(01-26-2022 01:29 PM)solohawks Wrote: (01-26-2022 01:06 PM)boss man Wrote: (01-26-2022 12:45 PM)JDTulane Wrote: Likely to be: Ketanji Brown Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Br...reme_Court
or Leondra Kruger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leondra_Kruger
Yep, those are two realistic possibilities. Both attended Harvard (I think that is mandatory to even be nominated), one is with California SC and the other is with the Wash DC Appeals Court.
Age wise, one is 45 and the other 51. So if either one is nominated and approved, they should see a 25-30 year career on the SC.
My money is on Ketanji Brown Jackson
She just got affirmed to the DC court of appeals (the Triple A of the US Courts) and is familiar with the Senate.
It would be hard for a red state dem to vote against her having just confirmed her
She also clerked for Breyer
"Notable rulings
On September 11, 2013, in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jackson declined to enjoin a U.S. Department of Agriculture rule preliminarily that required meatpackers to identify the animal's country of origin. She found that the rule likely did not violate the First Amendment.[20]
On September 5, 2014, in Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services, Jackson ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise, despite the fact that Gralise met the statutory requirements for exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act.[21]
On September 11, 2015, in Pierce v. District of Columbia, Jackson ruled that the D.C. Department of Corrections violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail.[22]
In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early.[23] Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious.[24]
On August 15, 2018, in AFGE, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Jackson invalidated provisions of three executive orders that would have limited the time federal employee labor union officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions.[25]
On November 23, 2018, Jackson held that 40 lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which had been combined into a single multidistrict litigation, should be brought in Malaysia, not the United States.[26][27]
On September 4, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan, Jackson held that Congress had stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional challenges to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a border wall on the United States and Mexico border.[28]
On September 29, 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in Make The Road New York v. McAleenan, blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for undocumented immigrants.[29] Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the Administrative Procedure Act because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule, which made Jackson set aside the rule.[30]
On November 25, 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn in which the House Committee on the Judiciary sued Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for the Trump administration, to compel him to comply with the subpoena to appear at a hearing on its impeachment inquiry on issues of alleged obstruction of justice by the administration. McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President Donald Trump, relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so.[31] Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."[32] According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law."[32][33][34] Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling.[35][36][37][38] The ruling was subsequently appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice,[39] and was only resolved when, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration.[40]"
Leftist through and through.
![[Image: buzzi1-1026x840.jpg]](https://ogden_images.s3.amazonaws.com/www.post-journal.com/images/2017/03/03233829/buzzi1-1026x840.jpg)
![[Image: Leondra_Kruger.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Leondra_Kruger.jpg)
