Nominee Jackson’s short appellate record

WSJ Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record

Well, that was disappointing. The nominee’s judicial record shows a consistent pattern of ruling as she thinks the law should be rather than what it is.

With 50 Democrat Senators, she will likely be confirmed but she has no business being on the Supreme Court.

131 thoughts on “Nominee Jackson’s short appellate record

  1. “ After reviewing so many of Judge Jackson’s judicial opinions, we have no doubt of her capabilities. We can’t discern whether she has any cognizable judicial philosophy that would guide her approach to the sort of fraught legal questions that the Supreme Court confronts term after term. Her loudest advocates are confident that she’ll serve them well, and her record supports that view. With 50 Democratic senators, that may be enough.” WSJ

    So the problem is they can’t find any problems?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Her loudest advocates are the far left, who regard the Constitution as an impediment

      More relevant quotes form the article

      “Much judicial mischief has involved courts appointing themselves to exercise power and impose liability in the absence of any law. Judge Jackson’s rationale, echoing those of many Warren and Burger court decisions, is that the Constitution empowers courts to vindicate “intrinsic rights.””

      “Judge Jackson asserted that although the policy itself was unreviewable, she could pass judgment on the “manner” in which the agency made it. She found it lacking based on the agency’s failure to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking and its failure to consider adequately the “downsides of adopting a policy that, in many respects, could significantly impact people’s everyday lives in many substantial, tangible, and foreseeable ways”—which would seem to be a consideration of policy, not manner. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed this ruling.”

      “They need merely “display awareness” of the change and identify “good reasons for the new policy.” To this, Judge Jackson’s opinion adds the requirement, which the Supreme Court had rejected, that the agency show the new policy to be better than the old one.”

      Better according to whom? Herself? Queen Jackson?

      Her record shows a total disregard for law and precedent when it disagrees with her preferences.

      This would be like a Republican President appoiting Trump to the Supreme Court.


          1. Textualists have a bad habit of not heeding the advice of one Thomas Jefferson. The law needs to evolve as the world changes. Jefferson saw that in the 18th century. Too bad textualists and Libertarians don’t see that.


          2. The Constitution vests the Congress with making new law,

            If you want change, do the work to get laws passed, don’t seek judges who will bypass the COnstitution just to get your way easier


          3. Bypassing the Constitution as opposed to interpreting it differently that YOU?

            An interpretation by a justice is legitimate, whether you agree with it our not. They are smarter than us when it comes to the law and have much more experience in studying it and understanding it.

            And as far as Congress goes, they have, regardless of leadership given the majority of their legislative powers to the Executive. The court is a check on those powers. As the recent occupiers of the Oval Office have found out.

            And until Congress retakes its place as a legislative body that does more than names Post Offices and Federal Building after those deserving (or not), the Executive will have to “legislate” to keep this nation moving forward.


          4. Had you read the article you would have seen she was reversed in all of those decisions by the higher courts, and had ignored precedents by the higher courts.

            That is not acceptable judicial temperament.


          5. Citizens United. There is nothing in the Constitution that equates speech with dollars.

            The explanation was a huge stretch.

            That ruling has destroyed our political system by shifting power from the electorate to Wall Street.

            Effectively, Wall Street is now giving the people permission to live and work here, not the other way around.

            Wrap that around the right wing heads and we get a lot of sputtering and “but, but…”.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Have you ever actually read Citizens United?

            First, there was no law, there was a regulation by the Federal Elections Commission That determined that corporations, like the Sierra Club, for example, passed the free speech rights of its members to the corporation but other corporations, like say, Exxon, did not pass the rights of its members to the corporation.

            There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that limits people from expressing their political speech based on the presumed altruism of their motives.

            Speech has always been costly. Even Thomas Paine had to pay for his pamphlets.

            Maybe you don’t like the results of enforcing the Constitution, but the way to remedy that is to amend it, not pretend you can pick and choose what speech is allowed.


          7. Special interest groups were included in the original prohibition as well as unions. So it’s not just corporations.

            Speech is costly, but anonymity is not. Citizens definitely have an interest in know who is buying access via massive money into support.

