« Remaining (overly?) upbeat about bipartisan criminal justice reform | Main | South Carolina Supreme Court engages in notable debate over how it engages in capital proportionality review »
April 7, 2022
By vote of 53 - 47, US Senate confirms its second former US Sentencing Commissioner to serve as a Supreme Court Justice
There are many historic elements to every Supreme Court confirmations, including the one today discussed in this USA Today article starting this way:
The Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon, making her the 116th justice — and first Black woman — to serve on the nation's highest court.
The Senate's historic vote was 53-47 with three Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah joining every member of the Democratic caucus in voting for her confirmation.
President Joe Biden nominated Jackson in February, after Associate Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire at the end of the current court term. Though confirmed, Jackson will wait months to take her seat on the bench, until Breyer officially steps down.
Of course, lots of folks are especially excited for the ways in which Judge (Justice-confirmed?) Jackson represents a first. But I could not help but highlight in this post a notable way in which she is a second: she is now the second former US Sentencing Commissioner to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The first, of course, is the man she will be replacing in a few months, namely outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer.
Am I showing too much of my nerdiness by saying I hope that someday there will be a Jeopardy question (or should I say Jeopardy answer) on this topic? Does anyone else have any other fun SCOTUS (and/or USSC) trivia for the occasion?
April 7, 2022 at 03:21 PM | Permalink
Comments
Great news!
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Apr 7, 2022 6:05:25 PM
Sotomayor 2.0, welcome to the Court. I could care less what race or sex she is, just as I could care less what race Thomas is or what sex Barrett is. I care what's in the opinion and that's it.
The Left is all giddy because they expect the new Justice to be a partisan, just as she was as a Public Defender. They may well get what they expect, but we don't know yet. In any event, she would vote nearly all the time as Breyer would have; the differences are being played up but they're actually unlikely to be much.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 10, 2022 7:53:38 PM
Bill Otis, is a prosecutor also a partisan? Why is a public defender a partisan player instead of someone doing their job like the rest of the legal profession?
Posted by: defendergirl | Apr 11, 2022 9:51:52 AM
Bill,
Hard to believe that Bill is criticizing our new Justice as already being "partisan" due to her time as a pub. defender, even prior to her first published opinion. What a shock. Bill, your hypocrisy has been expected, and you have come through with flying colors. Well done!
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett are not 'Scalia 2.0'? Isn't that why the Federalist Society chose them for the Court? Seems that some partisans conveniently omit this now-proven fact from their commentary.
Posted by: Drug Cnslr | Apr 11, 2022 7:06:51 PM
defendergirl --
"...is a prosecutor also a partisan?"
No, not in the way a defense lawyer is. The prosecutor's job is to seek a just result under law (as defense lawyers often loudly remind them). A defender's job is to get the best result for the client, guilty or not -- makes no difference, right?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 11, 2022 10:07:39 PM
Drug Cnslr --
"Hard to believe that Bill is criticizing our new Justice as already being 'partisan' due to her time as a pub. defender, even prior to her first published opinion."
Well, yes, it is hard to believe, since (1) she's not a Justice and won't be for a couple of months or slightly more; and (2) I haven't criticized her for "already being 'partisan'." Take time to read, brickhead. What I wrote was (emphasis added): "The Left is all giddy because THEY expect the new Justice to be a partisan, just as she WAS as a Public Defender. They may well get what they expect, BUT WE DON'T KNOW YET."
"Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett are not 'Scalia 2.0'?"
Well no, they aren't. Gorsuch is similar to Scalia in some ways, and was the favorite of Maureen. It's too early to tell about Barrett (except if a person is the genius you take yourself to be). And Kavanaugh wasn't even of the original list Trump put forward.
"Isn't that why the Federalist Society chose them for the Court?"
I guess you missed it that the President, then Trump, picks nominees. And if Trump were a captive of the FedSoc, why was he backing the pro-defendant First Step Act? Wanna fill me in on that?
"Seems that some partisans conveniently omit this now-proven fact from their commentary."
"Now-proven" -- good grief, what a joke you are. Proven to whom, by what standard, and citing which cases? If you had any clue about SCOTUS law instead of about drug use, you'd know that FedSoc types are fretting constantly about Kavanaugh and see him being much more like Kennedy (for whom he clerked) than Scalia. But, hey, there's a reason other than simple cowardice that you won't sign your name to your comments.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 11, 2022 10:31:54 PM
