From A SCOTUS Assassination Attempt To Threat Of Nuclear War, Here’s 2022 In 6 Minutes
A lot happened in 2022, but long story short...A lot happened in 2022, but long story short...CNN hosts are very upset no one on 'Jeopardy!' knew the name of Biden's 'history-making' nominee to the Supreme Court
CNN hosts were angry and frustrated at "Jeopardy!" contestants who didn't know the name of President Joe Biden's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The clip came from the November 9 broadcast of the game show.
"She's the first black woman on the Supreme Court and the first justice to have been a federal public defender," was the clue, but none of the contestants even ventured a guess.
The answer, of course, was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Don Lemon took his glasses off and sighed dramatically after CNN rolled the clip.
"I don't think that's surprising, I will say," said co-host Kaitlan Collins.
"But these are smart people in the world," responded Lemon.
"That's a good point," said Collins.
"When you go on Jeopardy," Lemon said.
"She was just confirmed, it's been in the news!" Poppy Harlow interjected.
"If you're standing outside, I think Kaitlin's right, if you're standing outside of a mall or whatever, people may not know, when they do the man on the street thing, yes," Lemon said.
"But when you're smart enough to be a contestant on ‘Jeopardy!’?" he questioned.
"You gotta know about current events!" said Collins.
"Yeah!" Lemon agreed.
"And history-making ones," added Harlow.
"Yeah!" Lemon said. "Yeah!"
Jackson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 53 to 47 in April with three Republican senators breaking ranks and joining with Democrats. She replaced Justice Stephen Breyer, who retired from the court.
"Judge Jackson’s confirmation was a historic moment for our nation. We’ve taken another step toward making our highest court reflect the diversity of America," said Biden at the time.
Some viewers also excoriated the celebrity edition of "Jeopardy!" after a clue on the show referenced the suicide death of Brian Laundrie, who admitted to killing his fiancée, Gabby Petito, in a crime that made national headlines.
Here's the video of the hosts' outrage:
Biden's pick for Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, once argued judicial system is 'unfair' to sex offenders
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson once argued in an article that the judicial system in America is "unfair" to sexual predators.
Jackson, whom President Joe Biden has nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, authored an unsigned "Note" for the Harvard Law Review in 1996 calling for judges to change their analytical framework for evaluating the constitutionality of certain state sex offender statutes. She disclosed authorship of the article to the Senate Judiciary Committee after she was nominated to serve as U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama in 2012.
In the article, Jackson wrote, "In the current climate of fear, hatred, and revenge associated with the release of convicted sex criminals, courts must be especially attentive to legislative enactments that 'use[ ] public health and safety rhetoric to justify procedures that are, in essence, punishment and detention.'"
Her article took issue with how some state legislatures at the time enacted laws to regulate the release of sex offenders. Examples she cited include requirements for sex offenders to register with local law enforcement officials, notify community members of their presence, undergo DNA testing, and submit to civil confinement for an indefinite term.
"Although many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who already have been sanctioned for their crimes," Jackson wrote. "Under existing doctrine, the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially 'preventive' rather than 'punitive,' yet courts have been unable to devise a consistent, coherent, and principled means of making this determination."
The article discusses this distinction between "preventive" and "punitive" legislation and criticizes how judges have previously approached the constitutionality of certain sex offender statutes.
"This Note maintains that, even in the face of understandable public outrage over repeat sexual predators, a principled prevention/punishment analysis evaluates the effect of challenged legislation in a manner that reinforces constitutional safeguards against unfair and unnecessarily burdensome legislative action," Jackson wrote.
She argued that judges should not "rely on legislative intent" to determine whether a state sex offender statute violates the Constitution, and she rejected other analytical frameworks established by court precedent at the time.
"Although '[a precise] analytical solution is almost impossible to construct,' this Note suggests that such a principled approach involves assessing the impact of sex offender statutes and deeming the laws 'punitive' to the extent that they operate to deprive sex criminals of a legal right in a manner that primarily has retributive or general deterrent effects," she wrote in her conclusion.
The note authored by Jackson was unearthed by the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative nonprofit watchdog group that has scrutinized several of Biden's nominees.
“Once again, Joe Biden’s White House has failed in the vetting process by nominating a radical Leftist like Judge Brown Jackson to the highest court in the land,” AAF founder Tom Jones said in a statement. “Americans want our judicial system to protect children and citizens from sexual predators. Judge Brown Jackson’s radical position raises questions on her suitability to serve on the court. Is she more interested in social justice engineering or administering justice?”
President Joe Biden on Friday announced that Jackson will be his nominee to serve on the United States Supreme Court after Justice Stephen Breyer retires this year.
Washington Post's lefty writer Dana Milbank says only John Roberts can save the Supreme Court — and he'd better do it ... or else
Since the moment Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed, the American left has been in panic over the makeup of the court.
When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left after Ginsburg's death, the cries became more shrill.
Now that the Senate has confirmed Barrett to the high court and she is firmly ensconced on the bench, the left has increased their threats to pack the court by any means — including nuking the filibuster in the Senate — and find whatever ways they can to rein in a conservative court.
The New York Times even ran a special feature on "How to Fix the Supreme Court." It included creating a new court, term limits for justices, preventing the court from choosing its cases, increasing the threats to pack the court, actually packing the courts, and expanding the lower courts.
But one famous liberal writer is pretty sure he knows exactly who needs to come to the rescue: Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank's column Monday night declared, "It's up to John Roberts to save his court."
What did Milbank say?
After recounting and lamenting what he called the "pell-mell scramble" to get Barrett on the court, the liberal Milbank said Barrett's confirmation "shreds whatever remained of the high court's integrity and independence" — even though Barrett has yet to hear, much less rule on, a single case.
No matter, though, for Milbank. Only Roberts can save the U.S. now.
So, how should he do it? Milbank has ideas:
● Play the heavy.
He can lean heavily on Barrett to recuse herself from any case arising from the presidential election next week.
● Save Obamacare like he did before.
He can use his influence to make sure the court upholds the Affordable Care Act after it hears arguments next month — not a legalistic punt on technical matters of “severability" but a ruling that puts an end to the constant assaults on Obamacare.
● Reject religious freedom when it clashes with Obergefell.
He can persuade his conservative colleagues to join him in upholding the rights of LGBTQ Americans as established in the 2015 Obergefell case, by rejecting a challenge to it by Catholic Social Services that will be argued the morning after the election next week.
● Make Trump hand over his financial records.
He can forge a majority to reject Trump's latest tired attempt to use the Supreme Court to further delay handing over his financial records to New York prosecutors.
● Uphold Roe at any cost.
And he and his colleagues can agree to hear one of the many challenges to Roe v. Wade now making their way through lower courts — and vote to uphold Roe for now. That would be the surest sign that the Roberts Court is not going to turn (immediately at least) into the reactionary caricature that most expect.
If Roberts can't get the conservatives on the court to back the Milbank agenda, then, according to the writer, "they can count on being joined next year by a whole batch of new colleagues" nominated by President Joe Biden.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com