            If a candidate runs on building a prison because he is tough on crime, and his biggest donor is a prison corporation, we need to know that. Otherwise we are just picking candidates because they kiss babies.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. “This would be like a Republican President appoiting Trump to the Supreme Court.”

        Not really. Trump is not, nor has never been a lawyer or judge; just a defendant. However, I could see DeSantis promising that if Trump were not to run in 2024. 🙄

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Any current conservative justice who looks to overturn Roe v. Wade will be disregarding the law.

            Now you question her interpretations based on her experiences? Sounds like you were searching for ANY reason to deny her the seat she is nominated for, is qualified for, and should be confirmed to.

            Not surprised. It is what you do.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If you really think about it, if the law is cast in stone, why have opinions.

            Very few rulings from SCOTUS are unanimous, particularly in the post-truth era as envisioned by Gingrich.

            So you would just discard opinions, dissenting or not, since the laws are so obvious and non-ambiguous. Well, the reality is the reason we have rulings from SCOTUS is because the Constitution is often vague or ambiguous in details.

            2nd Amendment debates have hinged on comma placement and grammar along with possible intent as described in The Federalist Papers and other letters and writings. So now the perception of those on the right was that militias were to fight the government, not foreign enemies or insurrectionists. If our “militias”, gangs really, were in Ukraine, they would be helping Putin. Or committing treason as sensible folks admit to.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. NO. You were looking for anything possible, knowing that she would not interpret the law the same way as some Libertarian dentist in Chesapeake, VA did.

            You were never going come out in support of her because of her record working for civil rights and the rights of the accused. Things that the Constitution is supposed to protect.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. There is no right to kill another human life for your convenience.

            Once rudimentary self-awareness is present, abortion is homicide, and justified only in legitimate self-defense.

            The first obligation of government at all levels is protecting innocent life.


          5. Your belief that abortion is a matter of convenience completely disregards the life and importance of the mother.

            And who is that determines that self-awareness? There are several people on this forum that are not self-aware. At times you are one of them.


          6. “Yep, I oppose every judge who places their opinion of what the law should be ahead of what it is.”

            Unless it is a phrase in the Constitution about the “well-regulated militia.” THAT you are happy to see ignored and two centuries of precedent overturned, so here is some advice – get off your high horse.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. 2 centuries? There were no SCOTUS cases on the 2nd Amendment until 1935, and Miller held there was an individual right to keep and bear arms, but allowed a licensing requirement on some types deemed not suitable for militia use.


          8. Yes, two centuries.

            People accepted the Second Amendment as written until Scalia came along and turned it upside down. That was roughly two centuries after it was written.

            The point was you seem to have no problem with active courts when they do what YOU want so, again, get off your high horse. There has NEVER been a more political or activist court than the one we have now thanks to Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Again, the only time SCOTUS had addressed the 2nd prior to Heller was Miller in 1935, and it conceded an individual right.

            And the contemporary writing of the framers did not limit the right to keep and bear arms to miltiia use.


          10. The Second Amendment was NEVER about individual gun rights. It was about state militias in general and slave patrols in particular. It was to ensure that the new federal government could not abolish them. The words are very clear. The history and intent is also clear. None other than George Washington called up the militia to protect the government, not to threaten it.

            You would like to interpret the Second Amendment differently. That is fine. But get off your high horse, can you lectures about respecting the rule of law, and grow up. You are the champion of YOUR opinion not of some sacrosanct and objective truth.


      2. …”who regard the Constitution as an impediment”

        No. They view it as a document that is not fully implemented to ALL citizens and demand that the rights guaranteed are granted to ALL.


          1. Actually, that is who the Constitution was written by and for. As a textualist/originalist, you have to admit that is fact.

            Anything afetr that means bupkes and we are back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, no army and the Post Office wouldn’t be the mess that it is today. As an originalist, anyway.


          2. There is a means for amending the Constitution, and it has been done successfully 25 times. If there is something you think should be changed, follow the process and change it, don’t look for judges who will twist it to change the meaning.


          3. So judicial interpretation is just twisting meanings? Conservatives do it just as much, if not more than Liberals. Liberals look to define the laws of the Constitution to actually protect people’s rights; conservatives want to drag the laws of this country back to the 18th Century.

            I get it. If a judge isn’t supported by The Heritage Foundation, they are radical and not suited to sit on the court. There have already been a couple of endorsements from CONSERVATIVE legal minds who think you, and The Heritage are full of shit.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. “intrinsic rights.”

        You put that in disparaging quotes. You should not. I suggest you get familiar with the Ninth Amendment. Here is the full text. . .

        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Not at all.

            Okay, you joined in the sniggering.

            As for rights not placing burdens on others, it does not work that way. For example, your “right” to bear arms infringes on my right to life by increasing the dangers to it.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “My firearms are no threat to you.”

            Uh, yes they are.

            If I lived in a country that put a higher priority on my right to life than on your right to have an arsenal, then I would have a much lower risk of falling victim to gun violence. Gun death rate in the UK, for example, is about 1/40th of ours.

            Rights are always in conflict and that is the point.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. If you aren’t part of a drug gang, or live in a neighborhood that tolerates gang activity, your risk of violent death is not that different from in the UK.

            And whatever risk you face from the firearms held by criminals is irrelevant to my firearms.

            Your hoplophobia does not reflect real risk.


          4. Your “logic” vis a vis the UK is bogus.

            If you want to eliminate parts of our society that are most dangerous then you must do the same with respect to the UK. When you do, you will come back to the same facts – the more guns, the more risk of gun death for everybody. Denying that well-established truth is simply childish.

            I will grant you that YOUR particular guns are a far greater risk to you and your family members than they are to me. Of course, that is irrelevant to the point we started with. My right to life is compromised by your right to have those guns. Rights do not exist in a vacuum. There are ALWAYS other people around.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. A hazard you ignore is that in the last century over 200 million people were murdered by their own legal governments in countries that lack a 2nd Amendment.


          6. “A hazard you ignore is that in the last century over 200 million people were murdered by their own legal governments in countries that lack a 2nd Amendment.”

            That is, of course, absolutely childish and ahistorical nonsense. Those ILLEGAL governments you seem to refer to came to power on the backs of militias that were far too easily armed.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Good to see you admit the Soviet Union and Communist China were illegal governments.”

            Any time violence is used to overthrow democratic governments you end up with an illegal government. Something to keep in mind the next time you try to ignore the significance of the events of January 6th.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. WSJ: “‘Presidents are not kings,’ she wrote. ‘This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.'”

    Judge Jackson sounds like a bit of a dunce to me. Her statement, above, commits various obvious logical fallacies. This alone should keep her off the Court.


        1. In this case Jackson was the attempted dictator. The legal precedent she denied in her ruling had existed for more than a century.


          1. “The legal precedent she denied in her ruling had existed for more than a century.”

            What exactly is that precedent?

            And let us not forget that Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planed Parenthood is precedent. If the current court overturns it, they have gone against precedent as well.


          2. “Reversing settled law is a serious matter and should be done with a wide consensus.”

            6-3 conservative v. liberal? Is that your wide consensus? Or are those conservative justices there to overturn a woman’s right to choose?


          3. We disagree,

            In my opinion, supported by knowledge of embryology, a life deserving of protection under the Rule of Law is present as soon as there is any level of self awareness. Others set the threshold at conception.

            When opinion on a subject that cannot be settled by science alone differs, the place to determine what law will be is through a consensus of the legislature, not the courts, not the individual. I thought you believed in democracy.


          4. …”is through a consensus of the legislature”

            And the GOP just blocked that AGAIN.

            I thought YOU believed in individual rights?”

            It amazes me at times that people demand their rights be protected but don’t give a hoot about the rights of others.


          5. How do you negotiate with a party that has one goal: To get itself back into power through whatever means necessary.

            You put a helluva a lot of onus on Democrats to negotiate. It is NOT a one way street. The GOP has been obstructionist since Gingrich held the gavel in the House.

            But to you ALL of the fault is on the left. Not a good way to compromise or come to a consensus.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “What exactly is that precedent?”

            Are you kidding? He has no idea. He is parroting the bogus claim in the article.

            And speaking of bogus claims, it is obvious that the WSJ is confusing the idea of Executive Privilege with Immunity from subpoena. Executive Privilege is a privilege that has to be invoked in response to a question. It does not mean that you do not have to appear when LAWFULLY subpoenaed.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. And Executive privilege is limited to the current occupant of the Oval Office. He can extend it to his predecessors if he sees good reason to do so. But FORMER occupants cannot invoke it.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Your “answer” is NONSENSE.
            There is no “non sequitur” in that statement.
            There is no “reductio ad absurdum” in that statement.
            There is no “category error in that statement.”

            There is a statement of fact – “Presidents are not kings.”
            And there are the implications of that fact – “This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.’”

            And those words make PERFECT SENSE in her CORRECT ruling against Trump’s claim that his people are immune to Congressional subpoenas.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. It has nothing to do with Trump being a king.

            It is about our co-equal branches of government. The internal communications of the executive branch are privileged.

            If Trump had demanded Pelosi’s communications with lobbyists, you’d have a cow. It works both ways .

            The President’s advisors would not present him with unpopular options if they thought they would be in Congress the next day and the NYT and WAPO the day after.


          3. “It is about our co-equal branches of government. The internal communications of the executive branch are privileged.”


            The role of the Congress has ALWAYS been to oversee the actions and performance of the Executive Branch. They have ALWAYS issued subpoenas in furtherance of that role whenever they felt the need. The internal communications of the Executive Branch are NOT protected. (Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi). The only exception is Executive Privilege when someone is directly advising the President. And that privilege does not mean you can ignore lawful subpoenas. You must appear. You invoke it when and if a question gets into areas that are legitimately covered by it.

            Your counter example of Pelosi being subpoenaed by the President is, frankly, ignorant. The Executive does not have ANY power or authority to investigate Congress without probable cause of a crime.

            Your bullshit is consistent with your monarchal view of the President – IF he is a Republican.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “The internal communications of the executive branch are privileged.”

            UNTIL that executive is no longer in office. That is why the records he carried away to Florida are being investigated. Especially the CLASSIFIED ones that have been discovered and taped back together or dried out after attempting to flush them down the toilet.


          5. And Nixon’s communications privileges were adjudicated by a court based on probable cause of criminal activity.

            Absent probable cause satisfying a court, those communications belong to the former President’s library.

            If indeed classified documents were mishandled, that should be dealt with in court, but still that does not terminate the privilege of tother communications.


          6. The courts have already decided that Trump is no longer protected by “executive privilege”. For you to say it has not been settled yet is blatantly false.

            Sorry, but the communications do NOT belong to the former president’s library. They are protected by the Presidential Records Law and belong to the National Archives. Who, after the court’s ruling against TFG, have released those documents to Congress for review.

            Apparently you have zero issue with Trump attempting to ILLEGALLY destroy those records, which violates the LAW. Also, classified documents have been found in his possession after his departure.

            So much for the rule of Law when it comes to Trump in your view.


          7. Did you not read what I wrote? Any mishandling of documents should be addressed.

            If it is shown that Trump used a private server to maintain control of government communications and then wiped that server when the records were subpoenaed or destroyed cell phones to hide those communications, he should be prosecuted.

            Just like a Sect of State.


          8. He didn’t use a server; he tore things up and tried to flush them down the toilet.

            And the Sect of State was exonerated. The FBI had ALL of the info that the right wing media said was gone.

            I believe the phrase is “nothingburger.”

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “That the partisan FBI “..

            It was Trump’s freakin’ FBI. And Trump’s SEVERAL AG’s. You really are delusional. If there really were something there, they would have brought it out. ESPECAILLY while the GOP had full control of the government for 2 years.

            So Benghazi and the server. NOTHING BURGERS. What else ya got, Doc?

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “So, you’re asking for an explanation? Too bad, you had your chance.”

            You got your tongue sticking out as you say that?

