fits the leftist narrative which in she's totally immersed.  I wonder who balances her checkbook, after all, she's not an accountant. 

Cartoon of the Day

Observations From the Back Row

Definition leads to clarity.  Clarity leads to understanding.  Understanding leads to good decision making.

By Rich Kozlovich

All this clabber about Ketanji Brown Jackson being one of America's great legal minds from the leftist media is actually turned humorous because she can't give a definition for what a woman is. After all, she's not a biologist.  That came out so smooth it appeared to be to be rehearsed.  So that's the coaching she received?  For one of the nation's "greatest legal minds".  

I keep hearing that phrase, and quite frankly, I'm not impressed because truthfully, I can't define that with any definitive explanation.  Truthfully, I don't think anyone else can give a rational definition for what constitutes being a "great legal mind".   Clearance Darrow was considered one such person.  He pridefully would debate anyone on anything, and would willingly take either position in the debate, and usually won.  But what did he believe in?  Did he believe some things really are right and some things really are wrong?  So, to quote Shania Twain:  That don't impress me much.

Well, the fact is, everyone, with the exception of the leftist politicians, the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party known as the "legacy" media and a corrupted academia and their 'scientists', don't seem to have that problem with being able to tell us want a woman is.  Almost everyone chuckles at the thought and then with stunning ease can give the world a definition of a woman.  It's only difficult, or now actually impossible of anyone on the left, because it doesn't fit the leftist narrative of the day.  

Take these dimwits on the View, like Whoopie Goldburg, who ridiculously dismisses the qualifications of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh claiming Jackson can "outshine each and every one of those people." "Her abilities are outstanding. I mean, she's outstanding."  And then is outraged because the Senate has the temerity to be "questioning her?"  Imagine that!

Well, yeah, they're questioning her, that's their job!  Of course that makes them racists to these misfits on the left.   But.....just a passing thought mind you.....why wasn't it racist when Biden as a Senator kept conservative blacks from being appointed to the federal judiciary?  

Whoopie was the same brilliant commentator who claimed Jill Biden was such a great doctor she should be appointed as the nation's Surgeon General.  Oooops on Whoopie.  Apparently Whoopie didn't know her doctorate is in education and not medicine. Imagine that!

And so now, with a long and undistinguished history of ignorant rantings, Whoopie thinks we should listen when she insists..... insists mind you..... this nominee is one of the greatest legal minds in the nation.  Imagine that!

Okay, here's a thought for Whoopie.  Ignorance is one thing, it merely means we don't know, and that's a normal condition.  The fix for ignorance is learning.  Stupid is the unwillingness to learn.  I find that's usually caused by lazy arrogance developing into people who are proud of their arrogant ignorance. 

 

I hereby nominate Whoopie Goldburg and the entire cast of The View as members of the Club For the Galacticly Stupid.  Can I get a second on that? 

Update:  This appeared today, 4/1/22 on American Thinker, and should add more shock to this judge's rulings:   Who will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson and why?

What does a woman want?

Freud's question remains unanswered 

Mar 26, 2022 Michael D. Shaw

 

While Sigmund Freud is hardly the first to be troubled over this matter, he is the most famous for pondering: 

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?' 

Nearly 100 years after this quotation was uttered, are we any closer to an answer? 

Just a few days ago, a Black female candidate for the US Supreme Court refused to provide her definition of what a woman is, to a questioning female senator. The reason she was willing to answer in this absurd manner was, of course, to keep her liberal bona fides intact. If she had given the correct biological answer “A member of the human species with two X chromosomes,” she would have upset the forces which serve to undermine society. 

But then, this particular judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also demonstrated a profound sympathy toward pedophiles, who surely prey upon little girls. Yet, several media outlets, including the execrable New York Times, praised Jackson for how she comported herself during the hearings, and condemned the questions she was being asked. 

That conservative Supreme Court candidates, starting with Robert Bork, followed by Clarence Thomas, and all the way through to Amy Barrett, were treated far worse matters not. 

However, the worst element of Jackson’s hearing occurred when she claimed to be unfamiliar with the landmark case of US v. Virginia (1996), which prohibited the Virginia Military Academy from discriminating against women by its male-only policy. This case is considered historic since it shattered barriers in the long male-dominated military sector, and featured a majority opinion written by feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Moreover, this case is well known to many people outside the field of law. That an appeals court federal judge could claim to be unfamiliar with it is preposterous. Bear in mind that there is no good spin on this. Jackson either lied, or is as dumb as a bag of rocks. 

