Reaction Rolls in as Republicans Say They'll Vote No on Jackson

[spanone]

Assholes on parade.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are announcing they will not be voting in favor of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, prompting backlash on social media.

The decisions come after Jackson was grilled by the Senate for hours this week, answering questions from both Democrats and Republicans. GOP members characterized Jackson's judicial views as extremist and soft on crime, making it increasingly clear that they do not agree with her.

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse announced Friday that he would not be voting to confirm Jackson to the high court, although he sprinkled in some praise for the judge.

"Judge Jackson is an extraordinary American story," Sasse said in a statement. "We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation."

https://www.newsweek.com/reaction-rolls-republicans-say-theyll-vote-no-jackson-1692105

[jimfields33]

1. No surprise. The last decade has been pretty much party line votes.

Only need 50 and VP.

[deRien]

3. a vote to get out of committee

I think a vote by the Senate Judicial Committee is needed to get the nomination out of committee. Not sure what the breakdown of Ds v. Rs is on the committee. I think if the nomination isn't voted out of committee then Schumer will have a way to bring her up for a vote.

[dixiechiken1]

4. The ratio of each Senate panel is determined by the ratio of majority vs minority in the Senate...

The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently evenly split at 11 members from each party.

4. What happens if the Judiciary Committee ties?

Senate rules dictate a committee must muster a majority to move a bill or nominee to the floor. Should the panel deadlock 11-11, Schumer as majority leader could move the nomination out of committee via an expedited “discharge motion,” which is voted on by the full Senate and requires only a simple majority. Republicans might then be expected to try to filibuster the nomination, or thwart its passage by demanding never-ending debate. But Schumer could move to cut off debate, which would work so long as Democrats suffer no defections. Two of Biden’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- Holly Thomas and Jennifer Sung -- won Senate confirmation this way, after deadlocked votes in committee. “The bottom line is that if a bare majority wants this to be done -- which they do want this to be done -- it will get done,” said Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-senates-50-50-split-means-for-biden-supreme-court-pick/2022/02/25/72cbbb84-965c-11ec-bb31-74fc06c0a3a5_story.html

without paywall: https://archive.ph/2022.03.26-133932/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-senates-50-50-split-means-for-biden-supreme-court-pick/2022/02/25/72cbbb84-965c-11ec-bb31-74fc06c0a3a5_story.html

[jimfields33]

9. I think it's. 11 - 11 each. A tie Allows it to proceed to full senate vote.

[Karma13612]

2. Idiot Sasse.

As the ABA evaluators said in testimony on thursday, there is no legitimate “judicial philosophy’.

In my opinion, that would be akin to a specific bias on issues.

And that is completely unacceptable in the concept of impartial justice.

Now, I will say that Ms Handmaiden has a judicial philosophy. Her religion guides her in everything she does. Including her rulings.

[CurtEastPoint]

6. He is a huge doofus and looks the part, too.

[Polybius]

13. I can't agree

Scalia was highly qualified, very intelligent, and an great orator, but I could never vote for him. I simply don't agree with his judicial philosophy. Sasse and her have clear disagreements, however wrong his views are.

[Chainfire]

5. Disrupt, delay, deny, destroy; the modern Repubican Party

[Bluepinky]

7. Who's soft on crime?

Republicans are always accusing Democrats of being soft on crime. But which party consistently overlooks sexual misconduct/crimes committed by members of that party? Note that Al Franken (who committed no assault, only hugs and comic gags), Andrew Cuomo and John Conyers resigned, while Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz and Brett Kavanaugh were never asked to go. One of them was even appointed to the US Supreme Court, where he’s now a sitting Justice! Of note, another sitting Justice of the US Supreme Court, a Republican,
is now embroiled in a political scandal involving his wife and attempts to overthrow a legitimate Presidential election. And Republicans failed to impeach Donald Trump for his multiple and documented crimes against our country, while he was US President.

I do wish Democrats would prosecute Republicans for their crimes while in office, though. George W. Bush and his administration got away with lying to the world to initiate a war in Iraq, the results of which have been catastrophic. And Donald Trump, the most corrupt US President in history, committed countless crimes while in office. No charges have been filed against him as of yet. If politicians aren’t held accountable for their crimes, the crimes escalate in severity. I don’t hear any Republicans demanding that Donald Trump be prosecuted for his crimes.

[usajumpedtheshark]

10. What he left unsaid: "I prefer SC justices to be unqualified Republican candidates"

Can't have highly qualified members appointed.

[a kennedy]

11. Well we all knew no one repub would break ranks.....they all suck. 🤬 🤬 🤬

[Mad_Machine76]

12. And that reaction is one......

of total non-surprise from anybody with two brain cells for three reasons (not in any specific order):
1. She's a WOMAN
2. She's an AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN
3. She's an AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN nominated by a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT

[spanone]

14. ⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧⇧