WSJ JAckson speaks to originalism
This does not seem to align with her previous rulings, but she is saying the right things.
If only she really means it
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“This does not seem to align with her previous rulings”…
Just because her interpretations differ form yours or others, does not take away from the fact that she uses original text, how a statute is written, the intent of the drafters of the the statute (the legislature) and any other factors that come into play, including the arguments from the litigants.
She laid out her process quite clearly during her hearing. Questioning it seems baseless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Didn’t you know? Dr. Tabor’s ‘druthers ALWAYS match the original intent.
He knows, for example, that the Founders threw in language about “a well-regulated militia” on a lark and did not intend for it to be taken seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her previous Constitutional rulings were mostly overturned by higher courts.
LikeLike
“Her previous Constitutional rulings were mostly overturned by higher courts.”
That is yet another complete falsehood. Where do you get this stuff and have you no ability to smell a rat or is it that you just don’t care about being truthful?
Of her almost 600 formal rulings less than a dozen have been overturned by higher courts. That is not “mostly.” Her few reversals have not been on Constitutional grounds but on questions of interpreting the law or of jurisdiction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not familiar with any troublesome rulings in Judge Jackson’s career, but I think she is sincere in her belief that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed and discernable in the public record.
It concerns me that she claims to have no “judicial philosophy” because a justice on the Supreme Court should have a strong background in formal philosophy. This is the historical norm going back to ancient Rome wherein recognized philosophers served as judges in legal disputes.
Tradition aside, a candidate’s judicial philosophy is a valid selection criteria. A candidate that offers none disqualifies himself just as surely as a candidate that offers an unacceptable philosophy.
LikeLike
She laid out her judicial process which is a lot more convincing then some preconceived philosophy that gets one on the short list from the right wing forces that gave us Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett.
She was quite clear about how she considers her decisions. There is no philosophical purity test.
I also note, with disgust, how you used “himself” instead of “herself” (considering the current nominee) or “himself/herself”. Your apparent mysoginy is noted.
LikeLike
Himself is grammatically correct. Herself would have been disrespectful, since my comment was generic.
Philosophy is the basis of the sciences, including law.
LikeLike
Having or not having a “judicial philosophy” has NOTHING to do with having or not having a “strong background in formal philosophy.”
In this case, when she says she does not have “judicial philosophy” she is simply saying that she has no desired outcomes and will apply the law and precedent as honestly and objectively as she can. Sadly, it is not surprising that you or somebody you have read tries to spin that pledge as something negative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If she means what she says, she should be no problem
LikeLike
RE: “Having or not having a ‘judicial philosophy’ has NOTHING to do with having or not having a ‘strong background in formal philosophy.'”
Right: philosophy does not equal philosophy.
LikeLike
“Right: philosophy does not equal philosophy.”
So, if a football coach says. . . “My philosophy is to build up the defense” then he MUST have a “strong background in formal philosophy.” Because, you know, he used the word “philosophy.”
Or if you say. . .”My philosophy in life is to help others” you are talking nonsense because you do not have “a strong background in formal philosophy.”
In other words, “philosophy” is a word that is used in many contexts and its meaning depends on the context.
By the way, I have “a strong background in formal philosophy.” Philosophy was my major at Dartmouth where I graduated as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. I learned it well. So, take it from me – “Philosophy” is a word that is used in many contexts and its meaning depends on the context.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “So, take it from me – ‘Philosophy’ is a word that is used in many contexts and its meaning depends on the context.”
Then you should know “judicial philosophy” has a specific meaning in the context in which it is used. And that is why it is a valid selection criteria for one of the highest judicial positions in the land.
I am surprised that a philosophy major from Dartmouth would make the mistake of substituting an inferior meaning of “philosophy” for a superior one.
LikeLike
I have not substituted anything. You are just confused.
Of course, “judicial philosophy” is a criterion for evaluating one’s support for a SCOTUS nominee. If it is known, or has been articulated, or can be deduced. That does NOT mean that someone who does not have a “strong background in formal philosophy” cannot have a “judicial philosophy.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That does NOT mean that someone who does not have a ‘strong background in formal philosophy’ cannot have a ‘judicial philosophy.'”
Like I said, I’m surprised that a philosophy major from an Ivy League college could make such a mistake.
Judge Jackson may have a “judicial philosophy” in some minor sense, maybe like a redneck at the local tavern, but that is not comparable to having a “judicial philosophy” in the major sense, like a specialist in the classical traditions of Western Civilization.
LikeLike
““judicial philosophy” in the major sense, like a specialist in the classical traditions of Western Civilization.”
Shuck and jive. Shuck and jive. You ought to think before you write then you would not have to shuck and jive so much. Or maybe you could try doing what you claim you can do but we have NEVER seen – admit when you are wrong.
In this case, KBJ said something which nominees ALWAYS say – that she tries each case according to the facts and the law – that she does not have a “judicial philosophy” that would color her decisions and you people say ” Ah ha! She does not have a ‘judicial philosophy’ – That’s disqualifying!”
And YOU go further with this silly nonsense and say she is therefore missing a “strong background in formal philosophy.” And to defend THAT nonsense you start pontificating about higher and lower levels of meaning for the word “philosophy.” and now suggest that she is deficient – wait for it – in her knowledge of “the classics of Western Civilization.”
If I wanted to make you look like a pedantic jackass, I could not do better than attribute to you the drivel you have offered in this exchange. But you have done it for me.
LikeLiked by 2 people