Yet, the reason she lied is simple enough. If the case broke down barriers for women, a previously unnecessary question raises itself: Who and what are these “women” who are now protected from this discrimination? 

Thus, I echo Dr. Freud. If someone who wishes to be a member of our Supreme Court cannot define what a woman is, and this disgraceful charade is allowed to stand, what DOES a woman want? Why didn’t millions of women scream in protest at this outrage, which denies their very existence? 

You might as well also ask why did only a pathetic handful of women complain about the ascendance of a “transgender” female swimmer (complete with male equipment) to the heights of the NCAA? 

You might as well also ask why so many “soccer moms” and others who would otherwise support conservative political principles would oppose the re-election of Donald J. Trump, presumably because he is “mean” and a “bully.” That Joe Biden is hardly a pleasant fellow, and has displayed annoying and weird habits, including smelling little girls’ hair, and alleged inappropriate activity with his own daughter does not seem to matter. Certainly, it is not sufficient to counter the animus against Trump.

One can hardly imagine that these women who evidently favored Biden over Trump are pleased with the current state of affairs. 

Thus, women’s sports are under siege, as is the very definition of “woman.” Two existential threats are raised, and the silence is deafening. amid the cheers of officialdom. Women’s lib, indeed.

The Ketanji Brown Jackson Story: In Conclusion

As most of you know I've been kept a running log on this event (See the Ketanji Brown Jackson story log) and many of the links are from that log.  Now, it's time for the conclusion.  

By Rich Kozlovich

 

Well, it looks like the hearings for jurist, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has been nominated by the Biden Administration, are over.  A jurist who, according to Biden, has a brilliant legal mind, and she has been treated worse by Republicans than the Democrats treated Kavanaugh.  At least according to Cory Booker, the media, and of course the usual, or depending on you views of reality, the "unusual" Hollywood characters. 

Cory Booker slobbered all over himself about how badly she was treated, and how he's so proud of her.  Why? Because she's black?  Apparently! Booker is full of tears, full of emotion, full of horsepucky, and not one question about her judicial philosophy, or her rulings.  It was race baiting...period.  As for his claims she was treated worse than Kavanaugh.  Well the record shows something different.   Here, Here, Here. 

First, saying that to me is a serious error in judgement as I tracked all that filth, distortion and lies spewed out by the Democrats, the media and Hollywood about Kavanaugh. From my files, I know just how false that is:  Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here,  Here Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. 

But this one, Kavanaugh/Ford Media Aftermath, lists another 28 articles on how vile and corrupt the Democrats were, and that's not the end of my list.

When I saw that look of moral outrage on the faces of contemptible people like , Cory Booker, , and I wanted to gag.  Their personal lives have been filled with corruption and tolerance of corruption.  The proven corruption of Democrats is a absolute indicator of how disgusting these people really are.  Democrats, and the left in general, have a serious problem with history, facts, integrity, decency, truth and consistency.   

For their own political gain they're willing to destroy a good man's reputation.  They created a big TV production of moral outrage, and yet it was nothing more than a conspiracy of lies, out right hypocrisy, perjury and leftist corruption, and they knew it.

So we shouldn't be surprised now.  Cory Booker is a blatant race baiting liar, making up stories about people in his life who never existed, and what his life was all about in order to milk the cow of race baiting to its limit.  

Not one Republican asked her about her sexual practices.  Not one Republican accused her of sexual misconduct.  Not one Republican questioned her about her alcohol use.  Not one Republican attacked her on a personal level at all.    So then, what did the Republicans do that was so terrible?  They actually challenged her knowledge of law, which at best seems to be sketchy, along with her judgement and her judicial philosophy, all of which bears serious scrutiny. 

She’s a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law, yet couldn’t recall the core arguments in the pivotal Dred Scott case. How does she expect to converse intelligently with thoroughly prepared lawyers regarding precedent and relevance in cases that will appear before her in the Supreme Court? Judge Brown is no scholar. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here,

She thinks the Constitution is racist, and the thrust of her rulings should leave everyone with serious concerns.  All of which the Democrats are desperately trying to hide by refusing to show 48,000 documents regarding her work and views.  

She can't define what is a woman, claiming she's not a biologist.  If you can't define something how can you rule on it?   This has become the pattern with all of these nominees by the Biden administration.  Using metaphors and abstruse logic to defend that which can't be defended with simple, plain and understandable use of language.  Their goal?  This is a sloppy misuse of language as a deliberate effort at obfuscation and deceit for political purposes. This piece by Matt Vesta shows how insane this has become, not only involving the judiciary, but science as well.  

She supports court packing, but I'm willing to bet if she was a Republican, nominated by a Republican President and supported by a Republican Congress who supported court packing the Democrats and leftists would be screaming insanely - "it's an outrage, an outrage I tell you"!

She supports abortion.  Here , Here, Here, Here, Here, Here 

She's not an originalist, which is the common lie spouted out by far left nominees, as did Elena Kagan, in spite of her latest claims that she is.  In fact it's clear she supports judicial activism, as is demonstrated by her sentencing child porn criminals. Here, Here, Here,Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here.  

It isn't just her lax sentencing that's at issue.  Its the idea she's going to supplant the guidelines with her understanding, injecting her views on "social justice" into the Constitutional view of "justice".  It's clear her views and likes are what will take precedence over law if she's confirmed.

She supports Critical Race Theory, the historically flawed 1619 Project, Marxism, and thinks the Constitution is racist, called the President of the United States a terrorist. All the while being weak on criminals and terrorists. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here,  Here,  Here,  Here. Here.  

If that's what she believes she disqualifies herself because:

 “Every lawyer and judge promises to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, but she cannot uphold this oath if she believes that the Constitution and the principles of America’s foundation are racist and inherently flawed. Neither can a judge remain impartial and administer justice independently if she holds a philosophy that correcting racism requires affording privileged classes less justice than oppressed classes”.....

Her views on immigration demonstrates she thinks her views should override the laws passed by Congress and the President.   Here,  Here, Here 

Her smug and flip answers demonstrates she either fails to understand the laws she's supposed to be enforcing, or simply doesn't care what the law says.  All carrying a strong contaminating stain of judicial activism. Ketanji Brown Jackson wants to redesign the entire justice system based not on law, but on some ethereal, parameter-less and unendingly changeable concept of "compassion"!  And if confirmed, she will use her seat on the court to do it.

How can I be so sure of that? Because if she wasn't a believer and advocate of all the schemes of the far left she wouldn't have been nominated.  There's no doubt she subscribes to altering the Constitution based on a leftist agenda.  Biden's Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, is quoted as saying:

"We need to prepare for a complete reversal of the role the Supreme Court plays in our lives. ............Even in recent years, when the court has been less protective of individual rights and has chipped away at prior protections, advocates have clung to the hope that the Supreme Court might intervene whenever the nation's conscience and laws need a jolt in a progressive direction." 

 

Senator Kennedy asked her if she agreed with that, she punted saying: 

 

"Senator, that's a political statement made by someone in the executive branch."  

More, evasion, more misdirection in just another effort to avoid showing that in no way should she be seated as a justice on the Supreme Court, and in point of fact, she shouldn't be a judge at all. But, when you consider the federal judiciary is filled with political hacks, she fits right in, but in no way does that doesn't change the fact that any judge who doesn't believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, is unfit to serve as a jurist on the United States Supreme Court.  

As for the Republicans, there's only one thing they need to do and remember .....Never Ever Ring the Bell. 

Update:  This appeared today, 4/1/22 on American Thinker, and should add more shock to this judges rulings:   Who will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson and why?

 

USA Today's Op-Ed About Judge Jackson and What Defines a Woman Is Outright Insane

Matt Vespa Mar 25, 2022 @ Townhall.com

Editor's Note:  I don't have permission to publish this in full.  If the author or Townhall object, I will break this down and link it.  However, with all this insanity permeating American law and science, I think this needs as wide a distribution as possible. RK

When did this happen? When did science cease to become absorbed into the minds of liberals? By default, they’re idiots, but this is different. This is now a mental defect that prevents them from determining things that are grounded; things that are true on its face. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had difficulty defining what is a woman. She wouldn’t say. Her answer was that she’s not a biologist. So, she doesn’t know herself? Is her daughter a female? C’mon, judge. You know the answer. Yet, this is ‘woke’ America. It’s the supplantation of facts for feelings. This is snowflake syndrome but in its second phase of evolution—and it’s horrifying. 

