Posted on 03/24/2022 1:08:33 PM PDT by Michael.SF.
I am not able to listen to the hearings but do catch bits and pieces of it. I listened a short time ago to Amy Klobuchar gush profusely over the astounding brilliance of Brown-Jackson (to the point of nausea).
One thing she said though stands out as being disingenuous. Given that Brown has authored 560 opinions, we were told less than 3% have been overturned.
That seems to be an incorrect yardstick to use. It seems that the better measure would be how many of those 560, that were appealed, was she overruled on.
I have not been able to find that number.
Klobuchar is dumb as a box of hair!
What’s the difference between overturned and overruled?
I missed that, my mistake. “over turned” is the correct term. “over ruled” applies to objections in a court room setting. Obviously I am not an attorney, thus made a careless error.
560 x 3% > 16
https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-jurisprudence-of-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson
SIGNIFICANT CASES
Judge Jackson had more than a dozen cases overturned in her time on the district bench. Ten of her decisions were reversed in whole or in part by the D.C. Circuit, four decisions were vacated and remanded, and in three other decisions her judgment was affirmed, but the D.C. Circuit criticized the substance of the rulings. A review of some of her most significant opinions can provide a window into Judge Jackson’s temperament and judicial philosophy and what kind of justice she would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Sorry if that was not clear.
I believe your question is, of her 560 rulings, how many were appealed, and of those, what percentage of the appeals reversed or vacated her original ruling.
You are correct.
If you want to see someone who doesn’t have an opinion on anything, can’t tell a man from a woman, doesn’t know when life begins, and has the native intelligence of a bag of hammers, watch this:
She wants the job so badly, she won’t answer even the most simple question.
Doesn’t matter. Brown will be approved and we have a stupid, racist on the SC. She makes the wide Latina look like a genius.
the left wants everyone to accept at face value (literal face, skin color and genetalia value) that she is qualified and that no unearthing or probing of her values for a lifetime appt can be made.
She would probably like to answer the questions in order to demonstrate just how "woke" she is, but her handlers have assured her this is not the forum for that.
In a sane world, she would be patently disqualified. It will be very telling to learn of which R's approve of her nomination.
Any answer she gave would be untrue anyway.
If there is even one R who votes for this person (not sure if Jackson is a man or a woman, since she doesn’t seem to know), then we are sunk as a country. All those usuals who vote with the D’s had better watch out. This is a lifetime appointment and it is TIME to play politics. I know they will still get a leftist, but does it have to be someone who refuses to answer basic questions? Someone who doesn’t know how to define what a woman is? This is beyond the pale.
She’s a racist moron.
I wish someone would have asked to answer yes or no to the following question: “Are you a woman?”
-PJ
If Republicans really had the nerve of the Democrats, McConnell would make his caucus all vote NO, all 50 of them.Make Democrats own the optics of the first black woman Vice-President casting the tie-breaking vote to force the first black woman Justice onto the Supreme Court, because she was THAT unacceptable a choice to the representatives of the states in the union.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.