Yeah!

The founders determined that the people were the best and only true arbiters over what was and wasn't constitutional at a local level. The fedgov was created as a construct for things common to all states, treaties, trade, etc. Presidents weren't celebrities and didn't even warrant a fence around the white house. In fact, Lincoln wasn't invited to Gettyberg and had to invite himself and then upstaged a famous orator Sec. of State Edward Everett. But back then Senators were appointed by their states to act on the governors behalf for their state in the federal machine and they could be fired for any reason at all. This is how far we've fallen.

She was judged on the color of her skin, not the content of her character.

That would be EPIC.

Of course, you'd have to be the Committee Chair or you'd be ruled Out of Order...

"There is no inherent logic to voting."

Yep. When partisanship matters more than policy, the government is already beyond recovery.

We don;t need her 'Position'. She only needs to support those given to us by the Constitution.

well....with assholes like Romney & collins among others it is about the best we can do.

Onward the postmodernists Progressively march...

All we have is up or down voting, a majority, or a supermajority. There is no inherent logic to voting. 51 assholes with rice pudding for brains can approve a Judge. Even 60.

Yes for now, it's 3-6 so she could be a Satanist to little effect. But some day it could be 5-4 and she'd be enslaving people.

The Gears!

This is very disturbing. The Constitution makes a specific statement about the emination of rights and she was asked to affirm that, at the time very radical, concept. She didn't OR she couldn't because she believes the idea that rights are granted by the authority in power, subject to change at a whim. This is the idea of a living constitution and not the of The Constitution whereby interpretation is everything and words can have their meanings twisted to say what is fashionable at the moment. In reality the oath to uphold and defend The Constitution is meaningless to her!

+1,000

Certainly not anyone who is appointed for life using political justification.
This is the crux of the issue that Lincoln violated in 1860 when by force of arms
he forced free people who wished to go their separate way (as allowed as states
rights in the law of the land) to remain in an involuntary forced union.
Those previously free men were allowed no voice in the changes made
to the law of the land removing their states' rights and enslaving everyone
for posterity.
No one in government has the authority to remove individual rights.
That was the argument of those founders who insisted that the Bill of Rights
be added to the constitution - against the outcry of the monarchists who wanted
a powerful central government like those found in Europe.

No one in government has the authority to remove individual rights.
Unfortunately, the government does have the power to do so and to enforce
such tyranny.

Since she can't define this or anything else, obviously she has no rights whatsoever.
She can't defend the US Constitution since she has no understanding of it.
Since she lets convicted sex offenders off with light sentences, she doesn't
understand the law, the only area that she claims to have any expertise.
Obviously she would have no argument against being blamed for the actions
of her ancestors who took others of her ancestors into slavery in Africa.
Since she is at fault for such actions, she must be punished appropriately,
for enslaving others.
Her purpose for pursuing the position of SCOTUS judge must be to follow
in the footsteps of the slaver ancestors and enslave some Americans to
benefit others. Using her unearned, position of power for that horrid purpose
is a high crime and requires that the greatest punishment be applied.
What is the punishment for enslavement of innocents and treason?[/s]

OMG!!! If I were on the committee, I'd stand, call the bailiff / Sgt. at Arms, and say: "Please take the candidate into custody." If he protests, then I'd address him and say: "So you do believe that individuals possess natural rights? You believe that you possess the natural right of freedom from incarceration." If he demands to know what the charges are I'd say: "No charges. I'm simply testing your assertion that you "hold no position", which is clearly false, as you did not remain silent and protested the infringement on your individual natural rights."

Our only salvation is that she is a left wing vote replacing a left wing vote.

So, if the issue of determining if a government action is a violation of the Bill of Rights shouldn't be in the hands of the federal court system, then who should make that determination?

Jackson is a disgrace. She can't define or take positions on fundamental concepts despite that being the cardinal role of someone sitting on that august body.

To me, there ought to be a way to outright disqualify candidates who appear before the Senate who simply refuse to answer questions. I'm still trying to picture what form that would take, but I think that the notion of stonewalling and "filibustering" (not an appropriate use of the term for a nominee) to run out one's time of questioning should be met with unequivocal dismissal and disqualification.

I know that the notion of "judicial review" was in and of itself highly controversial when it was first employed in Marbury vs. Madison. I'm not saying I necessarily support the concept of Judicial Review. I go back and forth. But I do question where else checks on the other two branches would effectively take place if not at the Supreme Court.

This ding-a-ling should not even be holding the position as a judge.

Supposing the Supreme Court stayed checked and balanced, what would our country look like?

Technically speaking, SCOTUS was never intended to determine (judge) Constitutionality. This was something unconstitutional that they foist on themselves. The role was contract disputes between the states and nations.

10th Amendment renders what they did illegal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...

Simply by "not having a position," on any issue, whether it's natural rights, 1A, 2A, or anything, is grounds for dismissal. We want judges that will judge.

But that's a technicality. Her stated lack of position says to me that she thinks we do Not have Individual Rights unless government Simon Says So.

In a nation run by lawyers, you can lie your way out of a lie with a language loophole. Because Clinton was asked under oath, "IS it true that..." That someone is a Rhodes Scholar does not guarantee that the person has morals.