What is a woman? This isn’t hard. This is basic science. Are women now doubting who they are en masse? Probably not, but the urban-based professional elites who dominated the Democratic Party and have way too much time on their hands sure do. USA Today ran an op-ed where they mentioned this line of questioning during the Supreme Court hearings this week. 

“Science says there's no simple answer,” the headline read. Is everyone taking hits off the crack pipe because I don’t know what’s going on here?

Via Fox News:

A piece published in USA Today on Thursday tackled the subject, running the headline, "Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.' Science says there's no simple answer."

"Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading," USA Today wrote. "It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation."

"While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary –  if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman –  the reality, gender experts say, is more complex," USA Today told readers.

The paper quoted Barnard College gender studies scholar Rebecca Jordan-Young, who praised Jackson's "pretty good answer" for stressing that "context matters" when it comes to disputes the nominee may rule on.

"There isn't one single 'biological' answer to the definition of a woman. There's not even a singular biological answer to the question of 'what is a female,'" Jordan-Young said, pointing to at least six "biological markers" of sex in the body, which include "genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and secondary sex characteristics."

[…]

Wheaton College gender studies professor Kate Mason swiped Blackburn, telling USA Today she "would prefer a world in which reality was much simpler."

There is no such thing as a “simpler” reality. There’s just reality. What fresh hell is this? And why is liberal America of all people working to a) erase women and b) marginalize the first black female nominee to the Supreme Court? Is Jackson a woman? Well, there’s no simple answer to that, I guess. That’s liberal America right now. 

There’s nuance—but then there’s dumbf**kitis and liberals have caught a nasty case of it. It’s become an art. How many fancy words and scientific phrases can I use to hypothesize and make an argument for something that’s not grounded in scientific fact at all. The same applies to history. Where there are pages upon pages of historical illiteracy that’s digested as fact. The latter is called the 1619 project, by the way. 

Liberals are willing to die on the hill to folks that are less than one percent of the population, the byproduct of socialized idiocy, I guess.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Trojan Horse

March 25, 2022 By Anony Mee

 

For crying out loud, it’s 2022 and, in the federal government women are still being promoted based on their looks rather than their qualifications for the job. And by POTUS no less! Well, Biden is just a derivative iteration of Harvey Weinstein.

Around twenty years ago, he twice participated in filibustering (Black, female) Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She finally was approved in 2005. Then, Biden advised President Bush that if he dared to nominate Brown to the Supreme Court, he would filibuster her again and prevail. At the same time, Democrats also filibustered a Hispanic male judge, two other female judges, and a male judge of Lebanese descent, among others. How very diverse, inclusive, and equitatious (sic) of them..........Judge Brown is no scholar. She’s a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law, yet couldn’t recall the core arguments in the pivotal Dred Scott case. How does she expect to converse intelligently with thoroughly prepared lawyers regarding precedent and relevance in cases that will appear before her in the Supreme Court?...........To Read More.....

  See the Ketanji Brown Jackson story log.

Ketanji Brown Jackson should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court

March 25, 2022 By E.W. Jackson

As an American of African descent and a great-grandson of slaves, I am certainly not opposed to the appointment of a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.  However, I am categorically against confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson to that post.  One day, a woman of her background will sit on the highest court, but Jackson should not be the person to break that glass ceiling.  Here is why.

She is an adherent of the far left.  Some Republican senators are willing to overlook this.  They are treating her confirmation as a fait accompli.  They would rather not go on record against the "first black woman" nominated to the Court.  This is the kind of political expediency that has brought our country to the precipice.........To Read More......

Pollak: Ketanji Brown Jackson Proves Conservatives Have Won the Legal Argument

Joel B. Pollak 24 Mar 2022

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had trouble defending her sentencing record in child pornography cases during her Senate confirmation hearings this week. She also evaded questions about her judicial philosophy, insisting that she had a judicial “methodology” instead.  Curiously, however, Judge Jackson seemed to identify herself as a judicial “originalist,” criticizing “judicial activism” and claiming that she did not even know what the left-wing view of a “living Constitution” meant........

“I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning,” Jackson said. “I believe that it is appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning of the words when one is trying to assess [a constitutional provision] because, again, that is a limitation on my authority to import my own policy views.”.......

What Cornyn discovered next, though, revealed that Judge Jackson is not an “originalist” at all............. Judge Jackson is pretending to be a originalist because conservatives have won the argument over legal philosophy, and because the public will reject a judge who admits pursuing what Judge Jackson once called “personal hidden agendas.”..........To Read More.....