            It was a rhetorical question. Duh.
            It was obviously empty airhead blather from the get go. Your responses since simply confirm that fact.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. An endorsement of Judge Jackson from an (perhaps) unexpected source.

    Who is Judge Luttig? “The endorsement of a Biden nominee by a highly respected retired judge, who has spent much of his career entrenched in conservative judicial philosophy, may well dilute some of the far right’s criticism of Jackson.

    Early in his career, Luttig worked in the Reagan White House and served as a law clerk to legal titan Antonin Scalia when he was on a federal appeals court. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Luttig to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. He stepped down from the bench in 2006.”

    Liked by 2 people

          1. It is still a full throated endorsement. Your one little cherry picked statement about the GOP not cutting off their noses to spite their faces does not remove the fact that Luttig endorsed her for her qualifications and…JUDICIAL TEMPERMENT.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Republicans should vote to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, even if they cannot bring themselves to confirm her out of political magnanimity, and then proudly take the deserved credit for their part in elevating the first black female jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

            I think she will almost certainly be confirmed, and I hope she fools me, as Roberts has in the other direction, but her blatant disregard for the law and precedent disqualify her in my opinion.


          3. Blatant disregard for the law questions the interpretation of the law. Just because you don’t agree with an interpretation, does not prove disregard.


          4. There was a smidgeon of tactical advice for the Republicans, but that was NOT the point of the letter. Obviously. The point was very clear from the first sentence. . .

            “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

            Liked by 1 person

          5. She certainly meets the qualifications, but that does not mean that her record is one I would endorse were I a Senator.

            She has been reversed repeatedly for judicial overreach, That is very dangerous at the SCOTUS level.


          6. ” That is very dangerous at the SCOTUS level.”

            No more dangerous that changing laws for political expediency. The Conservative legal playbook, pg. one.


          7. Still beating that drum to the point the head is splintered.

            It wasn’t just bureaucrats that made changes. Many of the changes for 2020 were passed in a bipartisan manner to protect the voting public during a pandemic. Now the laws they are writing are turning elections into a mess (see Texas) that the electorate doesn’t even know what the law is any more. All to provide “integrity” and “trust in the system”. Falling flat. Bigly.

            Your drum is broken and your tune is flat.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. If moot (and none of the changes were meant to be permanent, just for that single election) , then why the big hoopla about “election integrity” and “trust in elections”? It is all partisan, power grabbing bullshit. But because it is being done by folks you support, there is nothing wrong with it.,


          9. “ For the general election, at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia have made at least some changes that will make it easier and more accessible for voters to cast their ballots from home. These changes include removing strict excuse requirements or allowing COVID-19 concerns to be a valid excuse to vote absentee, allowing ballot drop boxes, offering prepaid postage on election mail and proactively sending all active registered voters applications to request an absentee ballot — with some even skipping that step and sending the actual ballots.

            The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.”

            Other states already had robust and successful vote by mail systems in effect.

            That being the case, your opinion about the laws in each state mean little except if you didn’t like the results. Which was the argument about the PA legislators who wanted to challenge the rules AFTER losing.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Not trying to relitigate 2020.

            But the States who are fixing their laws to prevent another fiasco have every right to do so, and under the Constitution, no one but the legislatures have that power.


          11. Maybe, but states can have legislatures delegate to officials as their method of operation.

            Of course states have the right to pick electors as they see fit. But you either hand pick them or allow voting, and voting rights are intrinsic to a democracy.

            Texas has tried so hard to complicate voting that they didn’t even have the forms ready and people had no time to learn the new hoops to jump through.

            Texas is afraid they are turning purple, in my opinion. So they are working on making sure only the “right” people get representation.

            People are starting to tire of the Big Lie, so those extremists that are endorsed by Trump may win the primaries, but could very well lose big in the elections.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. “You mean the laws legally established by the legislatures to fix the unlawful decisions of bureaucrats?”

            Can’t get over the Big Lie I see. Sad.

            But, no. I was referring to the laws intended to keep people from voting. NO PURPOSE other than the political advantage of the people imposing them.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “So statements that she had no standing for a ruling do indicate overreach?”

