Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) began the hearing today by explaining why he won’t vote for Biden’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Apparently, Ketanje Brown Jackson won’t take a position on Americans having natural rights.
That is the basis of our Constitution. It’s fundamental. People like Jackson are an existential threat to our Constitution and she will not uphold it.
In answer to written questions, she wouldn’t take a stand on something as basic as our individual natural rights. It was similar to her mealy-mouthed response to defining a woman.
People don’t have to believe our natural rights come from God. But, they do have to believe in our natural rights to represent the United States. Chuck Grassley didn’t like her non-answer. She made it clear she doesn’t believe in natural inherent rights.
“Now, at one point in written questions to her, Sen. Cruz posed this question: “Please explain in your own words the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or unalienable,” CNS News reports.
“She seemed to have an understanding of this when she answered by saying the theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.’
“Then in the next question: ‘Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?’
“It seemed to me what — to her understanding that she should easily have said – said, yes to that, but she took a position she didn’t have a position. So, part of having judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles in our Constitution. Natural rights are part of that system.
“But as Judge Jackson said in a written response, she does not, quote, “hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
“I take issue with this, as natural rights are basic to our constitutional system and principles of limited government. Under our Constitution, we are endowed by our Creator — well, I don’t have to repeat that.
“All other rights are reserved to the people under the Tenth Amendment, recognizing the principle of limited government is what makes America the exceptional government compared to all others, and obviously sets our Constitution apart from all others.”
Does this person (I say person because I’m not a biologist) have any opinion on anything?
Treat like any other cancer, cut it out and kill it.
People knw me and you’d better adhere. I mean it can her or there will be retribution beyond your wildest dreams. CAN HER NOW!. She is an anti American POS get her out of the running. The WEF will be the least of your worries and no one else will stop at destroying you through any legal means necessary. you love mammon and care less about our great country, we will ruin you. stop her now.
Can the btch now rep party or forget any support.
She’s no constitutionalist but isn’t that just a GD piece of paper in an archive as Shrub Bush said?
Oddly, someone who, I believe, claims to be in some manner descended from or related to slaves would be unable to state affirmatively that our rights are given to us by God and that, therefore, we are all created equal in His eyes.
Isn’t it fair to state that if the above is NOT true, some people are lessor and even can be made slaves or at minimum second class?
The Organic Laws of the United States (the founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution) DEFINITELY declare that people have natural rights.
She is DISQUALIFIED from being a SCOTUS. And SHOULD be disqualified from being any federal judge.
If she cannot uphold the American Constitution, as written, including its most fundamental premises, then she cannot be a SCOTUS justice…because she could not honestly take the oath of office.
Anyone who votes to confirm her is voting to destroy America.
Here is why Jackson is a threat to the Constitution, and not just the Constitution, but the People:
If you take no position on whether natural rights exist, then the next question becomes “Do you think rights exist”? She could say she takes no position on that either but that would almost certainly disqualify her. As would answering “No.” So, presumably, she would say “Yes, I believe rights exist.”
The next question is, where do such rights come from, how does she know the People have rights and/or what the scope of such rights are. It almost doesn’t matter how she answers this question. Unless they are “natural” then they must derive from dictate. Either Congress or a state can decide what rights people have, and take them away, or they can’t. If rights come from statutes, laws, or the Constitution, then they come from the dictates or agreements of humans. And if that’s the case, they can be taken away by the dictates or agreements of humans. Sounds pretty alienable to me…
About all I’ve come away with in listening and reading about the SCOTUS hearings is this woman only believes in crt, the black liberation mob, and let all the thugs out of jail. She will not define a woman, will not define rights. Dims are DIRECTLY responsible for approving her when that time comes. I am against her approval.
Everyone voting for Ketanje Brown Jackson will see their political careers crash and burn.
Comments are closed.