 See the Ketanji Brown Jackson story log.

 

Tom Cotton to Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Don’t Find Your Testimony ‘Credible,’ I Think Child Pornographer Reoffended Because You Gave Light Sentence

Alana Mastrangelo 23 Mar 2022 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) told President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson that he did not find her testimony “credible” after the judge claimed she did not remember a child pornographer to whom she gave a light sentence.  “You know what I think?” Cotton said. “I think he got caught with child pornography again, and wouldn’t have if he had been in prison for the eight to ten years that the guidelines called for in 2013 when you first sentenced him.”..........To Read More.....

 See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.  

Jackson says she cannot define what a woman is at confirmation hearing

by Kate Scanlon, Political Reporter March 22, 2022

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, said during her confirmation hearing Tuesday that she could not define the term "woman."  Senator Blackburn: "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?" Judge Jackson: "No. I can't...I'm not a biologist."......To Read More....

 See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.  

Pre K-12 School Where Judge Jackson Sits on Board Pushes Cultural Marxism on Kids

Emma-Jo Morris 23 Mar 2022 

Georgetown Day School, the private Pre K-12 school where Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sits on the board of trustees, teaches radical critical theory pedagogy, and boasts on its website “everyone will engage in the work of social justice within all aspects of school life” — which Judge Jackson would be required to “support” and “promote” as a member of the board.  During her second day of questioning by senators on Tuesday, Judge Jackson took questions from a number of Republicans pertaining to her opinion on “Critical Race Theory” — and Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) specifically probed her on race-essentialist materials being taught at Georgetown Day School, such as “Antiracist Baby” by Ibram X. Kendi.  However, teaching “Antiracist Baby” is not the only radical material being pushed on children at the school where Judge Jackson sits on the board...........To Read More.... 

 See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.    

Judge Jackson in brief

Posted on March 23, 2022 by Scott Johnson in Senate, Supreme Court

The Washington Free Beacon has compiled videos with “All The Must-See Moments from Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation Hearings.” The compilation misses a few moments of interest, but it is far less painful than taking in the whole thing (C-SPAN has posted yesterday’s hearing in its entirety here on YouTube). However, that isn’t saying much.

Judge Jackson is easy to read. Her tone of voice in response to unfriendly questions is insufferable. She talks down to the unenlightened. She looks down on conservatives.

She buys every chapter and verse of the rapidly evolving progressive dogma. The rapidly evolving progressive dogma is to be incorporated into the Constitution as the opportunity presents itself. She can’t define a woman. Not anymore.

Her merits are entirely superficial. She makes a good appearance if you don’t look too closely........To Read More......

 See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.  

 

40 Pro-Life Leaders Expose Biden Supreme Court Justice Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ‘Pro-Abortion Extremism’

March 23, 2022 Susan Berry, PhD

 A coalition of nearly 40 national pro-life leaders sent a letter to the chairs of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Monday specifying the radical pro-abortion record of Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Led by the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), the coalition’s letter was addressed to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as confirmation hearings began for Jackson, who was chosen by Biden following the announcement of his commitment to nominate a black woman to the nation’s highest court. The letter explains how the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade has been harmful to the fabric of the country............To Read More.....

My Take - Does she support abortion?  If she didn't she wouldn't have been nominated. 

 

  See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.  

Fierce exchange rages as Republicans confront Dems for withholding SCOTUS nom documents

March 23, 2022 Kevin Haggerty

The Senate Judiciary Committee grew fervent when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and several colleagues accused the chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and his party of withholding records of Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and demanded to know, “is there anything else that Democrats have access to in this case that they’re not sharing with Republicans?”

Prior to taking the last break from questioning for the second day of the confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had brought up information regarding probation reports that had not been submitted to the record. When the committee returned from recess, Cruz reiterated his concern before normal order could resume.

“I asked the chairman about Senator Hirono had referenced five probation reports that were not in the record,” Cruz stated. “I asked the chairman whether the Democrats had access to information about Judge Jackson’s judicial record that Republicans did not. You did not answer me at the time.”..........

Cruz would have no more of the outlandish sentiment that members of the committee should somehow know to ask for specific records from the White House and issued a blanket proclamation against the chairman, “I am hereby requesting all other information you magically have that you haven’t told us you have, and you’re not sharing with the other side.”.............To Read More....

  See the Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson story, by topic.