Posted on 04/04/2022 9:30:08 AM PDT by grundle
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, in response to written questions, has told the Senate she does not hold a position on whether individuals have natural rights that come from God, not the law.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Judiciary Committee that will vote on Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, told a hearing on Monday that Jackson took a pass on that important question:
Here's what Grassley said at the beginning of today’s hearing, as he explained why he is a “no” vote on Jackson’s confirmation:
"Now, at one point in written questions to her, Sen. Cruz posed this question: "Please explain in your own words the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers' generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or unalienable."
“She seemed to have an understanding of this when she answered by saying the theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.’
“Then in the next question: ‘Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?’
“It seemed to me what -- to her understanding that she should easily have said -- said yes to that, but she took a position she didn't have a position. So part of having judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles in our Constitution. Natural rights are part of that system.
“But as Judge Jackson said in a written response, she does not, quote, "hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."
“I take issue with this, as natural rights are basic to our constitutional system and principles of limited government. Under our Constitution, we are endowed by our Creator -- well, I don't have to repeat that.
"All other rights are reserved to the people under the Tenth Amendment, recognizing the principle of limited government is what makes America the exceptional government compared to all others, and obviously sets our Constitution apart from all others."
Silly peasants. Only your rulers have natural rights.
Whatever happened to the Declaration of Independence?? “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...”
I guess Ms. Jackson missed 7th grade Civics class the day that was discussed.
She’s supremely (pun intended) unqualified for the Court, or any judicial position for that matter. The tragedy is she’ll be on SCOTUS for the next 35 years making marxist social and political policy for the rest of us.
Does this woman even know what a natural right is ?
I noted the statement of Dr. Rand Paul that we are only one vote away from forfeiting our liberties. Five individuals can eliminate our Constitution.
Well, to be fair, branDUHn did remind us none of them are “absolute”. I wonder if there would be any blowback if someone felt like altering the 13th and 19th amendments. You know since they’re not “absolute” and stuff.
she does not, quote, “hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
= = =
So, if she were to be voted down, that will be OK?
No recourse, no appeal, no argument?
then this broad has no business being a judge!!
This is seriously some scary crap. We allow these leftists to infiltrate and take over even more, we are 100% done as a nation.
That response should immediately result in her removal from consideration. She knows that the Constitution incorporates the Declaration of Independence, and is rooted in the Natural Law.
She is duty bound to apply Constitutional principles to her decisions.
A SCOTUS justice who rejects the Declaration of Independence. Great.
How sad that not taking a position on Natural Rights is the reason for a no vote instead of being lenient on child sex criminals.
So, not only does she not “know” what a woman is? She doesn’t even “know” what a human being is? How can someone with this view make any determination on the legal distinctions regarding types of murder or rape?
The hurdle for Jackson may be that she doesn’t accept the idea of a supernatural “creator” being the source of human rights. Fortunately, that’s what the Declaration of Independence provides as a well-established founding document. All she needed to do was say that “natural rights” are those rights delineated in the DoI as endowed by a divine Creator and not defined by governments of men. The fact that she can’t pass this simple test says volumes about the depth of her radical indoctrination that colors her judgement.
Empty her pockets, empty her bank accounts, take her car and home, throw her out of the country...and then ask her if she believes she has natural rights.
This woman (yes, I called her a woman despite not being a biologist) is a fraud.
She doesn’t know “the thing”?
It depends on what the definition of "being an American is".
As we here at FR know, its abiding by the founding principals and laws of our representative republic defined by the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution whose rationale is detailed in the "Federalist Papers".
However, the pragmatic (and brutally honest) definition is whom ever is in charge of the Federal Government and its agencies, and that is the Democrat's claim to "being American" is.
Starting with Woodrow Wilson, and completed by FDR, the Democrats transitioned us to a post-Constitutional administrative state over which they have complete control.
Someone should have asked her if her 13th amendment rights can be removed.
That’s why Joe referred to It as “the thing”
Probably since FDR.
That statement should IMMEDIATELY disqualify her from *ANY* Constitutional office!
The Declaration of Independence says we DO have natural rights!!!!
And the Constitution is based on natural rights!!!!!
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.