            I suppose you meant “do not?”

            If so, no. Differences of opinion are common in the court system and do not mean there was overreach or underreach or any particular pejorative you want to spin. It means there was a difference of opinion. Whose opinion is right or wrong is always going to be subjective. I think that the Heller decision was egregious overreach by an activist court with a political agenda. Does that make it true?

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Her whole federal career since 2009 has been either Obama’s or Biden’s doing. That should tell you plenty. Heck, she just got confirmed to the appellate June 17 of last year. Not even a year in that position. She’s had numerous decisions reversed and makes really kooky statements in her decisions. Oh wait. It’s all good, she’s a black female and that’s all that counts.


    1. Thomas (1 year) and Roberts (2 years) also had very short terms on appellate courts. Funny how those were not issues.

      Jackson is very likely more qualified than most regardless of race or gender.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. ““Too often over the past several decades, Supreme Court nominations have descended into bitter partisan conflict and we lose sight of the most important qualities in a jurist,” he added. “Judge Jackson presents an opportunity to refocus on what matters – the nominee’s integrity, qualifications and commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law.” He called Jackson “as good as they come” and said she was “far from an ideologue.””

      “She’s had numerous decisions reversed”…

      And former federal judge Thomas Griffith, GWB appointee had this to say in a letter to the heads of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ““Judge Jackson and I occasionally differed on the best outcome of a given case. And in one important case involving the former President, I was one of two judges on a three-judge panel who voted to overturn her decision. However, I have always respected her careful approach, extraordinary judicial understanding, and collegial manner, three indispensable traits for success as a Justice on the Supreme Court.”


      1. ““Judge Jackson and I occasionally differed on the best outcome of a given case.”

        That’s the problem with both of them.

        It is none of their business what the better OUTCOME of a case is. Their business is confined to what the law is, or is not, and no more.


        1. You interpret his statement badly. The opinions of the judges are based on the better LEGAL outcome of the case. Differing opinion occur all of the time. Hat is why dissenting opinions are published and used in cases down the road in attempts to sway LEGAL opinion of those deciding.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “That’s the problem with both of them.”

          Uh, no. You are projecting.

          The “best outcome” is the one that the writer believes most closely follows the law. It is possible – in fact normal – to disagree about that without accusing the other party of being “corrupt.”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I did not accuse her of corruption.

            She just doesn’t accept the limits of her job description. She has repeatedly ruled based on what she believed was best as opposed to what was legal. That is the legislatures job.


          2. Ignoring the law is “corrupt.” Especially for a federal judge. You accuse her of ignoring the law when there are legitimate differences of opinion of how the law and the Constitution apply.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Corrupt is ignoring the law for personal gain. Like the Bidens.

            I do not accuse Jackson of any personal corruption. She is a partisan idealogue and she puts her desire for an outcome ahead of the law. But I do not think she is dishonest.


          4. “She is a partisan idealogue and she puts her desire for an outcome ahead of the law”

            You mean Barrett. And Kavanaugh. And Thomas. And Gorsuch.


          5. “Corrupt is ignoring the law for personal gain. Like the Bidens.”

            Uh, which law did President Biden ignore for personal gain? What is the evidence?

            If you do not have serious, defensible, and TRUTHFUL response you will confirm that you are just a silly partisan troll.


          6. Hunter’s Ukrainian jib at an energy company for which he had no qualifications other than Biden having power over Ukraine and Biden’s brother’s Iraq construction contracts with no experience in construction.


          7. So silly partisan troll it is.

            You cannot cite a broken law or any evidence of a crime. Things that you imagine could be true don’t count.

            And, as we are now locked in a serious struggle with a dangerous adversary, I will add that such egregious slander of our President is profoundly unpatriotic.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. And another CONSERVATIVE endorsement for Judge Jackson.

    “Lawyer William Burck, in a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, said of Jackson that “no serious person can question her qualifications to the Court and to my mind her judicial philosophy is well within the mainstream.””

    SO to those who think her judicial philosophy is “extremist” or “radical”, Burck says your full of it.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s